Debunking the fear machine about middle classs

[Cypress]

Cypress I never said the middle class had no struggles just that the turbo-lib nutjobs like you overstated them at the expense of undershooting the real middle class.
80,000 is hardly starving and I know its a lot for a dufass like you but this group has different issues than the lower third the far left dems usually target

I've gone to great pains not to mischaracterize anything. I've clearly stated that for some parts of the nation, things are probably better: the wealthy, affluent, and professional white collar classes.

For most everyone else, they're treading water, struggling, or falling behind - as measured by a wide range of economic indicators.

Toppers the researcher in the very article you posted, says this.

 

[uscitizen]

I see Top is not popular, but I think his points with regards to how most, not all voters are motivated is on the money Even you seem to be agreeing here that voters vote according to their pocket book. Lower taxes, better wages, investing in and growing small business, access to health care etc. Both parties cater to this base. Historically conservatives have delivered on tax cuts and less spending and more fiscal responsibility. I will acknowledge that those lines have been blurred. I submit that globalization is the cause as well as the war on terrorism.

When it gets down to it most americans are alike in the areas of financial securities. It is the special interst that has caused the great divided in america.

I pretty much agree Kaiser. The republicans used to be for less govt, less taxes, states rights, etc. this pretty much became Myth though sometime after regan took office...
The last election was about fear not money.

 

[Topspin]

it most certainly does not say that, 80,000 with half a brain is not treading water. This guy has on average a 401k worth 100,000 you seriously mischarecterize the median family's plight. the % you think are doing ok 10 ish are the millionaires, they are doing much better than OK.

 

[kaiser]

This is true, very true, but if they really did that the economy would fall badly. 2/3 of our economy is based on what we consumers spend.
but it would turn out for the best in the long run.

I agree that there would be a major upside down movement at first. The result of consumer investments however would increase the value of the dollar within the first quarter making for windfall returns.

 

[Onceler]

it most certainly does not say that, 80,000 with half a brain is not treading water. This guy has on average a 401k worth 100,000 you seriously mischarecterize the median family's plight. the % you think are doing ok 10 ish are the millionaires, they are doing much better than OK.

Keep in mind, when you use the $80K figure, you're talking about families that have both parents working.

 

[kaiser]

Oh, sorry - an extra $1K. That makes all the difference in the world.

Let's see, I wonder why working families are having a hard time saving & are going into debt: could it be because they can't afford the costs of college, healthcare & energy, which have far, far out-paced average wage increases?

You forgot that you were also wrong about it being the "top end" as opposed to the average. And as I also noted the struggles most middle incomes face are due to their own poor spending habbits. The rising costs in health care and college tuitions certainly are concerns. Imagine cutting back on life style and investing in future needs. In the old days it was called planning for your future and being financially responsible. Credit is not for those who are having a hard toime making ends meet each month while earning 81k a year. It is for those who can pay OFF the credit card at the end of each month.

 

[uscitizen]

I've gone to great pains not to mischaracterize anything. I've clearly stated that for some parts of the nation, things are probably better: the wealthy, affluent, and professional white collar classes.

For most everyone else, they're treading water, struggling, or falling behind - as measured by a wide range of economic indicators.

Toppers the researcher in the very article you posted, says this.

Cypress the thing is that spinner does not care. He is an elitist that is just concerned about himself. and is only concerned with justifying his stance on the matter.

 

[Topspin]

and libs are usually proud of woman out in the workforce untill they need to use it to subtract from income figures that look to good.
I'd agree many more work out of necessity than want, but there are a lot of woman glad to be in the workforce probably most. There are also a lot of yuppy wifes at home putting successful careers on hold raising kids.
I'm not discounting the great advances woman have made to make a two bit point on a lame thread. Plenty left ot go but there are a lot of woman CEO's and execs out there compaired to 25yrs ago.

 

[Cypress]

Cypress the thing is that spinner does not care. He is an elitist that is just concerned about himself. and is only concerned with justifying his stance on the matter.

Probably.

Income inequality has also grown in the last 30 years. To levels not seen since the 1920s: this is a manifestation of what I've asserted all along: the top quintile of income earners may be dowing better than their parents generation - but the bottom half, at least, is either treading water, or doing worse than their parents generation.

 

[uscitizen]

I agree that there would be a major upside down movement at first. The result of consumer investments however would increase the value of the dollar within the first quarter making for windfall returns.

I disagree, if people only spent on what they needed, retail sales and fast food sales figures would drop like a rock, layoffs would happen the market would panic and the cycle down, consumers would fear for their jobs and cut back spending more, more layoffs, and so the downward spiral would go.

A consumer based econmomy is a fickle thing.

 

[Topspin]

Wow cypress finally said something I agree with.
Yes the top half is doing much better than the bottom half, it's called college and globalization hurting unskilled workers.
The answer is to train the bottom half not attack the top half.
What good would having the bottom half be that status of 90%

 

[Cypress]

and libs are usually proud of woman out in the workforce untill they need to use it to subtract from income figures that look to good.
I'd agree many more work out of necessity than want, but there are a lot of woman glad to be in the workforce probably most. There are also a lot of yuppy wifes at home putting successful careers on hold raising kids.
I'm not discounting the great advances woman have made to make a two bit point on a lame thread. Plenty left ot go but there are a lot of woman CEO's and execs out there compaired to 25yrs ago.

You're far too emotional dude.

I never made not one single statement, that women shouldn't work. The empowerment of women is one of the positive trends we have seen.

Its a simple statement of fact, that more wives are working now. Sometimes because they want professional careers. Sometimes, because families need two incomes.

I think a lot of families would rather have one spouse stay home with the kid, until they get into elementary school. Do you know how bad it sucks to dump a two year old toddler into some lame-ass day care, all day long?

So effectively, with most wives working now, you've had a 100% increase in labor participation for a family, with - what - a 30% increase in median income in the last three decades?

Put your accountants mind to work topper: If you're productivity goes up by 100%, but your wages only go up 30%, does that mean overall you're doing better? That your compensation is comensurate with your increased labor and productivity? Not to mention, the drain on children, familiy life, and domestic issues? People aren't robots, topper. You can't measure their family health, with a simple "median income" measurement.

Anymore than you can measure the long term health of a corporation, simply by looking at their annual gross profit.

 

[kaiser]

I pretty much agree Kaiser. The republicans used to be for less govt, less taxes, states rights, etc. this pretty much became Myth though sometime after regan took office...
The last election was about fear not money.

Reagan? There is where we will part company. I think Reagan recovered a nation that due to Carter's failings was experiencing the worst recession since the 30's. In addition he did this while also exposing the detrimental effects of communism. A presidents policies are never perfect. But Regan's over-all record on fiscal responsibility and recovery stands against his critics. He paved the way for small business investments and creative ingenuity that saw the the resulting benefits in the coming technologies boom.

 

[Topspin]

I with all that, except far more want to work than you give them credit for.
And if a family has 80,000 income and 100,000 net worth they are fare more into the stock market than you think and concerned with AMT, tuition, rising healthcare as opposed to soley who's not covered.

 

[Damocles]

Reagan? There is where we will part company. I think Reagan recovered a nation that due to Carter's failings was experiencing the worst recession since the 30's. In addition he did this while also exposing the detrimental effects of communism. A presidents policies are never perfect. But Regan's over-all record on fiscal responsibility and recovery stands against his critics. He paved the way for small business investments and creative ingenuity that saw the the resulting benefits in the coming technologies boom.

He also set the Fed to work toward a more structured economy. One that while it still cycled had less huge swings thus creating a more stable environment and a place to invest in a future. There is a reason that more than half of the US now is invested in the stock market...

 

[Cancel7]

You're far too emotional dude.

I never made not one single statement, that women shouldn't work. The empowerment of women is one of the positive trends we have seen.

Its a simple statement of fact, that more wives are working now. Sometimes because they want professional careers. Sometimes, because families need two incomes.

I think a lot of families would rather have one spouse stay home with the kid, until they get into elementary school. Do you know how bad it sucks to dump a two year old toddler into some lame-ass day care, all day long?

So effectively, with most wives working now, you've had a 100% increase in labor participation for a family, with - what - a 30% increase in median income in the last three decades?

Put your accountants mind to work topper: If you're productivity goes up by 100%, but your wages only go up 30%, does that mean overall you're doing better? That your compensation is comensurate with your increased labor and productivity? Not to mention, the drain on children, familiy life, and domestic issues? People aren't robots, topper. You can't measure their family health, with a simple "median income" measurement.

Anymore than you can measure the long term health of a corporation, simply by looking at their annual gross profit.

The whole point of what we were saying, originally, is that both spouses must work now, in the majority of cases. Just because Top believes that only women stay home with children, or want to, doesn't make it so. There are men who are stay at home fathers, and plenty more who would like the opportunity. If you needed only one income, and both spouses could earn a decent living, then you could even switch on and off, who stays home and who works. There is no reason that men should be robbed of being a large part of their children's lives in the early years due to out of date stereotypes.

And before SF jumps on me, yes, there are certainly couples that consist of two people who want to work and do not want to stay home and raise children, whether they are in the position to or not, because not everyone can find satisfaction in that life.

 

[Cypress]

The whole point of what we were saying, originally, is that both spouses must work now, in the majority of cases. Just because Top believes that only women stay home with children, or want to, doesn't make it so. There are men who are stay at home fathers, and plenty more who would like the opportunity. If you needed only one income, and both spouses could earn a decent living, then you could even switch on and off, who stays home and who works. There is no reason that men should be robbed of being a large part of their children's lives in the early years due to out of date stereotypes.

And before SF jumps on me, yes, there are certainly couples that consist of two people who want to work and do not want to stay home and raise children, whether they are in the position to or not, because not everyone can find satisfaction in that life.

Yes, a marriage is, or should be, a partnership. Spouses should have each other's back. With small toddlers, it is ideal to have one spouse stay home until they're in elementary school. And that can be either the husband or the wife. In this day and age, there's less of a stigma with the man staying home.

I mean, its only a few years - a toddler needs a full time parent. It's pathetic when toddlers are dumped off at some day care.

And this is what marriages are about anyway - one spouse can hold down the fort financially, while the other spouse raises a toddler, goes back to college for further education, or whatever.

 

[kaiser]

I disagree, if people only spent on what they needed, retail sales and fast food sales figures would drop like a rock, layoffs would happen the market would panic and the cycle down, consumers would fear for their jobs and cut back spending more, more layoffs, and so the downward spiral would go.

A consumer based econmomy is a fickle thing.

When consumers realize a profit consumer spending would resume. Only the difference would be spending actual income as opposed to credit. Certainly the service industry would feel the initial impact, but consumer returns on invetsment would result in spending. Prices would come down as competition went up. Real money creates real markets. The number of bankrupt consumers would drop like a rock. retail sales are not the only economic indicator, in fact the leading indicator is investments which woulde be up.

 

[Topspin]

Duhla, you absoulutely pissing on woman's progress in the working world.
There is absolutely not trueth to only woman who have to work are out in the market place. For a cashier maybe, professional woman are mostly working because they want to and feel as accomplished as their male counter parts. There's no arguing they helped household incomes, the POINT is the middle is higher than dems traditionally think.

 

[uscitizen]

When consumers realize a profit consumer spending would resume. Only the difference would be spending actual income as opposed to credit. Certainly the service industry would feel the initial impact, but consumer returns on invetsment would result in spending. Prices would come down as competition went up. Real money creates real markets. The number of bankrupt consumers would drop like a rock. retail sales are not the only economic indicator, in fact the leading indicator is investments which woulde be up.

right but it would take several years for the consumers to get out of their non home debts.....