Interesting Article on the Middle Class - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Seaver · 09-07-2006, 05:48 AM

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...Q0ODJkNmY3OWU=

Quote:

Dem’s Middle-Class Problem
The message of doom and gloom falls flat.

By Rich Lowry

That is the argument of a persuasive paper by Anne Kim and Jim Kessler for the moderate Democrat outfit Third Way. They note that, for a self-styled “party of the middle class,” the Democrats don’t win many middle-class voters. Democrats tell themselves bedtime stories about why this is so, including the thesis advanced by Thomas Frank, author of What’s Wrong With Kansas?, that middle-class voters get lured into voting against their own economic interests by the GOP cultural message; or the argument that Republicans scare the middle class out of voting its bread-and-butter concerns with the issue of national security.

The evidence suggests, to the contrary, that what’s “wrong” with Kansas is that it doesn’t buy the Democrats’ economic message. Kim and Kessler define the middle class as voters with household incomes between $30,000 and $75,000. Kerry lost it by 6 points, and by an astonishing 22 points among the white voters who “represent one-third of the voting population and three-fourths of the middle class.” The tipping point at which a white voter became more likely to vote in a congressional race for a Republican over a Democrat was $23,700 — “not that far above the poverty line.”

In 2000, national security didn’t loom large, but Al Gore still lost the middle class by 2 points and the white middle class by 15 points. In 1996, when Bill Clinton had defused hot-button issues by signing welfare-reform and tough-on-crime initiatives, congressional Democrats still lost middle-class and white-middle-class voters by 3 points and 12 points, respectively. It was in that year that Bill Clinton had the best Democratic performance among middle-class voters in three decades by winning them by a mere one point.

For the Democrats, the Dust Bowl is ever-blowing. Their economic message is perpetually premised on pessimism and decline (John Kerry: “Our great middle class is shrinking.”), together with promises of economic security and the flaying of big business (Al Gore: “Powerful interests stand in your way.”). None of this resonates with a public that knows it lives in a rich, wide-open country.

How does the Democratic message fall flat? Kim and Kessler count the ways. The public doesn’t buy heedless pessimism; 80 percent believe it is “still possible to start out poor in this country, work hard and become rich.” It prefers opportunity over economic security; only about a quarter of Americans say that they prefer a low-income, high-security job. It doesn’t like corporation-bashing; only 27 percent say big business is the biggest threat to America’s future, compared with 61 percent who say big government is.

Programmatically, Democrats essentially offer the middle class a nullity. Kim and Kessler run through the greatest hits of Democratic policy. The average family income for Pell Grant recipients is $19,460. Head Start is for poor children. A married family of four can make a maximum of only $37,263 to still be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (to the tune of $1). Only 2.7 percent of American workers make the minimum wage, and half of them are under age 25. Giving health care to the uninsured affects only 15.7 percent of Americans, and many of them aren’t middle class.

Kim and Kessler recommend a Clinton-style, hopeful message focused on promoting middle-class aspiration through making college more affordable, helping working families, and encouraging savings and investment. Democrats are indeed calling for a college-tuition tax break this year, but otherwise are advocating their usual farrago of corporate-hating, minimum-wage-boosting doom-and-gloom. It might work, given the anti-Republican political climate. Over the long term, however, pessimistic, anti-corporate Democrats will continue to be alienated from middle-class voters, and will need still more excuses as to why they can’t reach them.

I think this is a great article which speaks to my own family's bracket. I dont know how often I hear the sky is falling economically from Democrats, then turn on the news and hear how the economy has grown for the -nth month or how many thousands of new jobs were created in the last quarter.

Again I've never bought the Democratic excuse of blaming gay-haters or being coerced into being too afraid to vote for the Dems. These accusations are like fans blaming the referees for their team's loss. While they may not have helped, when it comes down to it the reason they lost was their own fault.

Ustwo · 09-07-2006, 07:04 AM

The democrat voter strategy is 'getevenwithemism' as in rather than figure out how to become better off, you bank on people wanting to punish those who succeed. This is basically anti-American, not fair, and not part of a productive persons thinking. Most people would rather be rich than have the rich be poor, and would rather work with the hope of becoming better off or allowing their children to be better off.

Ch'i · 09-07-2006, 04:08 PM

The republican voter strategy is 'letsseehowbadlywecanfuckupthenationandterroristsatthesametimeism' as in rather than figure out how to evenly distribute the wealth in this country, you bank on whatever puts more money into that top 1%'s pockets.

Quote:

I dont know how often I hear the sky is falling economically from Democrats

I wouldn't say its falling. More like slowly drowning.


<table id="zDebtBox">
<tr><td><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.zfacts.com/giz/G05/debt.js"></script></td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://zfacts.com/p/461.html" id='zF05' style="color:black;font-size:12px">The Gross National Debt</a></td></tr>
</table>

Gilda · 09-07-2006, 04:29 PM

Huh. I was going to comment, but according to that, my family isn't middle class. You learn something new every day.

Gilda

j8ear · 09-07-2006, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

...rather than figure out how to evenly distribute the wealth in this country...

This is probably the scariest thing I have ever read on this forum.

-bear

Seaver · 09-07-2006, 07:19 PM

Quote:

This is probably the scariest thing I have ever read on this forum.

-bear

I have to agree. I dont want the government redistributing wealth evenly. What the hell is the point in getting an education or working hard in that case?

Read the article and you'll see that the American voter does not want that either.

politicophile · 09-07-2006, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

The republican voter strategy is 'letsseehowbadlywecanfuckupthenationandterroristsatthesametimeism' as in rather than figure out how to evenly distribute the wealth in this country, you bank on whatever puts more money into that top 1%'s pockets.

I feel foolish even pointing out that this is not how the Republican Party operates, nor does it explain why Republicans are strong among middle-class voters. Some Democrats on my college campus (who are not necessarily representative or all or even most Democrats) have publically stated that you would have to be an idiot to vote Republican unless your family income is in the top 1%. While it is clearly possible that Karl Rove is successfully manipulating tens of millions of ordinary Americans to vote against their own self interest, this explanation strikes me as extremely unlikely. Might it possibly be the case that the middle class actually better understands its own interests than the liberal academics who use them as test subjects?

Ch'i · 09-07-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

What the hell is the point in getting an education or working hard in that case?

Learning, and contributing to society. I understand our current system of classes, but do not necissarily agree with it. I don't want to thread-jack so I'll leave it at that.

The middle class is dissapearing, so that in and of itself is reason enough to see that the middle class is not voting in its best intrests.

filtherton · 09-07-2006, 08:21 PM

Don't worry, with things going as they are, the democrats soon won't have to worry about the middle class because it won't really exist any more.

Willravel · 09-07-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I feel foolish even pointing out that this is not how the Republican Party operates, nor does it explain why Republicans are strong among middle-class voters. Some Democrats on my college campus (who are not necessarily representative or all or even most Democrats) have publically stated that you would have to be an idiot to vote Republican unless your family income is in the top 1%. While it is clearly possible that Karl Rove is successfully manipulating tens of millions of ordinary Americans to vote against their own self interest, this explanation strikes me as extremely unlikely. Might it possibly be the case that the middle class actually better understands its own interests than the liberal academics who use them as test subjects?

So the middle class isn't dissapearing? The top 1% aren't getting richer under the Bush administration?

People vote for all sorts of reasons. A lot of people think that Bush makes our country safer, and that's why they voted for him. A lot of Bush supporters believe that there is a link between 9/11 and Iraq, and going to war with Iraq is somehow exacting retribution for the 3000 souls lost on 9/11. I mean we live in a world of misinformation, and you suggest that people only vote in their own interests? I'm sure you don't believe that. Some people voted for Bush because they think he's funny. Some people voted for Bush because their friends tell them to.

Americans are not all politcophiles like you or I. As a matter of fact, very few are. That fact is something to bear in mind when you condescend to Ch'i.

Also, I've found that when someone disagrees with Ustwo, he or she is usually right.

Seaver · 09-07-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

People vote for all sorts of reasons. A lot of people think that Bush makes our country safer, and that's why they voted for him. A lot of Bush supporters believe that there is a link between 9/11 and Iraq, and going to war with Iraq is somehow exacting retribution for the 3000 souls lost on 9/11. I mean we live in a world of misinformation, and you suggest that people only vote in their own interests? I'm sure you don't believe that. Some people voted for Bush because they think he's funny. Some people voted for Bush because their friends tell them to.

Americans are not all politcophiles like you or I. As a matter of fact, very few are. That fact is something to bear in mind when you condescend to Ch'i.

Also, I've found that when someone disagrees with Ustwo, he or she is usually right.

I love those arguments. Only the people who vote for Bush are either rich, incompetent, or pissing their pants scared.

Oh, and what I've found is those people who disagree with you are usually the ones who are right. Something to keep in mind while you condecend to us.

Willravel · 09-07-2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I love those arguments. Only the people who vote for Bush are either rich, incompetent, or pissing their pants scared.

Well, since you didn't actually respond to any of my points, I have to assume you agree with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Something to keep in mind while you condecend to us.

Are you familiar with comedy based on irony? Did ou notice how I very openly condescended right after condemning politicophile for condescending? I was deliberatly condescending to Ustwo (someone who I figure probably wouldn't care if I condescended to him) in order to try and lighten the mood. Sheesh. Maybe I should be more deliberate in my humor next time.

A cow, a priest, and a hooker walk into a bar....the bartender says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"

Ch'i · 09-07-2006, 08:59 PM

Do you honestly expect anyone to listen to you if you're just going lash out at anyone who holds a different view from your's Seaver? Instead of just saying someone is wrong, you should prove your point and show how they're wrong. You continue to change/misinterpet what other people are saying and then focusing them to the extreem. What willravel said, in post #10, can be backed by fact.

Quote:

Washington Post Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds
By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01

Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Almost two years later, most Americans believe Saddam Hussein, shown in this undated photo, was involved in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The main reason for the endurance of the apparently groundless belief, experts in public opinion say, is a deep and enduring distrust of Hussein that makes him a likely suspect in anything related to Middle East violence. "It's very easy to picture Saddam as a demon," said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University and an expert on public opinion and war. "You get a general fuzz going around: People know they don't like al Qaeda, they are horrified by September 11th, they know this guy is a bad guy, and it's not hard to put those things together."

Although that belief came without prompting from Washington, Democrats and some independent experts say Bush exploited the apparent misconception by implying a link between Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the months before the war with Iraq. "The notion was reinforced by these hints, the discussions that they had about possible links with al Qaeda terrorists," said Andrew Kohut, a pollster who leads the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

The poll's findings are significant because they help to explain why the public continues to support operations in Iraq despite the setbacks and bloodshed there. Americans have more tolerance for war when it is provoked by an attack, particularly one by an all-purpose villain such as Hussein. "That's why attitudes about the decision to go to war are holding up," Kohut said.

Bush's opponents say he encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was referring to a meeting that Czech officials said took place in Prague in April 2000. That allegation was the most direct connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. But this summer's congressional report on the attacks states, "The CIA has been unable to establish that [Atta] left the United States or entered Europe in April under his true name or any known alias."

Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."

Moments later, Bush added: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

A number of nongovernment officials close to the Bush administration have made the link more directly. Richard N. Perle, who until recently was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, long argued that there was Iraqi involvement, calling the evidence "overwhelming."

Some Democrats said that although Bush did not make the direct link to the 2001 attacks, his implications helped to turn the public fury over Sept. 11 into support for war against Iraq. "You couldn't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," said Democratic tactician Donna Brazile. "Every member of the administration did the drumbeat. My mother said if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes a gospel truth. This one became a gospel hit."

In a speech Aug. 7, former vice president Al Gore cited Hussein's culpability in the attacks as one of the "false impressions" given by a Bush administration making a "systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology."

Bush's defenders say the administration's rhetoric was not responsible for the public perception of Hussein's involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. While Hussein and al Qaeda come from different strains of Islam and Hussein's secularism is incompatible with al Qaeda fundamentalism, Americans instinctively lump both foes together as Middle Eastern enemies. "The intellectual argument is there is a war in Iraq and a war on terrorism and you have to separate them, but the public doesn't do that," said Matthew Dowd, a Bush campaign strategist. "They see Middle Eastern terrorism, bad people in the Middle East, all as one big problem."

A number of public-opinion experts agreed that the public automatically blamed Iraq, just as they would have blamed Libya if a similar attack had occurred in the 1980s. There is good evidence for this: On Sept. 13, 2001, a Time/CNN poll found that 78 percent suspected Hussein's involvement -- even though the administration had not made a connection. The belief remained consistent even as evidence to the contrary emerged.

"You can say Bush should be faulted for not correcting every single misapprehension, but that's something different than saying they set out deliberately to deceive," said Duke University political scientist Peter D. Feaver. "Since the facts are all over the place, Americans revert to a judgment: Hussein is a bad guy who would do stuff to us if he could."

Key administration figures have largely abandoned any claim that Iraq was involved in the 2001 attacks. "I'm not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a leading hawk on Iraq, said on the Laura Ingraham radio show on Aug. 1.

A top White House official told The Washington Post on July 31: "I don't believe that the evidence was there to suggest that Iraq had played a direct role in 9/11." The official added: "Anything is possible, but we hadn't ruled it in or ruled it out. There wasn't evidence to substantiate that claim."

But the public continues to embrace the connection.

In follow-up interviews, poll respondents were generally unsure why they believed Hussein was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, often describing it as an instinct that came from news reports and their long-standing views of Hussein. For example, Peter Bankers, 59, a New York film publicist, figures his belief that Hussein was behind the attacks "has probably been fed to me in some PR way," but he doesn't know how. "I think that the whole group of people, those with anti-American feelings, they all kind of cooperated with each other," he said.

Similarly, Kim Morrison, 32, a teacher from Plymouth, Ind., described her belief in Hussein's guilt as a "gut feeling" shaped by television. "From what we've heard from the media, it seems like what they feel is that Saddam and the whole al Qaeda thing are connected," she said.

Deborah Tannen, a Georgetown University professor of linguistics who has studied Bush's rhetoric, said it is impossible to know but "plausible" that Bush's words furthered such public impressions. "Clearly, he's using language to imply a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th," she said.

"There is a specific manipulation of language here to imply a connection." Bush, she said, seems to imply that in Iraq "we have gone to war with the terrorists who attacked us."

Tannen said even a gentle implication would be enough to reinforce Americans' feelings about Hussein. "If we like the conclusion, we're much less critical of the logic," she said.

The Post poll, conducted Aug. 7-11, found that 62 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of independents suspected a link between Hussein and 9/11. In addition, eight in 10 Americans said it was likely that Hussein had provided assistance to al Qaeda, and a similar proportion suspected he had developed weapons of mass destruction.

I think its safe to say 80% is a majority. But why the misconception?

Quote:

BBC News Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link

Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected.

A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks.

The Bush administration tends to place two things in the same sentence to create the illusion of a link. I'll let you decide whether they do it on purpose, or not.
So why would the top 1% of the wealth in the US want to vote for Bush?

Quote:

New York Times Big Gain for Rich Seen in Tax Cuts for Investments
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: April 5, 2006

The first data to document the effect of President Bush's tax cuts for investment income show that they have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was far more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of Mr. Bush's two previous tax cuts: on wages and other noninvestment income.

When Congress cut investment taxes three years ago, it was clear that the highest-income Americans would gain the most, because they had the most money in investments. But the size of the cuts and what share goes to each income group have not been known.

As Congress debates whether to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, The Times analyzed I.R.S. figures for 2003, the latest year available and the first that reflected the tax cuts for income from dividends and from the sale of stock and other assets, known as capital gains.

The analysis found the following:

¶Among taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million, the amount by which their investment tax bill was reduced averaged about $500,000 in 2003, and total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million.

¶These taxpayers, whose average income was $26 million, paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income.

¶Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent all taxpayers, reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003. The savings for these taxpayers averaged about $41,400 each. By comparison, these same Americans received less than 10 percent of the savings from the other Bush tax cuts, which applied primarily to wages, though that share is expected to grow in coming years.

¶The savings from the investment tax cuts are expected to be larger in subsequent years because of gains in the stock market.

The Times showed the new numbers to people on various sides of the debate over tax cuts. Stephen J. Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, and other supporters of the cuts said they did not go far enough because the more money the wealthiest had to invest, the more would go to investments that produce jobs. For investment income, Mr. Entin said, "the proper tax rate would be zero."

Opponents say the cuts are too generous to those who already have plenty. Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said after seeing the new figures that "these tax cuts are beyond irresponsible" when "we're in a war; we haven't fixed Social Security or Medicare; we've got record deficits."

Because of the tax cuts, even the merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, are falling behind the very wealthiest, particularly because another provision, the alternative minimum tax, now costs many of them thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars a year in lost deductions.

About 3.5 million taxpayers filing their returns for last year are being hit by the alternative tax. But that figure will balloon this year to at least 19 million taxpayers, making as little as about $30,000, unless Congress restores a law that limited its effects until now, according to the Tax Policy Center in Washington, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, whose estimates the White House has declared reasonable.

The tax cut analysis was based on estimates from a computer model developed by Citizens for Tax Justice, which asserts that the tax system unfairly favors the rich. The group's estimates are considered reliable by advocates on differing sides of the tax debate. The Times, which also did its own analysis, asked the group to use the model to produce additional data on the effect of the investment tax cuts on various income groups. The analyses show that more than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent, about 2.6 million taxpayers. Page 2

House Republican Tax Cut Bill
The Bush administration, and the media, govern through fear. Sars, West Nile Virus, Terror Alert System, ect. These are all blown out of proportion in order to shake people into listening. So despite the severity of this thread-jack I would hope that instead of insulting each other, we can return to a civil discussion of the topic.

The middle class is dissapearing, so that in and of itself is reason enough to see that the middle class is not voting in its best intrests. The tax cuts aren't helping either.

filtherton · 09-08-2006, 05:02 AM

This thread title should be "Everything i learn know about democrats i learned from representatives of the gop".

None of the democrats currently running for office in my home state are saying anything about the middle class.

This is a nonissue.

dc_dux · 09-08-2006, 05:20 AM

I am proud to be associated with a Democratic party that historically took the lead on nearly every program that helped create the middle class. Consider collective bargaining and worker rights, equal employment opportunity and civil rights, access to higher education, health care and income security, child protection and development, banking reform, and the list goes on.

I agree that the Dems have lost their way a bit and need to refocus their message as a party on their core values of using government to PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY for all (no, that doesnt mean government handouts) to participate in the American dream and live a more productive and healthy life.

Perhaps one of the Repub naysayers who believe this is crap can explain how $trillion+ in future deficits to our children as a result of tax cuts for the top 1% helps the middle class (please, not the "trickle down" nonsense)..or how cutting Pell Grants provides acccess to college to those who otherwise would not be able to afford it....or how cutting or ignoring previously enacted environmental regulations provide a safer and healthier place for the middle class to enjoy their leisure time (oh wait, fewer and fewer families have leisure time, with both parents having to work or one having to work two jobs in order to simply maintain an existing lifestyle). This list goes on and on as well.

keyshawn · 09-08-2006, 05:35 AM

Ok, this thread is getting a bit tangential (not too much, but it can easily head that way)...

Back to the disappearing middle class story.

With regards to the minimum wage (there's other parts of the article, but I'll raise this one for now because of my time constraints), I don't dispute the fact that "Only 2.7 percent of American workers make the minimum wage, and half of them are under age 25."

The argument of minimum wage I think is a bit flawed because the cost of living across the country can vary quite a bit. Is the minimum wage that the article preports is using the $5.15/hour, or are they taking to account that about a dozen or so states have higher min. wages (highly populated states too, California, NY, florida, and most of the eastern seaboard) as well ?

Even if they are taking account each state's min. wage into that percent; a lot of people probably need to make a lot more than just the min. wage in their area to make a decent, 'middle-class' living (although the definition of middle-class I think is a bit ambiguous as well).

(working 45 hrs a week @ $8 an hour, times 4 weeks is $1440, pre-tax, keep in mind).
Some places and circumstances, two parents working that 2880 could live with that, but not every family has two parents, able to work 45 hours a week [health or other reasons].

Regards,
keyshawn

politicophile · 09-08-2006, 05:56 AM

The middle class is shrinking, eh? Soon there will be no middle class to pander to? If this is true, one of three things is happening:

1. The black plague has returned and is killing middle class Americans by the millions.

2. Bushitler's economic policies are driving the middle class down into the proletariat.

3. Both the middle class and the lower class are shrinking, meaning that (barring the black plague) the middle class is "disappearing" into the upper class.

Gotta love Slate:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Shafer

So when I spotted yesterday's (Sept. 20) 4,500-word, Page One story in the Washington Post, "As Income Gap Widens, Uncertainty Spreads: More U.S. Families Struggle to Stay on Track," by Griff Witte, I assumed that if I dug deep enough, I'd find a happy story untold. And I was right.

The piece, the first of a series in coming months, posits a "changing of the rules for a crucial part of the middle class." It's a change for the worse, of course, as good-paying jobs vanish to foreign countries and vaporize a portion of middle-class America in the process.

Witte concedes, however, that the middle class as a group is earning more than it ever has before harvesting the bad news: "But when compared with those at the top, the middle has lost much ground. And many in the middle have dropped well behind their peers," he writes, as he sketches depressing profiles of several fallen wage-earners.

But EconLog seizes on a big, colorful chart in the Post story to discover the missing good news. Yes, the number of middle-income households* ($35,000 to $50,000, measured in 2003 dollars) in America fell from 22.3 percent to 15 percent between 1967 and 2003. But the two categories below the middle ($15,000 to $35,000, and under $15,000) declined, too, from 52.8 percent of households to 40.9 percent of households.

Where have the vanishing middle, the lower middle, and the poor gone? At the risk of sounding like the Wall Street Journal editorial page singing from a Curtis Mayfield songbook, they're moving on up! EconLog notes that if the middle-income household is being squeezed out, it's being squeezed into the higher-income categories. He writes, "the percentage of households with incomes over $50,000 has climbed from 24.9 percent in 1967 to 44.1 percent in 2003."

Where's the crisis? If author Witte could wave a magic wand, would he return income distribution to where it was in 1967, when 52.8 percent made less than $35,000, compared to 40.9 percent today?

The chart that pulls this all together can be found here.

Honestly, would you rather have the distribution from 1967 or the one from 2000? Doesn't there come a point at which the shrinking of the middle class is a good thing? 44.1% of Americans were earning more than $50,000 in 2000. 59.1% earned more than $35,000. Clearly, a socialist wouldn't view those numbers as ideal, but isn't that situation preferable to having 24.9% and 47.2% respectively earning more than $50,000 and $35,000? My friends, nearly as many Americans (in percentage terms) were earning more than $50K per year in 2000 as were earning $35K in '67. May the middle class continue to shrink.

roachboy · 09-08-2006, 06:37 AM

first off, taking a political analysis from the national review and presenting it as if it was an unproblematic analysis of contemporary politics is not much different from taking an article from the trotskyist paper workers world and doing the same.

the idea that anyone who is interested in seriously debating either the question of the distribution of wealth and its meanings, or democratic party strategy (such as it is) on the basis of a national review article is just silly.

the problems generated by the massively uneven distribution of wealth in america--the grotesque distortions of which are a lasting gift to all of us of the reagan period---are serious, but there is no way that i (for one at least) am going to participate in a conversation framed in any way by the perspectives of the national review.

and besides, you already have a good index in this thread of of the tedious rhetoric from the conservative set that would no doubt be spattered all over such a thread in the interest of the usual kind of trolling pseudo-contribution: x is what a "socialist" would say, not even a "communist" would say...blah blah blah...as if these constituted anything even approaching a serious argument. they dont. instead, these terms are little more than the rhetoric of border maintenance used by the right to label views they do not like. there is nothing of any substance at all in them, used in this way, except as functions within conservative ideology.

find a better source and start a debate on other grounds.

as for far right characterizations of the democrats, who really cares?
if the topic was how the right is attempting to frame the democrats as an aspect of their november strategy, then maybe this thread would be interesting.
because that is what the article is doing...
it relies on conservative political rhetoric and assumptions to orient a series of more or less tendentious assertions.
that means the article in the op is not an analysis as much as it is a polemical move aimed at an entirely conservative audience (who reads the national review who is not already conservative? who takes the national review seriously who is not already amongst the conservative faithful? this is why it can be equated with a trotskiyst newspaper...)

so the op article would be of sociological interest IF what you are trying to think about is how the national review functions as a relay within the system of conservative media and how that media apparatus is attempting to orient its demographic.

but that's about it.

Toaster126 · 09-08-2006, 06:38 AM

This had the potential to be an interesting thread, and you guys turned it into an abortion.

As for the voting, I think an issue that wasn't discussed is how much the economic policies came into effect for those voters. I think a lot of people vote based on the social policies and agendas rather than straight economics. That could easily explain a lot of those middle class voters who vote for one party even if their economic situation could theoretically be improved by the other.

Ustwo · 09-08-2006, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

May the middle class continue to shrink.

I pay two of my receptionists/office managers over 50k a year, as well as my top assistants, I didn't know I was shrinking the middle class that the democrats like to whine about being shrunk.

I need to lower wages and grow the middle class

Great posts politicophile. Of course if the left had their way I wouldn't be able to pay them jack/squat, but then I wouldn't have gone to school for 9 years past college either.

roachboy · 09-08-2006, 06:42 AM

more of the same tedious horseshit.

something is obviously wrong if the conservative set cannot manage a serious debate even in a thread framed in its own peculiar language.

Ustwo · 09-08-2006, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toaster126

I think a lot of people vote based on the social policies and agendas rather than straight economics. That could easily explain a lot of those middle class voters who vote for one party even if their economic situation could theoretically be improved by the other.

This is true, and even if I were in a mission soup line, I wouldn't change my views as I don't view the government as owing me anything. The funny thing is though that I think it IS in the economic best interests of the middle class to vote republican, since despite political spin, the rich may get richer but taxing the rich doesn't make the middle class richer, it means they have less oportunity to find work, and less ability to break out of the middle class. The democratic ideal would be a very large voter base whos daily bread comes from the government in some form, which most of america wan't no part of for now. Creeping socialism may well win in the end (for a time until we go bankrupt) but for now people would rather work for themselves and not the government.

dc_dux · 09-08-2006, 07:49 AM

Ustwo....putting aside the nonsense about cutting the salaries of your employees,, you have still yet to explain how a tax policy that overwhelming benefits the very rich at the expense of huge future deficits is in the interest of the middle class.

Perhaps you can also explain to me how providing equaly opportunity, a safer work place, family friendly policies, access to higher education, and banking and security reforms and safeguards equates with "daily bread coming from government"

Ustwo · 09-08-2006, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ustwo....putting aside the nonsense about cutting the salaries of your employees,, you have still yet to explain how a tax policy that overwhelming benefits the very rich at the expense of huge future deficits is in the interest of the middle class.

The problem isn't the tax system, the problem is we spend to much money on useless social programs and money sinks the government should have never gotten involved in, in the first place. The tax policy does NOT overwhelmingly benefit the rich against the intrests of the middle class. The rich pay almost all the taxes as it is, look it up.

Quote:

Perhaps you can also explain to me how providing equaly opportunity,

It was Al Gores father who filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

Quote:

a safer work place,

Good, I have no idea if it was a democrat thing or not, but OSHA has gone way over board as of late.

Quote:

family friendly policies,

Free time off work when you have a kid in a big company, of course you need to work longer due to the higher taxes.

Quote:

access to higher education,

Yes because republicans hate middle class people to be college educated....oh wait most college educated people are republican.

Quote:

and banking and security reforms and safeguards equates with "daily bread coming from government"

I hope you don't mean national security reforms

Daily bread from the government is what socialism is about in practice. It means without the government programs which are taking money from others and giving it to you in some form, you would be less well off. This is the ideal goal because it sets them into power. Its current form is seen with the vote plantations they have created while destroying the black family. All that money hasn't made life for poor minorites a lick better, but is has bought the democrats millions in votes. In fact its the one issue I really do not approve of Bush on, I thought he was lying with the 'compasionate conservative' speech, problem is he wasn't.

Seaver · 09-08-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Ustwo....putting aside the nonsense about cutting the salaries of your employees,, you have still yet to explain how a tax policy that overwhelming benefits the very rich at the expense of huge future deficits is in the interest of the middle class.

A tax policy that overwhelmingly benefits the rich?

The top 50% (half of those are middle class at least), pay 66% of taxes. The top 1% pays 17% of the total taxes. The bottom 50% either pay next-to, or no taxes.

When the EQUAL tax cuts went into effect everyone got the same % cut. That means that the middle class got benefits as well. That money does not simply sit in rich men's vaults, it was used to reinvest.

You honestly see no connection between the tax cuts and the huge growth in investment and property values as ALL classes of families have the highest level of home ownership in US history?

Please inform me how income redistribution will cause economic growth in a capitalistic society. You may be new to politics but it's clear you see that as an issue the government needs to address.

Ustwo · 09-08-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

A tax policy that overwhelmingly benefits the rich?

The top 50% (half of those are middle class at least), pay 66% of taxes. The top 1% pays 17% of the total taxes. The bottom 50% either pay next-to, or no taxes.

Sever your numbers are off.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls
The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%
The top 25% pay 88.88% of the Taxes

The vast majority of all taxes are paid by the wealthy, period, anyone who argues otherwise is in a state of cognitive dissonance.

Willravel · 09-08-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sever your numbers are off.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls
The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%
The top 25% pay 88.88% of the Taxes

The vast majority of all taxes are paid by the wealthy, period, anyone who argues otherwise is in a state of cognitive dissonance.

Those speak to the amount of money, not the percentage of income. If I make $500,000 a year and I pay $50,000 in taxes, and if you make $36,000 a year and pay $10,000 in taxes, that's going to look slightly decieving if you just show what we payed. $50,000 > $10,000, but $36,000/$10,000 > $500,000/$50,000, but I'm sure you already know that.

I still can't believe that you thinkm you're going to get a rise out of people my misusing the term cognative dissonence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The bottom 50% either pay next-to, or no taxes.

Yeah, it was really nice not to pay income tax, sales tax or property tax when I was a poor college student.

stevo · 09-08-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Those speak to the amount of money, not the percentage of income. If I make $500,000 a year and I pay $50,000 in taxes, and if you make $36,000 a year and pay $10,000 in taxes, that's going to look slightly decieving if you just show what we payed. $50,000 > $10,000, but $36,000/$10,000 > $500,000/$50,000, but I'm sure you already know that.

I still can't believe that you thinkm you're going to get a rise out of people my misusing the term cognative dissonence.

The problem with your statement, will, is its make-believe. I like how you use "If." I could put "if" in front of any number of false statements, and I wouldn't be lying, because its just a hypothetical. The fact is, someone making $500,000 a year pays $155,470 in taxes to the federal government on their income. Obviously that doesn't include local or state income taxes, which if you live in NY or CA would add close to another $100,000 in taxes.

Its funny how when the word "if" is used, it makes what you say not a lie.

also, someone making $36,000 doesn't pay $10,000 in income taxes to the fed. Someone making $36,000 pays a maximum of $5,665 in federal income taxes. Most of the time less.

Willravel · 09-08-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

The problem with your statement will is its make-believe. I like how you use "If." I could put "if" in front of any number of false statements, and I wouldn't be lying, because its just a hypothetical. The fact is, someone making $500,000 a year pays $155,470 in taxes to the federal government on their income. Obviously that doesn't include local or state income taxes, which if you live in NY or CA would add close to another $100,000 in taxes.

Its funny how when the word "if" is used, it makes what you say not a lie.

also, someone making $36,000 doesn't pay $10,000 in income taxes to the fed. Someone making $36,000 pays a maximum of $5,665 in federal income taxes. Most of the time less.

Well then why don't you give me the skinny? You countered my hypothetical with phrases like "most of the time", and "close to". Why not be precise?

What is the amount of money the upper class pays for taxes relative to their income, and what amount of money does the lower class pay relative to their income? That is the relevant issue here.

stevo · 09-08-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Well then why don't you give me the skinny? You countered my hypothetical with phrases like "most of the time", and "close to". Why not be precise?

What is the amount of money the upper class pays for taxes relative to their income, and what amount of money does the lower class pay relative to their income? That is the relevant issue here.

Ok then. Someone living in NYC who makes $500,000 pays $155,470 to washington, and $14,433 to the city and state. Someone living in NYC who makes $36,000 pays a max of $5,665 to washington and $937 to the locals.

doing the math, the rich guy pays 33.98% of his income to the government, while the poor guy pays 18.34%.

What we have in the US is called a progressive tax. The more you make the more you get taxed. While I exaggerated on "add close to another $100,000 in taxes" the numbers I give you now are as close to precise as you'll get without any specifics. Don't try and tell anyone the poor pay a higher percentage in taxes than the rich, its just a lie.

Willravel · 09-08-2006, 09:56 AM

I think you misunderstood what I was asking. I'm not Al Gore, I don't care about so and so from so and so, I'm looking for blanket figures. I'm not trying to say the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich, btw. I'm just trying to fix Ustwo's numbers. The top 50% paying over 96% is misleading. I'm trying to adjust that number based on income.

roachboy · 09-08-2006, 10:09 AM

the entire debate on taxation and the "burden" shouldered by those poor, persecuted wealthy people in america (boo hoo--it must suck t be wealthy in america--boo hoo) is unfolding along assumptions that i find ridiculous.

that the wealthy pay more taxes is a function of the (to say the least) uneven distribution of wealth---so this disparity is a reflection of the other, wider disparity. it is not a cause. pointing to it in isolation explains fuck all.

underneath this is a basic problem: conservatives here routinely act as though there is no obligation on the part of those who extract wealth from a social system to contribute to the maintenance of that system.

translated in to policy, this view is suicidal.

businesses cannot continue to function without a minimal level of social solidarity. businesses are obliged--in their own interests--to contribute to the maintenance of that social solidarity--this would seem logical, would it not? redistribution of wealth is fundamental to maintaining the legitimacy of the system itself. if you look at the actual world, and not at the tiny fiction that conservatives here confuse with it, this is understood as given. if there is cognitive dissonance involved anywhere, it is in the inability of the conservatives who dominate posting in this space (not all of them) to look at capitalism as a social system and to recognize basic facts about what enables it to function.
another way: the insistence from the right here that capitalism requires no social solidarity, that it floats above society is simply a fantasy.
cognitive dissonance comes from the inability to let go of this fantasy.

the consequences of attempts to actually implement this approach are legion: the radical expansion of the prison system, a drastic increase in the brutality of class divisions, a quarantining of the poor to areas wherein they turn the violence of the system on each other--is entirely destructive of the system that allows wealth to be accumulated at all.

the matter of home ownership has more to to with relaxed access to debt accumulation--and that means the whole system sits on a fundamentally social function--credit--enframed by social institutions--the banking system--that itself is part of society, and which is subject to breakdowns in political legitimacy (the effects of the irrationality of bushworld are not abstract)--and so is fragile. debt is also self-evidently politically coercive. i could go on about this last point, but i write this with no particular hope of anything like a meaningful interaction with the ustwo set. but who knows, maybe they'll surprise me.

nobody at this point---and i mean nobody--assumes capitalism is in fact a self-regulating system the normal unregulated operations of which produce outcomes that anyone can confuse with equitable. the world bank does not think so. the imf acted as though this was the case and its policies of structural adjustment were and are across the board unmitigated fiascos. so even the main institutions charged with articulating and imposing neoliberalism have been backing off it for a few years now. transnationals are self-evidently backing away from anything like this position for the same reasons--the political consequences of holding to it have been disastrous already, and the social consequences of it are threatening their future ability to generate profit. these folk already see what the american right has not even started to face.

so it is only in the stagnant, dank waters of populist american conservative ideology that neoliberalism is still confused with a functional view.

dc_dux · 09-08-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I think you misunderstood what I was asking. I'm not Al Gore, I don't care about so and so from so and so, I'm looking for blanket figures. I'm not trying to say the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich, btw. I'm just trying to fix Ustwo's numbers. The top 50% paying over 96% is misleading. I'm trying to adjust that number based on income.

The Congressional Budget Office did an analyis of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Among the findings:

* The bottom 20 percent of Americans will see their after-tax incomes increase by an average of 1.5 percent due to the Bush tax cuts, while the tax cuts will raise the after-tax income of the middle 60 percent by about 2 percent, on average.

* Those in the top 20 percent will enjoy larger after-tax income gains, with after-tax income increasing 3.3 percent due to the tax cuts. The top one percent will see its after-tax income grow by an average of 5.3 percenr, more than double the percentage increase enjoyed by the middle class.

UStwo..as to your responses, to my other questions....nice deflection

Willravel · 09-08-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The Congressional Budget Office did an analyis of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Among the findings:

* The bottom 20 percent of Americans will see their after-tax incomes increase by an average of 1.5 percent due to the Bush tax cuts, while the tax cuts will raise the after-tax income of the middle 60 percent by about 2 percent, on average.

* Those in the top 20 percent will enjoy larger after-tax income gains, with after-tax income increasing 3.3 percent due to the tax cuts. The top one percent will see its after-tax income grow by an average of 5.3 percenr, more than double the percentage increase enjoyed by the middle class.

AH! That is part of what I was looking for. I remembered reading it in an article some time ago, but couldn't find it. Okay, so under Bush the rich are enjoying more tax breaks. The other information I was looking for is the current percentage of income taxed in a given income bracket. I'm sure there are percentages given for like $10,000-$15,000 per year income, or $45,000-$50,000 per year income out there. I'd ask my acocunting department, but they are at work on other stuff right now.

stevo · 09-08-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

AH! That is part of what I was looking for. I remembered reading it in an article some time ago, but couldn't find it. Okay, so under Bush the rich are enjoying more tax breaks. The other information I was looking for is the current percentage of income taxed in a given income bracket. I'm sure there are percentages given for like $10,000-$15,000 per year income, or $45,000-$50,000 per year income out there. I'd ask my acocunting department, but they are at work on other stuff right now.

So what? and this proves what? all it says is that the rich were over-taxed prior to the bush tax cuts moreso than the rest of the country.

The top 1% still pay 34% of all income taxes
The top half pay 96.5% of all income taxes.

If you are so bent on income equality I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and send me a check for $33,500, then we'd be equal.

Ustwo · 09-08-2006, 11:52 AM

Logically I don't see why someone not paying taxes should even have the right to vote. You would think the poor should be taxed more so they have a real stake in the government and government spending.

Instead we have people who don't pay for the government saying others should give them money in the form of social programs.

Does anyone see where this could maybe perhaps go wrong in the long run?

j8ear · 09-08-2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So what? and this proves what?

It proves that the "tax cuts for the rich" meme is in fact categorically false, and a weak disengenuous slogan.

It also proves that everyone's taxes were cut, and that everyone's take home money has increased.

Whatcha gonna do, especially when we have citizens who consider ~anything~ a government does....

Quote:

...rather than figure out how to evenly distribute the wealth in this country...

...a problem?

-bear

Willravel · 09-08-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So what? and this proves what? all it says is that the rich were over-taxed prior to the bush tax cuts moreso than the rest of the country.

Christ, you're confrontational today. Just so you know, I'm in the top part of this little graph. I pull in about $125k per year, and my wife makes about $90k per year. We own a home in the SF Bay Area. Okay? So consider me neutral in all this before you go biting my head off. I'm trying to get all the information before I make a conclusion. That's something to be commended for. Pat me on the back. Do it. You know you want to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

The top 1% still pay 34% of all income taxes
The top half pay 96.5% of all income taxes.

If you are so bent on income equality I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and send me a check for $33,500, then we'd be equal.

How am I bent? The numbers Ustwo posted are misleading because the top 1% make sooooo much more than the rest of us. The numbers are taken out of context. My household makes a little over $200k, but the top 1% has people making $10,000,000 per year. That can't compare to people making $30,000. It takes over 300 people making $33,000 a year to match the income of one person who makes $10,000,000 per year.

I'm trying to understand the numbers in context.

sapiens · 09-08-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Logically I don't see why someone not paying taxes should even have the right to vote. You would think the poor should be taxed more so they have a real stake in the government and government spending.

Instead we have people who don't pay for the government saying others should give them money in the form of social programs.

Does anyone see where this could maybe perhaps go wrong in the long run?

You don't think that the poor pay taxes?

I wonder how long our system of government would last if we eliminated the right to vote from the poor or overtaxed the poor. You think that increasing taxes on the poor will give them a real stake in the government? and what will that then accomplish? Make them rich?

I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with social programs funded by federal taxes. I think the issue is whether or not a given program produces favorable outcomes.

stevo · 09-08-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Christ, you're confrontational today. Just so you know, I'm in the top part of this little graph. I pull in about $125k per year, and my wife makes about $90k per year. We own a home in the SF Bay Area. Okay? So consider me neutral in all this before you go biting my head off. I'm trying to get all the information before I make a conclusion. That's something to be commended for. Pat me on the back. Do it. You know you want to.

How am I bent? The numbers Ustwo posted are misleading because the top 1% make sooooo much more than the rest of us. The numbers are taken out of context. My household makes a little over $200k, but the top 1% has people making $10,000,000 per year. That can't compare to people making $30,000. It takes over 300 people making $33,000 a year to match the income of one person who makes $10,000,000 per year.

I'm trying to understand the numbers in context.

They're not misleading, anyone with half a brain understands that the top 1% make sooooo than the rest of us. Whats so misleading about that? I wasn't biting your head off, you seemed so happy to get the figures that showed the top 20% holding on to 5.3% more of their income, like it proved some sort of conspiracy, when all it showed was that they were overtaxed more than the rest of us. Its too bad you aren't bent on income redistribution. A new shiny boat would be nice.

09-07-2006, 07:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The democrat voter strategy is 'getevenwithemism' as in rather than figure out how to become better off, you bank on people wanting to punish those who succeed. This is basically anti-American, not fair, and not part of a productive persons thinking. Most people would rather be rich than have the rich be poor, and would rather work with the hope of becoming better off or allowing their children to be better off. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-07-2006, 04:29 PM	#4 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	Huh. I was going to comment, but according to that, my family isn't middle class. You learn something new every day. Gilda __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert

09-08-2006, 05:20 AM	#15 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I am proud to be associated with a Democratic party that historically took the lead on nearly every program that helped create the middle class. Consider collective bargaining and worker rights, equal employment opportunity and civil rights, access to higher education, health care and income security, child protection and development, banking reform, and the list goes on. I agree that the Dems have lost their way a bit and need to refocus their message as a party on their core values of using government to PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY for all (no, that doesnt mean government handouts) to participate in the American dream and live a more productive and healthy life. Perhaps one of the Repub naysayers who believe this is crap can explain how $trillion+ in future deficits to our children as a result of tax cuts for the top 1% helps the middle class (please, not the "trickle down" nonsense)..or how cutting Pell Grants provides acccess to college to those who otherwise would not be able to afford it....or how cutting or ignoring previously enacted environmental regulations provide a safer and healthier place for the middle class to enjoy their leisure time (oh wait, fewer and fewer families have leisure time, with both parents having to work or one having to work two jobs in order to simply maintain an existing lifestyle). This list goes on and on as well. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-08-2006, 05:35 AM	#16 (permalink)
keyshawn Psycho	Ok, this thread is getting a bit tangential (not too much, but it can easily head that way)... Back to the disappearing middle class story. With regards to the minimum wage (there's other parts of the article, but I'll raise this one for now because of my time constraints), I don't dispute the fact that "Only 2.7 percent of American workers make the minimum wage, and half of them are under age 25." The argument of minimum wage I think is a bit flawed because the cost of living across the country can vary quite a bit. Is the minimum wage that the article preports is using the $5.15/hour, or are they taking to account that about a dozen or so states have higher min. wages (highly populated states too, California, NY, florida, and most of the eastern seaboard) as well ? Even if they are taking account each state's min. wage into that percent; a lot of people probably need to make a lot more than just the min. wage in their area to make a decent, 'middle-class' living (although the definition of middle-class I think is a bit ambiguous as well). (working 45 hrs a week @ $8 an hour, times 4 weeks is $1440, pre-tax, keep in mind). Some places and circumstances, two parents working that 2880 could live with that, but not every family has two parents, able to work 45 hours a week [health or other reasons]. Regards, keyshawn __________________ currently reading: currently playing :

09-08-2006, 06:37 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	first off, taking a political analysis from the national review and presenting it as if it was an unproblematic analysis of contemporary politics is not much different from taking an article from the trotskyist paper workers world and doing the same. the idea that anyone who is interested in seriously debating either the question of the distribution of wealth and its meanings, or democratic party strategy (such as it is) on the basis of a national review article is just silly. the problems generated by the massively uneven distribution of wealth in america--the grotesque distortions of which are a lasting gift to all of us of the reagan period---are serious, but there is no way that i (for one at least) am going to participate in a conversation framed in any way by the perspectives of the national review. and besides, you already have a good index in this thread of of the tedious rhetoric from the conservative set that would no doubt be spattered all over such a thread in the interest of the usual kind of trolling pseudo-contribution: x is what a "socialist" would say, not even a "communist" would say...blah blah blah...as if these constituted anything even approaching a serious argument. they dont. instead, these terms are little more than the rhetoric of border maintenance used by the right to label views they do not like. there is nothing of any substance at all in them, used in this way, except as functions within conservative ideology. find a better source and start a debate on other grounds. as for far right characterizations of the democrats, who really cares? if the topic was how the right is attempting to frame the democrats as an aspect of their november strategy, then maybe this thread would be interesting. because that is what the article is doing... it relies on conservative political rhetoric and assumptions to orient a series of more or less tendentious assertions. that means the article in the op is not an analysis as much as it is a polemical move aimed at an entirely conservative audience (who reads the national review who is not already conservative? who takes the national review seriously who is not already amongst the conservative faithful? this is why it can be equated with a trotskiyst newspaper...) so the op article would be of sociological interest IF what you are trying to think about is how the national review functions as a relay within the system of conservative media and how that media apparatus is attempting to orient its demographic. but that's about it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-08-2006 at 06:40 AM..

09-07-2006, 08:21 PM	#9 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Don't worry, with things going as they are, the democrats soon won't have to worry about the middle class because it won't really exist any more.

09-08-2006, 05:02 AM	#14 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	This thread title should be "Everything i learn know about democrats i learned from representatives of the gop". None of the democrats currently running for office in my home state are saying anything about the middle class. This is a nonissue.

09-08-2006, 06:38 AM	#19 (permalink)
Toaster126 Extreme moderation Location: Kansas City, yo.	This had the potential to be an interesting thread, and you guys turned it into an abortion. As for the voting, I think an issue that wasn't discussed is how much the economic policies came into effect for those voters. I think a lot of people vote based on the social policies and agendas rather than straight economics. That could easily explain a lot of those middle class voters who vote for one party even if their economic situation could theoretically be improved by the other. __________________ "The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand) "The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

09-08-2006, 06:42 AM	#21 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	more of the same tedious horseshit. something is obviously wrong if the conservative set cannot manage a serious debate even in a thread framed in its own peculiar language. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-08-2006, 07:49 AM	#23 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ustwo....putting aside the nonsense about cutting the salaries of your employees,, you have still yet to explain how a tax policy that overwhelming benefits the very rich at the expense of huge future deficits is in the interest of the middle class. Perhaps you can also explain to me how providing equaly opportunity, a safer work place, family friendly policies, access to higher education, and banking and security reforms and safeguards equates with "daily bread coming from government" __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-08-2006, 09:56 AM	#31 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think you misunderstood what I was asking. I'm not Al Gore, I don't care about so and so from so and so, I'm looking for blanket figures. I'm not trying to say the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich, btw. I'm just trying to fix Ustwo's numbers. The top 50% paying over 96% is misleading. I'm trying to adjust that number based on income.

09-08-2006, 10:09 AM	#32 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the entire debate on taxation and the "burden" shouldered by those poor, persecuted wealthy people in america (boo hoo--it must suck t be wealthy in america--boo hoo) is unfolding along assumptions that i find ridiculous. that the wealthy pay more taxes is a function of the (to say the least) uneven distribution of wealth---so this disparity is a reflection of the other, wider disparity. it is not a cause. pointing to it in isolation explains fuck all. underneath this is a basic problem: conservatives here routinely act as though there is no obligation on the part of those who extract wealth from a social system to contribute to the maintenance of that system. translated in to policy, this view is suicidal. businesses cannot continue to function without a minimal level of social solidarity. businesses are obliged--in their own interests--to contribute to the maintenance of that social solidarity--this would seem logical, would it not? redistribution of wealth is fundamental to maintaining the legitimacy of the system itself. if you look at the actual world, and not at the tiny fiction that conservatives here confuse with it, this is understood as given. if there is cognitive dissonance involved anywhere, it is in the inability of the conservatives who dominate posting in this space (not all of them) to look at capitalism as a social system and to recognize basic facts about what enables it to function. another way: the insistence from the right here that capitalism requires no social solidarity, that it floats above society is simply a fantasy. cognitive dissonance comes from the inability to let go of this fantasy. the consequences of attempts to actually implement this approach are legion: the radical expansion of the prison system, a drastic increase in the brutality of class divisions, a quarantining of the poor to areas wherein they turn the violence of the system on each other--is entirely destructive of the system that allows wealth to be accumulated at all. the matter of home ownership has more to to with relaxed access to debt accumulation--and that means the whole system sits on a fundamentally social function--credit--enframed by social institutions--the banking system--that itself is part of society, and which is subject to breakdowns in political legitimacy (the effects of the irrationality of bushworld are not abstract)--and so is fragile. debt is also self-evidently politically coercive. i could go on about this last point, but i write this with no particular hope of anything like a meaningful interaction with the ustwo set. but who knows, maybe they'll surprise me. nobody at this point---and i mean nobody--assumes capitalism is in fact a self-regulating system the normal unregulated operations of which produce outcomes that anyone can confuse with equitable. the world bank does not think so. the imf acted as though this was the case and its policies of structural adjustment were and are across the board unmitigated fiascos. so even the main institutions charged with articulating and imposing neoliberalism have been backing off it for a few years now. transnationals are self-evidently backing away from anything like this position for the same reasons--the political consequences of holding to it have been disastrous already, and the social consequences of it are threatening their future ability to generate profit. these folk already see what the american right has not even started to face. so it is only in the stagnant, dank waters of populist american conservative ideology that neoliberalism is still confused with a functional view. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-08-2006, 11:52 AM	#36 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Logically I don't see why someone not paying taxes should even have the right to vote. You would think the poor should be taxed more so they have a real stake in the government and government spending. Instead we have people who don't pay for the government saying others should give them money in the form of social programs. Does anyone see where this could maybe perhaps go wrong in the long run? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.