Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Middle Class?Follow

#1 Sep 05 2012 at 2:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,478 posts
Lately, it seems like the Dems have picked up on a theme arguing that they are fighting for the middle class. I've heard it many times over the last few months, and it seems almost like a mantra now that the DNC is in full swing. I guess I'm as confused by it now as I was the first time I heard this. I mean, I get *why* they want to appeal to the middle class, I'm just not sure why the middle class would think that the Democrats appeal to them. It almost seems like they're saying it just for the sound bite and hoping no one stops and asks "why are they good for the middle class?"


So I'll ask the question: Why are the Dems good for the middle class? What is it about their policies that would make them appealing to people who (by definition) are already earning sufficient income to provide for their own food, housing, education, transportation, health care, etc? I personally think they're terrible for the middle class, and that their policies take from the middle class (and/or shrink it) in order to provide assistance for those who aren't in the middle class (or even close). But that's my opinion. I'm curious why other people might think differently.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2 Sep 05 2012 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,432 posts
gbaji wrote:
I personally think they're terrible for the middle class,
Oh ho, a surprising revelation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Sep 05 2012 at 3:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,607 posts
Off the top of my head...

I think they'll try to argue the middle class is the target of their economic policies. So things that would 'help small businesses' or 'reduce the amount of money' the middle class pays in tax breaks will get highlighted. Contrasting it with a more 'Republican' concept of clearing up red tape, lowering taxes, etc for businesses, or those with higher incomes and letting the benefits 'trickle down' to the middle class. The idea that if you're directly in the crosshairs you'll benefit more from a program. It's certainly easier to explain to the middle class at least, whether or not it actually works that way I imagine is likely a hot topic.

Anyway, just my gut impression. Smiley: clown

Edit: So like say Mr. Middle class needs help. The Democrats give them a check for $1,000. The Republicans give their boss a $1,000 tax break on the premise it'll work out better in the end.


Edited, Sep 5th 2012 2:19pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4 Sep 05 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,564 posts
gbaji wrote:
Lately, it seems like the Dems have picked up on a theme arguing that they are fighting for the middle class.

Perhaps I'm too young to remember, but hasn't this always been the case for both parties?
#5 Sep 05 2012 at 3:17 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
Honestly? I don't believe the democratic agenda is targeted toward the middle class so much as it is targeted against the upper class. Given the wallstreet fall out and numerous examples of top paid execs abusing expense accounts and tax loopholes for personal gain, most of the middle and lower class citizens can connect with an agenda that favors anybody but the extremely wealthy. It's not a crusade against personal wealth, mind you; it's a crusade against personal gain at the expense of everyone else.



Edited, Sep 5th 2012 4:35pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#6 Sep 05 2012 at 3:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Spending on infrastructure is spending for the middle class and small business. Large businesses could hypothetically afford their own infrastructure; and actually (indirectly) purchase it in places like China. Below a certain size and the benefits of infrastructure can only really be effective if handled by a larger body. The tax policy being weighted less favorably towards larger entities makes them less able to unfairly compete with smaller businesses. There is still a huge influence gap, but less so. Infrastructure expenditures are more useful for small biz/middle class than most social programs, (barring subsidized Small-midsize business loans) since there is generally a higher percentage of working class citizens, and they use many of those social programs to a greater degree. Tax reform and electoral reform (Not that significant electoral reform is anything more than pie in the sky, currently) also would aid middle class citizens as they do not have the resources to dig through the legal codes to develop strategies to abuse said codes.

This is a short answer, could be much longer, but you get the gist of the argument.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#7 Sep 05 2012 at 4:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,478 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Off the top of my head...

I think they'll try to argue the middle class is the target of their economic policies. So things that would 'help small businesses' or 'reduce the amount of money' the middle class pays in tax breaks will get highlighted.


Sure. But neither party is talking about changing tax rates for the "middle class", so I'm not sure how the Dems justify their position.

Quote:
Contrasting it with a more 'Republican' concept of clearing up red tape, lowering taxes, etc for businesses, or those with higher incomes and letting the benefits 'trickle down' to the middle class. The idea that if you're directly in the crosshairs you'll benefit more from a program. It's certainly easier to explain to the middle class at least, whether or not it actually works that way I imagine is likely a hot topic.


What programs though? What programs help the middle class? I guess where I'm going with this is that the programs that Dems actually create are aimed at helping people who are economically below the middle class. To the degree that trickle down affects the middle class, the result hurts them, but doesn't help them.

Quote:
Edit: So like say Mr. Middle class needs help. The Democrats give them a check for $1,000. The Republicans give their boss a $1,000 tax break on the premise it'll work out better in the end.


Sure. But somewhat by definition, the "middle class" is that set of people who don't need help from the government. Not that kind of help anyway. It's not really a choice between them getting $1000 or their boss getting $1000. It's a choice between the guy on welfare getting $1000, or their boss (or perhaps even them) keeping that $1000. Even if only some function of their boss's money helps their own financial outlook, they're better off if the government doesn't step in, right?

What hurts the middle class the most is not being middle class anymore. And that is most likely to happen if their boss (or potential boss) has less money, or the market conditions are such that their own businesses fail. I just don't see how the policies that the Dems have been pushing are in any way "good for the middle class", which is why I've been somewhat surprised at how frequently they keep saying that they are. Do they think that people in the middle class just can't figure it out or something? It's not like expanded foodstamps, or housing assistance, or unemployment assistance actually helps people "in the middle class". It helps people who were in the middle class until they lost their jobs, maybe. But that's not really the same thing. It's like saying that taking the fuel out of your plane and replacing it with parachutes is better for the passengers, because then when the plane runs out of gas and starts to crash, they can jump out safely or something. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and would seem to be a weak argument.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Sep 05 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,478 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Honestly? I don't believe the democratic agenda is targeted toward the middle class so much as it is targeted against the upper class.


I agree. I've just noticed a marked shift from "rich vs poor" to "rich vs middle class" over the last year. I think I first noticed this when Obama (I think it was him?) made a speech about the looming tax rates expiring, and made it about raising taxes on the rich, or raising them on the middle class. I noticed it again with criticism of the Ryan budget, where liberals projected a shortfall from said budget and then assumed it would be made up by increased taxes on the middle class (completely invented that btw), and then argued that Ryan's plan would "cut taxes for the rich, while raising them for the middle class". I thought that was a huge stretch at the time, but now it appears like this has been a growing strategy all along.

Quote:
Given the wallstreet fall out and numerous examples of top paid execs abusing expense accounts and tax loopholes for personal gain, most of the middle and lower class citizens can connect with an agenda that favors anybody but the extremely wealthy. It's not a crusade against personal wealth, mind you; it's a crusade against personal gain at the expense of everyone else.


/shrug

I think we had this argument on this forum a few weeks ago. Who gets to decide that your gain is at the "expense of everyone else"? Isn't that arbitrary? As I pointed out then, the proposed taxes target every dollar earned over $250k. So not just those who earned it at the expense of everyone else, but everyone who earns that much. That sure looks like an attack on personal wealth to me. Unless you can shed a bit more light on the logic here. Cause I'm not seeing it.


It just looks like a bunch of talk that doesn't match the walk the Dems are doing one bit.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Sep 05 2012 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,207 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think we had this argument on this forum a few weeks ago.
I think this forum only has maybe five or six arguments at most, and just cycles through them.
____________________________
Banh
#10 Sep 05 2012 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So I'll ask the question: Why are the Dems good for the middle class? What is it about their policies that would make them appealing to people who (by definition) are already earning sufficient income to provide for their own food, housing, education, transportation, health care, etc?

"By definition" the middle class typically relies on public education (government funded), various government housing programs/subsidies (Freddie/Fannie Mac, mortgage tax credit), rely on employee funded health care and feel little ability to change that into a different policy, rely on the child care credits for their taxes, Pell grants and student loans for college, etc. The middle class is acutely aware that cuts to unemployment security and food programs could easily affect them in the future should they lose their jobs. I think many in the middle class aren't especially opposed to strong safety nets for the lower class because they actually know and work with people either in the lower class or on the cusp. In short, I don't think you have any real idea what it means to be middle class these days.

Now, I don't believe for a second that you're "curious" rather than looking for a debate so I'll leave it at that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Sep 05 2012 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,856 posts
Spoonless wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think we had this argument on this forum a few weeks ago.
I think this forum only has maybe five or six arguments at most, and just cycles through them.


The problem is that there have been sooo many arguments over the years, and half the people who started them are still here and remember them, so they don't tend to bring them up anymore. The other half the people get to play with whats left. I blame Websense, which was probably written by a democrat.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#12 Sep 05 2012 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,211 posts
We're middle class. We got an $8,000 tax rebate from the government as encouragement to buy a house back during the nastier parts of the recession. I don't think that would have happened under a McCain presidency.

The thing is, we're not quite so far up the middle class ladder at this point that we can't see the lower rungs or remember them. In fact, we can still see the ground below us, although it's slowly getting further away.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#13 Sep 05 2012 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TheMiddleClass.org wrote:
The middle class is more than an income bracket. Over the past 50 years, a middle-class standard of living in the United States has come to mean having a secure job, a safe and stable home, access to health care, retirement security, time off for vacation, illness and the birth or adoption of a child, opportunities to save for the future and the ability to provide a good education, including a college education, for one's children. When these middle-class fundamentals are within the reach of most Americans, the nation is stronger economically, culturally and democratically.

I think that's probably a fair definition of what people aspire to when they consider the "middle class". And, from what I've seen, Democrats support my efforts towards those things more directly than Republicans. Again, mortgage and home purchasing assistance, universal health care, preserving social security rather than privatizing it, protected worker's rights for things like maternity leave rather than siding with businesses who want to prevent those protections, equal pay laws, college tuition assistance and so forth. Add to that protection from predatory financial institutions, lenders and insurance companies -- companies whose decisions can easily break a middle class family's financial stability. I'm not going to get into a bunch of point-by-points... I'll just say that the GOP has failed to make a case that persuades me that they'll do a better job of assisting me in those arenas.

Of course there's also the obvious facet of social policy as well. I'm not on board with the GOP policies about reproductive rights, equal rights for homosexuals, immigration, the environment, etc. Even if there's a socially moderate Republican whose fiscal policies I find acceptable, voting for them also empowers the batshit crazy GOP fringe who want to close Planned Parenthood, defund PBS and hold witch hunts against Muslims. As long as I can't empower one without empowering the other and as long as the GOP continues to embrace these people and support them, I can't cast my vote that way.

Edited, Sep 5th 2012 8:19pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Sep 05 2012 at 7:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,478 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So I'll ask the question: Why are the Dems good for the middle class? What is it about their policies that would make them appealing to people who (by definition) are already earning sufficient income to provide for their own food, housing, education, transportation, health care, etc?

"By definition" the middle class typically relies on public education (government funded), various government housing programs/subsidies (Freddie/Fannie Mac, mortgage tax credit), rely on employee funded health care and feel little ability to change that into a different policy, rely on the child care credits for their taxes, Pell grants and student loans for college, etc.


I wouldn't say "relies on them", but they do gain some benefit from these. But here's the "talk the talk versus walk the walk" part: How much of those things have Democrats made better via their federal economic policies over the last 4 years? I mean, public education is funded 90% by states and local governments. Housing assistance only minimally benefits the middle class (assuming we're talking about people over say $50k/year and that might even be low). Dems want to eliminate the mortgage tax credit. Employee funded health care is funded by their employees, not the government. If anything, those who already had that are now facing greater health care costs because of Obama care (someone has to pay more to cover all those new people who wont be paying much or anything, right?). Child care credits? Not really anything the Dems have touched, have they? Student loans? Again, not really being touched, except for a movement to forgive loans for those who don't make enough money to pay them back (which means, not people in the middle class). Again, someone's going to have to make up that difference, so it'll be those in the middle class paying more for their loans in order to cover for those who borrowed money but couldn't pay it back.

Not seeing how the Dems are good out of that list. How about instead of just listing off stuff, you maybe explain how Dems are good for the middle class with regard to them? That's part of my point I think. It seems like the Dems like to do what you just did, rattle off a bunch of stuff that they claim helps the middle class, but when you actually stop and look at them closely, they really don't help the middle class at all.

This would be a bit less obvious, if the things they list aren't exactly the same things they've been listing as helping the poor for decades now. I get how student loan forgiveness helps the poor. I get how child tax credits do. And housing assistance, and most of that stuff. It's the shift of listing that stuff when supporting their position of "we're good for the poor", to "we're good for the middle class". I mean, they didn't even change the list. They just changed the group they claim it helps. And they did this without seeming to bother to make the case to support that argument. They just say it. And they say it a lot. Over and over and over.


Which is why I brought up the topic. It seems a bit disjointed to me. Clearly, the same policies that are good for the poor can't also be good for the middle class, right?

Quote:
The middle class is acutely aware that cuts to unemployment security and food programs could easily affect them in the future should they lose their jobs.


No. They're acutely aware that the spending on those things makes it more likely that they'll lose their jobs and thus end out needing them. Um... And at the risk of pointing out the obvious. They wont be middle class anymore. So what you're saying is that it helps the middle class to create policies designed to help them if/when they aren't middle class anymore. Why not actually make it easier for people to get into and stay in the middle class in the first place? I think people would much rather have a good paying job than a safety net for if they lose it.

Quote:
I think many in the middle class aren't especially opposed to strong safety nets for the lower class because they actually know and work with people either in the lower class or on the cusp. In short, I don't think you have any real idea what it means to be middle class these days.


If those strong safety nets come at a cost that increases the number of people needing them, I think they are. When someone in the middle class has a friend who's poor or working class, you know what they want? Not bigger government programs to help their friends out. They want their friends to get a good paying job. That's the way to help people.

IMO people in the middle class are acutely aware that what differentiates them from someone who is poor is the job they hold. That's it. So the way to protect their own positions and to help others achieve it as well, is to support policies that create jobs, not policies that help people who don't have them. That's how one becomes middle class. And no amount of government assistance will do that.

Quote:
Now, I don't believe for a second that you're "curious" rather than looking for a debate so I'll leave it at that.


What? It can't be both? Smiley: sly
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Sep 05 2012 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Again, thank you for telling me how the middle class thinks. Without your guidance, I'd have no idea how I feel. Surely, you have convinced me to vote Republican.

Edited, Sep 5th 2012 8:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Sep 05 2012 at 7:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,478 posts
Jophiel wrote:
TheMiddleClass.org wrote:
The middle class is more than an income bracket. Over the past 50 years, a middle-class standard of living in the United States has come to mean having a secure job, a safe and stable home, access to health care, retirement security, time off for vacation, illness and the birth or adoption of a child, opportunities to save for the future and the ability to provide a good education, including a college education, for one's children. When these middle-class fundamentals are within the reach of most Americans, the nation is stronger economically, culturally and democratically.

I think that's probably a fair definition of what people aspire to when they consider the "middle class".


Sure. But what makes it a "class" is that those within it have the ability to obtain those things themselves (within the larger economic environment of course). If the government gives someone free health care, it does not make that person middle class. Similarly, providing people with free education, housing, etc does not make one middle class. It's the ability to provide it for yourself that makes you middle class.

What the Dems are doing is providing the "things" that middle class normally provides to those who may not be able to afford them. But that means that those who can afford them now will have to pay more for them to make up the difference. Someone has to pay. Thus, the Dems hurt the middle class.

Quote:
And, from what I've seen, Democrats support my efforts towards those things more directly than Republicans.


Wrong. The only way to help the actual middle class is to create an economic environment in which more people can obtain jobs that pay enough money for people to afford those things themselves. Simply handing them to them doesn't make them middle class. It destroys the middle class.

Quote:
Again, mortgage and home purchasing assistance, universal health care, preserving social security rather than privatizing it, protected worker's rights for things like maternity leave rather than siding with businesses who want to prevent those protections, equal pay laws, college tuition assistance and so forth. Add to that protection from predatory financial institutions, lenders and insurance companies -- companies whose decisions can easily break a middle class family's financial stability. I'm not going to get into a bunch of point-by-points... I'll just say that the GOP has failed to make a case that persuades me that they'll do a better job of assisting me in those arenas.


The GOPs position is that the government should not be in the business of "assisting in these arenas" in the first place. You're mistaking the effect for the cause Joph. When people have those things because they can afford them themselves, they are middle class. When you just give them to people, you don't make them middle class, and you likely hurt the actual middle class in the process. The GOP wants to grow the actual middle class. The Dems want to hand the rewards that the middle class has earned to everyone, thus eliminating the middle class.

It's a language change. The Dems policies help the poor. That's been their argument for 50+ years. But it seems like just this year, they've redefined middle class to mean poor, and just use that phrase in the same place in the same arguments. Which is a bit strange.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Sep 05 2012 at 8:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, now you know why this middle class voter votes Democratic and not for the guys who say "Not my problem or place to help you with that stuff." Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Sep 05 2012 at 8:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,478 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Again, thank you for telling me how the middle class thinks. Without your guidance, I'd have no idea how I feel. Surely, you have convinced me to vote Republican.


I'm telling you what I think about how the middle class views things. You're free to posit your own ideas. But how about instead of rattling off a list of things, just pick one item and explain in clear language how say a family earning a combined $70k/year, with a home, a mortgage, existing health care from their employer(s), kids in school, soccer practice, scouts, braces, etc is benefited by the Dems actions with regard to that thing. It's easy to just say Dems do X, Y, and Z and those things are good for the middle class. Hell. All I need to do is tune into the DNC and I'll hear that song and dance repeated 8 times an hour.


My question is why people think those things help the middle class? Do they really? Or are the Dems just replacing "poor" with "middle class" in their talking points and hoping no one will notice?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Sep 05 2012 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,478 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, now you know why this middle class voter votes Democratic and not for the guys who say "Not my problem or place to help you with that stuff." Smiley: smile


Not the governments place to do that stuff. Don't mistake a belief that government should not engage in charity with opposition to charity itself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Sep 05 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Given that I'm voting for a government and not some hypothetical charity...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Sep 05 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,251 posts


I'm telling you what I think about how the middle class views things.


Just so we're clear, we all agree that you're part of the middle class, right? I want to be fair, and honestly you probably have a better first hand view of what it's like to be middle class than I do. It's hard for me to fathom how the economic policies of the last 4 years haven't benefited you. Your net worth alone, being primarily tied up in your home has been massively buoyed by the polices in question. We can start there, I guess?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#22 Sep 05 2012 at 9:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,478 posts
Smasharoo wrote:


I'm telling you what I think about how the middle class views things.


Just so we're clear, we all agree that you're part of the middle class, right? I want to be fair, and honestly you probably have a better first hand view of what it's like to be middle class than I do. It's hard for me to fathom how the economic policies of the last 4 years haven't benefited you.


Why? I mean I get why it might be hard for you to fathom, but I think most people don't have that problem. Let's see: Too much spending, slowing economic recovery has created a host of negative effects that I have seen first hand. Businesses trimming benefits, cutting expenses. Hell. They're even talking about requiring staff level engineers to share offices. WTF? More temps and less full time. I can directly see the impact of the Dems policies, and they're pretty much all bad. Business is managing right now, but only just barely. On paper they're doing ok, but at some point they'll run out of relatively harmless things to cut and then things will get bad. Unless policies change that is.

Green energy spending hasn't benefited me. Obamacare isn't going to benefit me at all, and will likely result in some combination of reduced benefits and higher costs for me. I'm honestly having a hard time seeing a single thing in terms of economic polices that have benefited me.


Quote:
Your net worth alone, being primarily tied up in your home has been massively buoyed by the polices in question. We can start there, I guess?


Sure. Wrong. But sure. The value of my home has decreased in the last 4 years (as have most property values). It's still higher than when I bought it back in 2002, but it's probably lost about $50k or so in value since 2007.

Now if we're talking about stocks and mutual funds, my net worth has gone up some. But I've argued all along that the markets are doing ok (more or less). The problem with this recovery is that it hasn't trickled down to the employment level yet (or enough). We peaked at just over 10% unemployment in late 2010 and should have rapidly dropped to below 6% within a year after that point. But instead we drifted downward, then stopped and have been lingering at just over 8% for a year now.

And that's... drumroll please... bad for the middle class. It means that there are fewer people in the middle class, and if someone loses their job, it'll be harder for them to get a new one as good as what they had. The combined wealth in the middle class is evaporating as a result of the Obama agenda far far faster than any wealth is taken from "the rich". I guess that why I find it so surprising that they're making this claim (as well as dam arrogant IMO). The Dems have been absolutely terrible to the middle class, and I doubt that most of them are as blinded to this fact as Joph appears to be.


EDIT: Oh. I'm honestly curious (and forgot to ask). What on earth made you think that property values have been in any way buoyed by Democrat economic policies (much less "massively buoyed")?

Edited, Sep 5th 2012 8:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Sep 05 2012 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,251 posts

We peaked at just over 10% unemployment in late 2010 and should have rapidly dropped to below 6% within a year after that point


Wait, that didn't happen? Was JoJo The Employment Unicorn too busy pooping his magical job apples elsewhere? In what fantasy land was there an expectation that unemployment was going to be at 6% in 2011? What a bizarre straw man to measure success against. Seems to strange to be arbitrary, did you read it on some whackjob blog? I'd be fascinated to know the source. Not that unemployment actually ever got 10% in 2010, but that's the least strange thing about it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Sep 05 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,251 posts

Oh. I'm honestly curious (and forgot to ask). What on earth made you think that property values have been in any way buoyed by Democrat economic policies (much less "massively buoyed")?


I don't think it's arguable, really, or a point of contention anywhere, but I'm not going to bother with a debate that starts with you at a point of complete ignorance "suspecting" that data is invalid. The fed holding interest rates at effectively zero and 30 mortgages being at 3.5 or whatever they are at the moment allows someone to buy your house for more than if those rates were tied to, oh I don't know, GOLD or whatever it is you idiots propose most recently would solve the problem of "printing money".

Here's a press release though, you can print it out and argue with it. Or **** on it or whatever saves the world the exquisite torture of you posting about economics.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=junenat2012_scfinal.pdf
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#25 Sep 06 2012 at 6:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But how about instead of rattling off a list of things, just pick one item...

How about no? Aside from pegging my household income lower than it is, I am the head of a...
Quote:
family earning a combined $70k/year, with a home, a mortgage, existing health care from their employer(s), kids in school, soccer practice, scouts, braces, etc
...and I already told you what policies the Democrats advance that make me believe in their stewardship over that of Republicans. You spent last night sputtering and insisting that I don't know how middle class voters think and that's fine. Maybe later you'll tell me that, as a Catholic, I'm deeply outraged over the inclusion of contraception in the health care law or, as a person of Polish descent, I'm in love with Romney for making Poland part of his little foreign policy tour. But it's obvious that you're never, ever going to say "You're right, that policy is better for you" so I'm not interested in doing the dance. If you want to make an argument for why I should vote Republican, knock yourself out. I'm not interested in trying to convince you of the opposite (and am actually happier to have you not associated with my party of choice).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Sep 06 2012 at 7:04 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,674 posts
Smasharoo wrote:


Here's a press release though, you can print it out and argue with it. Or sh*t on it or whatever saves the world the exquisite torture of you posting about economics.
Economics is his strong suit. Smiley: frown


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#27 Sep 06 2012 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,432 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Or sh*t on it or whatever saves the world the exquisite torture of you posting about economics.
Someone has to make the tough choices.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#28 Sep 06 2012 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,564 posts

"Exquisite torture" is a delightful phrase.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#29 Sep 06 2012 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
trickybeck wrote:
"Exquisite torture" is a delightful phrase.


Not one I'd apply to reading a gbaji post, though. 'Chore' or 'slog' would be more appropriate.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#30 Sep 06 2012 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,607 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But neither party is talking about changing tax rates for the "middle class", so I'm not sure how the Dems justify their position.


I thought the Republicans wanted to do away with 1/2 the country not paying Federal Income tax? Or is that not a thing anymore? Because that would raise my tax rate and I'm in the middle 20%...

gbaji wrote:
What programs though? What programs help the middle class? I guess where I'm going with this is that the programs that Dems actually create are aimed at helping people who are economically below the middle class. To the degree that trickle down affects the middle class, the result hurts them, but doesn't help them.


Beats me, I haven't been paying too much attention as of late. Was more referring to stereotypical differences I've noticed over the last several years. Though If you'd like to burn something else I can build another strawman for you, it was kinda fun. Smiley: wink

gbaji wrote:
Even if only some function of their boss's money helps their own financial outlook, they're better off if the government doesn't step in, right?


It probably doesn't do me any good to try and point out exceptions here. Largely though, sure, if a market is operating in a healthy manner, it nice if the government minds it's own business.

gbaji wrote:
Do they think that people in the middle class just can't figure it out or something?


Honestly I think both sides are betting on the middle class not realizing or caring what they are up to.

Edited, Sep 6th 2012 8:04am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#31 Sep 06 2012 at 9:02 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,251 posts

Maybe later you'll tell me that, as a Catholic


To be fair, there's a term for Catholics like you guys who ignore basically all doctrine and hierarchy: Episcopalian
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#32 Sep 06 2012 at 9:02 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,251 posts


Honestly I think both sides are betting on the middle class not realizing or caring what they are up to.


Obviously. People in the middle class are morons by definition or they'd have figured out a way to make more money.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#33 Sep 06 2012 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Maybe later you'll tell me that, as a Catholic

To be fair, there's a term for Catholics like you guys who ignore basically all doctrine and hierarchy: Episcopalian

Pfffttt.... they should make up a term for the ones who get worked up about doctrine and let us in the majority keep "Catholic" Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Sep 06 2012 at 9:45 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,432 posts
If religion has taught me anything, it's that if you really want to prove just how faithful you are to your doctrine, you wear a funny hat.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 Sep 06 2012 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
People in the middle class are morons by definition or they'd have figured out a way to make more money.


Why?

If you're happy with your current situation, and I like to think most middle class people are, why would you work harder than you need to to provide the things that make you happy? I COULD work three jobs, save for a year and use the money as seed money to start a business making more money, but that's a lot of work that ultimately gains me nothing I need and takes me away from the things I enjoy (family etc).

Not to say there aren't morons in the middle class just saying money isn't the only consideration for your average family. I choose to make less money so I can spend more time at home without having to uproot my family. I'm capable of making more money, I'd like to have more money, but I'd be an idiot to choose the path that gets me there not the other way around.

Middle class is comfortable and fulfilling.

(whooooosh and such but I think it's a valid point to expand on)
#36 Sep 06 2012 at 12:04 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,674 posts
Yodabunny wrote:


Middle class is comfortable and fulfilling.



So is meat loaf.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#37 Sep 06 2012 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
It's precisely that lack of creativity that's holding you back.

There are a lot of less horrible ways of making more money.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#38 Sep 06 2012 at 12:22 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,251 posts

I choose to make less money so I can spend more time at home without having to uproot my family. I'm capable of making more money, I'd like to have more money, but I'd be an idiot to choose the path that gets me there not the other way around.


Do both, idiot. This idea that it's a given that you have to choose money or family is exactly the type of moron thinking I'm referring to. Make more money and work less, stupid.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#39 Sep 06 2012 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,607 posts
Elinda wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:


Middle class is comfortable and fulfilling.



So is meat loaf.


Why must we talk about these things before lunch? I'm extra hungry now. Smiley: frown

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#40 Sep 06 2012 at 12:25 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I choose to make less money so I can spend more time at home without having to uproot my family. I'm capable of making more money, I'd like to have more money, but I'd be an idiot to choose the path that gets me there not the other way around.


Do both, idiot. This idea that it's a given that you have to choose money or family is exactly the type of moron thinking I'm referring to. Make more money and work less, stupid.


Except it's not stupid. I enjoy coming home and feeling like I've done a good days work for fair pay. I enjoy being middle class. I enjoy being an average Joe. Why should I change that?
#41 Sep 06 2012 at 12:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm just an average Joe
With an average job
I'm your average white
Suburbanite slob
I like football, porno
Books about war
I've got an average house
With a nice hardwood floor...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Sep 06 2012 at 12:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Elinda wrote:
So is meat loaf.


Middle class people eat meat loaf :).
#43 Sep 06 2012 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm just an average Joe
With an average job
I'm your average white
Suburbanite slob
I like football, porno
Books about war
I've got an average house
With a nice hardwood floor...


/sigh, my hardwood floor isn't very nice..
#44 Sep 06 2012 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
It feels even better to do a good days work and recieve extortionate pay. Or do very little and recieve a sizable income. Just putting that out there.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#45 Sep 06 2012 at 12:32 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,251 posts
Except it's not stupid. I enjoy coming home and feeling like I've done a good days work for fair pay. I enjoy being middle class. I enjoy being an average Joe. Why should I change that?

Why should you work less and make more money? So you can spend more time with your family. So you can provide for them. So you can do things you enjoy in place of work. Why do you hate your family? Play a middle class guy in a Sam Shepherd play or something if you enjoy it so much. Then go spend your fat stacks of cash with your family on Fisher Island.

The whole "working class hero" thing is carefully crafted by people with money to offer you pride in your inadequacy so they don't have to waste money having their hired thugs prevent you from throwing rocks at them or the like. This is America, dummy, and to quote David Mamet, making money is how we measure a person's worth. "This is how we keep score..bubbie"
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 Sep 06 2012 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
******
43,432 posts
Complacency is great for people with ambition. Smiley: inlove
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#47 Sep 06 2012 at 12:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Why should you work less and make more money? So you can spend more time with your family.

Maybe I'm using my job as a plausible excuse to spend less time with my family, smart guy. Didja ever stop to think about that? Smiley: mad


(Kidding!)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Sep 06 2012 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,607 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
This is America, dummy, and to quote David Mamet, making money is how we measure a person's worth. "This is how we keep score..bubbie"


Do we include the value of our benefits package in that? Or just gross income after taxes?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#49 Sep 06 2012 at 12:42 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Nah, I don't buy it.

Lots of people enjoy going to work for their 8-10 hours even if they don't love their job. Most people gain a certain something by not having stacks of cash, something the rich tend to be missing (always exceptions).

Perhaps there's a level of intellectual laziness involved but if people are happy working their 9-5 for average pay then that's the way they should live and I think a lot more people than you realize are quite happy living as middle class families.

Life isn't about money, money is a tool, it's a means to an end, if you've already found your end then all you need is maintenance cash.
#50 Sep 06 2012 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,674 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Nah, I don't buy it.

Lots of people enjoy going to work for their 8-10 hours even if they don't love their job. Most people gain a certain something by not having stacks of cash, something the rich tend to be missing (always exceptions).

Perhaps there's a level of intellectual laziness involved but if people are happy working their 9-5 for average pay then that's the way they should live and I think a lot more people than you realize are quite happy living as middle class families.

Life isn't about money, money is a tool, it's a means to an end, if you've already found your end then all you need is maintenance cash.

Even when I liked my job I didn't usually want to come to work. It's not that it's more or less enjoyable than what I might be doing while not working. It just takes all the fun out of work when others insist you attend the 8-5 workday.

What if I'd rather wash my hair at 10am?

That said, I'm sort of on maintenance mode at this point. At my age I've given up on being president or queen. I no longer dream of mapping the rock formations of the world's highest and most remote peaks. I don't feel like running a marathon anymore so no need to keep up on that.

I would still like to go to space. Money could actually make that possible in the near future.....send me money plz

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#51 Sep 06 2012 at 12:54 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,251 posts

Perhaps there's a level of intellectual laziness involved but if people are happy working their 9-5 for average pay then that's the way they should live and I think a lot more people than you realize are quite happy living as middle class families.

Life isn't about money, money is a tool, it's a means to an end, if you've already found your end then all you need is maintenance cash.


You know who thinks that way? People without money.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 33 All times are in CDT
Bijou, klausneck, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (30)