Split Rs vs Ds And The Middle Class - split from RFK -D ???

[laughing dog]

But how is Trump going to jail relevant to an individual's personal freedom and/or liberty?

It sends a clear message to any future potential insurrectionist or politician who refuses to honor the election results that they will not succeed and end in disgrace and prison. Which may deter such actions in the future, thereby reducing the probability that an authoritarian will usurp personal liberties in the future.

 

[southernhybrid]

There was a time and not that long ago that the Democrat party was more focused on the needs of individuals and working class than powerful pharmaceutical monopolies. Especially poor individuals who had no way to discern what large corporations were really up to.

Your side of the political fence doesn't give a company fuck about the needs of the working class. They never have.

Yes, I agree. But where does the middle class go when the leadership of the Democrat party calls them deplorable and spews hate towards them. At least the Republicans are willing to let them sit at their table.....they aren't feeding them yet but they aren't calling them names and belittling them either.

Hillary Clinton is a lot of things but she was not dumb with polling. She knew the middle class is no longer a majority (since 2015) so they can all go and eat shit for what she cared about. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/10/middle-class-americans-no-longer-majority.html

Today the Democrats represent the ultra rich, the ultra poor, and the non US citizens of Latin America. The Republicans represent the ultra rich and the other people (rich or poor) who still want personal freedom. Its not the perfect fit for what used to be the middle class...but its the only place they can go.

While I disagree with almost everything you've said, that last part about Republicans wanting to protect personal freedom, is one big piece of misinformation that I hope you will think about. The Republican Party is telling teachers what they can't say or teach. A teacher in Georgia might be fired for reading a book to her class that hinted at identifying as nonbinary. They are being told they can't say gay or help their students who might be gay or questioning their sexual orientation or gender etc. that they must act as if they don't exist. The Republican Party, or at least most of them are trying to make it harder for gay people to have the same civil rights as the rest of us. Some in Florida are even telling teachers that they must teach that there were benefits to slavery. They have taken away a woman's reproductive freedom, when it comes to abortion and some want to go so far as to limit or make other forms of contraceptive drugs and devices illegal. So much for personal freedom. Just what examples of personal freedom are the Democrats trying to take away from American citizens? Oh wait! Could it be about guns? Most people, regardless of party would like to see stronger gun control regulations, but the Republicans are so controlled by the NRA, that they don't even want to make it difficult for people who suffer from mental illnesses or who have a history of domestic abuse to have any difficult to legally own guns. Is that what you mean by freedom? Hopefully, you get the point.

The Republican Party has been pretending that the insurrection on the capital was just a bunch of tourists who got a little bit carried away. They didn't feel that way the day they were literally under attack. The Republican Party has become the part of fascism. It's nothing like it was when I was a young child and Ike was president. I think he'd be disgusted if he knew what happened to his party.

Of course, the Democratic Party isn't perfect. No one and no organization is perfect, but the Democratic Party has always been a big tent party with lots of different views, which can make it hard to always get things done. I'll take that over a party that would like to damage or destroy programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the environment etc. At least the Dems are trying to make things better.

And, btw, I'm old and Biden has accomplished more than just about any president in my lifetime, despite the overwhelming opposition, his age, the lies told about him etc. What do you think of Republicans in Congress who voted against his infrastructure bill, but then went back home to brag about how much money the state will be getting from the very bill they opposed?

Other than giving tax breaks to the wealthy, what exactly did Trump do that was so great. He didn't even get his stupid wall finished, not that it would have kept out the immigrants that he and his party hate so much.

 

[BH]

Whatever comes out about Trump in his trial, the fact that people are talking about a dictator and overthrowing the government on the news and social media makes me infer there are people probably in high places and/or with great wealth that want to see it happen. There are probably lots of people in the middle income and poor that would welcome it because they think foolishly they will benefit somehow, will get a chance to hurt people, or have an attitude of "if I can't get what I won't out of life then others won't". This is scary. I talk to people. Many are full of spite and have a f-ck all attitude about others because they feel life jipped them.

I always knew all theories of government and governance beg the question and to a large degree are a facade but the idea of the US having a dictatorship is scary for us in it and the rest of the world. If the US goes to a dictatorship it will do bad things to many here and there will be no World War Two like scenario where a bunch of other countries attack us like Germany and Italy and throw our governments out of power.

 

[Elixir]

This failure to comprehend the very system upon which they depend for their ongoing comfort and safety is the hallmark of the modern Republican Party, and is the reason why the guy they are most likely to put up as their candidate for President is a guy who has committed the most severe possible federal crimes, and who firmly believes that those crimes were completely justified because they benefited him personally.

Spot on. The example of “I’m right, godly and powerful, and I’ll go after anyone who says otherwise” used to be the laughable stereotype of the high school bully grown up to be a loser. In my mind it still is. So it’s pretty vexing to see half the Republican electorate adopt that façade.
Right now I think Republicans would lose an presidential election in a landslide, and it should get worse and worse for them as things go along. Problem that I see is that Trump is already preparing for another insurrection.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, your claim about the portion of the US adult population who belong to the middle class is simply incorrect. They held a slight majority as late as 2020 and are now 50% of the population. They ‘ lost’ about equally to the upper and the lower class, with a slightly larger number moving to the upper class.

The problem with this is that the "middle" class is simply what you define as the middle--there's no actual dividing line, you can pick whatever definition you want to get the answer you want.

The reality is that income has spread out more--high skill pays a lot more of a premium than it used to. If you define "middle" in percentages from a midpoint it's shrinking--but going to both upper and lower.

You are probably too young to realize this but most of the lower class enjoys a much better standard of living than they did 50 years ago, who in turn, enjoyed a much better standard of living than they did during the Great Depression and previously. This is due to both the investment in the social safety net and also technological advances.

Yup, what's actually happening is that a "middle class" lifestyle is moving down the income ladder and has been doing so for a long time. What people in the "middle class" now have would have been in most respects upper class not too long ago.

 

[Toni]

Well, your claim about the portion of the US adult population who belong to the middle class is simply incorrect. They held a slight majority as late as 2020 and are now 50% of the population. They ‘ lost’ about equally to the upper and the lower class, with a slightly larger number moving to the upper class.

The problem with this is that the "middle" class is simply what you define as the middle--there's no actual dividing line, you can pick whatever definition you want to get the answer you want.

The reality is that income has spread out more--high skill pays a lot more of a premium than it used to. If you define "middle" in percentages from a midpoint it's shrinking--but going to both upper and lower.

You are probably too young to realize this but most of the lower class enjoys a much better standard of living than they did 50 years ago, who in turn, enjoyed a much better standard of living than they did during the Great Depression and previously. This is due to both the investment in the social safety net and also technological advances.

Yup, what's actually happening is that a "middle class" lifestyle is moving down the income ladder and has been doing so for a long time. What people in the "middle class" now have would have been in most respects upper class not too long ago.

The problem with this post you just made, and many others is that you like to assert that some point is ‘the problem.’ The other problem with your post is your unwillingness to read links or to acknowledge that the ‘points’ you think you are making have actually been explained in the link.

The problem with your posts is that you somehow feel you are qualified to mansplain to me when in fact you are too lazy to actually read. Middle class is defined in the link. It may or may not align with your personal opinion of what middle class means but I honestly don’t care about your personal definitions, at least until you have the good grace to identify them as personal definitions.

The parameters are defined.

 

[bilby]

The American use of the phrase "middle class" to mean "middle income" is very confusing.

"Middle class" was originally defined by what it was not: There was the aristocracy, who were in charge of other people's lives, owned land, and employed (or owned) people to work that land, who made plans and decisions on behalf of, or dictating the behaviours of, other people; And then there was the working class, who did the physical labour, growing crops, tending livestock, weaving, building, digging ditches, etc.

If you were not in either class; If you employed nobody other than a handful of personal servants (employees who cost you money, but didn't make you money); And yet you didn't have to do physical labour in order to survive and even prosper, then you were in between the lords and the labourers; Between the Upper Class and the Working Class - ie you were of the Middle Class.

Which class a person belongs to is not determined by his income, but by his means of obtaining that income.

The American debate about who is "middle class" seems to be more about dividing the middle class itself, into parts based on income. America's aristocratic class is small and tends (since the War of Independence) to be fairly shy, preferring to pretend, as far as possible, to be middle class; While her working class is, today, mostly either Mexican or black, with the few exceptions being, again, keen to pretend that they too are middle class (despite having calloused hands, and dirt under their fingernails).

The middle class in America today is almost everyone in America today. And not just in America; Most OECD nations are completely dominated (in population terms) by their middle classes. Labourers are scarce, and aristocrats even more so.

So, it certainly makes a lot of sense to discuss social strata within the middle class, in terms of income (albeit with the ongoing necessity to define what criteria are employed, and to read the definitions that are provided). But it's horribly confusing to say "middle class", when what you mean is "middle income". These are not synonymous.

 

[ZiprHead]

I guess this is what upper middle class meant fifty years ago.

 

[pood]

brings up possible issues regarding possible sub standard vaccines b

He didn't just bring up "possible issues" he made specific claims of deliberate harm, spread unfounded conspiracy theories, and has been anti-vax since well before covid. He isn't doing anything good for the needs of individuals or the working man by grifting off of deliberate medical disinformation.

That is what the corporate sponsored media will tell you.

No, that’s what peer-reviewed, well tested science will tell you.

 

[Toni]

The American use of the phrase "middle class" to mean "middle income" is very confusing.

"Middle class" was originally defined by what it was not: There was the aristocracy, who were in charge of other people's lives, owned land, and employed (or owned) people to work that land, who made plans and decisions on behalf of, or dictating the behaviours of, other people; And then there was the working class, who did the physical labour, growing crops, tending livestock, weaving, building, digging ditches, etc.

If you were not in either class; If you employed nobody other than a handful of personal servants (employees who cost you money, but didn't make you money); And yet you didn't have to do physical labour in order to survive and even prosper, then you were in between the lords and the labourers; Between the Upper Class and the Working Class - ie you were of the Middle Class.

Which class a person belongs to is not determined by his income, but by his means of obtaining that income.

The American debate about who is "middle class" seems to be more about dividing the middle class itself, into parts based on income. America's aristocratic class is small and tends (since the War of Independence) to be fairly shy, preferring to pretend, as far as possible, to be middle class; While her working class is, today, mostly either Mexican or black, with the few exceptions being, again, keen to pretend that they too are middle class (despite having calloused hands, and dirt under their fingernails).

The middle class in America today is almost everyone in America today. And not just in America; Most OECD nations are completely dominated (in population terms) by their middle classes. Labourers are scarce, and aristocrats even more so.

So, it certainly makes a lot of sense to discuss social strata within the middle class, in terms of income (albeit with the ongoing necessity to define what criteria are employed, and to read the definitions that are provided). But it's horribly confusing to say "middle class", when what you mean is "middle income". These are not synonymous.

Y

Here's how much money it takes to be considered middle class in 20 major U.S. cities

There are countless definitions of "middle class." See which incomes qualify as middle class in the largest U.S. metros based on one calculation.

www.cnbc.com

Pew defines “middle class” as those earning between two-thirds and twice the median American household income, which in 2021 was $70,784, according to the United States Census Bureau. That means American households earning as little as $47,189 and up to $141,568 are technically in the middle class.

You have a point in that there is a difference between median income and middle class and the fact that middle class is often used to refer to a certain set of values, professions, attitudes, educational levels, etc. in popular conversation. Personally, I've known people who could barely afford to keep their utilities turned on in their home, regularly worried about making their mortgage or rent payment and generally lived an extremely modest life while working 2+ jobs describe themselves as middle class in our relatively low cost town. I've heard a family member (by marriage) whose main family income was from inherited wealth, whose offspring attended all Ivy League schools and prior to that, exclusive private schools and had a nanny before preschool, and who maintained a NYC apartment and a small (perhaps 15 acres) parcel of land with the owner's custom home, the care taker's home (original farmhouse) and a small cottage as well as an inground pool describe themselves as being 'poor.' No irony intended. OTOH, my family (2 adults plus 3 children at the time) at one point lived in a 3 room rented house, none of those rooms being an indoor bathroom and talking with my siblings, none of us ever considered ourselves poor at any point in our lives, including the year I did not necessarily have enough money to eat every day. In my town, which is at once a college town AND a working class town, the public schools struggled to convince parents to apply for free/reduced cost lunch because the schools could receive extra funding based on the percentage of students qualified for free/reduced school lunch. The parents did not consider themselves poor but middle class, even if it took working 3-4 jobs between the parents and struggling to pay bills and keep the utilities turned on. My observation is that nearly everybody considers themselves 'average.' And honestly, most people think that whatever they grew up with was 'normal' or 'average.' Even when it clearly is not.

 

[RVonse]

The American use of the phrase "middle class" to mean "middle income" is very confusing.

"Middle class" was originally defined by what it was not: There was the aristocracy, who were in charge of other people's lives, owned land, and employed (or owned) people to work that land, who made plans and decisions on behalf of, or dictating the behaviours of, other people; And then there was the working class, who did the physical labour, growing crops, tending livestock, weaving, building, digging ditches, etc.

If you were not in either class; If you employed nobody other than a handful of personal servants (employees who cost you money, but didn't make you money); And yet you didn't have to do physical labour in order to survive and even prosper, then you were in between the lords and the labourers; Between the Upper Class and the Working Class - ie you were of the Middle Class.

Which class a person belongs to is not determined by his income, but by his means of obtaining that income.

The American debate about who is "middle class" seems to be more about dividing the middle class itself, into parts based on income. America's aristocratic class is small and tends (since the War of Independence) to be fairly shy, preferring to pretend, as far as possible, to be middle class; While her working class is, today, mostly either Mexican or black, with the few exceptions being, again, keen to pretend that they too are middle class (despite having calloused hands, and dirt under their fingernails).

The middle class in America today is almost everyone in America today. And not just in America; Most OECD nations are completely dominated (in population terms) by their middle classes. Labourers are scarce, and aristocrats even more so.

So, it certainly makes a lot of sense to discuss social strata within the middle class, in terms of income (albeit with the ongoing necessity to define what criteria are employed, and to read the definitions that are provided). But it's horribly confusing to say "middle class", when what you mean is "middle income". These are not synonymous.

Just to make it more simple and relevant for present times.

A. If you are wealthy and able to donate large sums of money at a candidate or political party....you are ultra rich (bourgeoisie)
B. If you can gainfully support yourself yet not have the ability to donate large money to politics.....you are middle class (proletariat)
C. If you must live off a check from the government or charity to get by or living on the street....you are ultra poor

 

[bilby]

The American use of the phrase "middle class" to mean "middle income" is very confusing.

"Middle class" was originally defined by what it was not: There was the aristocracy, who were in charge of other people's lives, owned land, and employed (or owned) people to work that land, who made plans and decisions on behalf of, or dictating the behaviours of, other people; And then there was the working class, who did the physical labour, growing crops, tending livestock, weaving, building, digging ditches, etc.

If you were not in either class; If you employed nobody other than a handful of personal servants (employees who cost you money, but didn't make you money); And yet you didn't have to do physical labour in order to survive and even prosper, then you were in between the lords and the labourers; Between the Upper Class and the Working Class - ie you were of the Middle Class.

Which class a person belongs to is not determined by his income, but by his means of obtaining that income.

The American debate about who is "middle class" seems to be more about dividing the middle class itself, into parts based on income. America's aristocratic class is small and tends (since the War of Independence) to be fairly shy, preferring to pretend, as far as possible, to be middle class; While her working class is, today, mostly either Mexican or black, with the few exceptions being, again, keen to pretend that they too are middle class (despite having calloused hands, and dirt under their fingernails).

The middle class in America today is almost everyone in America today. And not just in America; Most OECD nations are completely dominated (in population terms) by their middle classes. Labourers are scarce, and aristocrats even more so.

So, it certainly makes a lot of sense to discuss social strata within the middle class, in terms of income (albeit with the ongoing necessity to define what criteria are employed, and to read the definitions that are provided). But it's horribly confusing to say "middle class", when what you mean is "middle income". These are not synonymous.

Just to make it more simple and relevant for present times.

A. If you are wealthy and able to donate large sums of money at a candidate or political party....you are ultra rich (bourgeoisie)
B. If you can gainfully support yourself yet not have the ability to donate large money to politics.....you are middle class income (proletariat)
C. If you must live off a check from the government or charity to get by or living on the street....you are ultra poor

FTFY.

Class has very little to do with money.

Donald Trump fills his homes with gilded tat; He has zero class, and thinks that splashing cash around makes him upper class. The entire upper class disagrees wholeheartedly with his position; He couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Toni]

The American use of the phrase "middle class" to mean "middle income" is very confusing.

"Middle class" was originally defined by what it was not: There was the aristocracy, who were in charge of other people's lives, owned land, and employed (or owned) people to work that land, who made plans and decisions on behalf of, or dictating the behaviours of, other people; And then there was the working class, who did the physical labour, growing crops, tending livestock, weaving, building, digging ditches, etc.

If you were not in either class; If you employed nobody other than a handful of personal servants (employees who cost you money, but didn't make you money); And yet you didn't have to do physical labour in order to survive and even prosper, then you were in between the lords and the labourers; Between the Upper Class and the Working Class - ie you were of the Middle Class.

Which class a person belongs to is not determined by his income, but by his means of obtaining that income.

The American debate about who is "middle class" seems to be more about dividing the middle class itself, into parts based on income. America's aristocratic class is small and tends (since the War of Independence) to be fairly shy, preferring to pretend, as far as possible, to be middle class; While her working class is, today, mostly either Mexican or black, with the few exceptions being, again, keen to pretend that they too are middle class (despite having calloused hands, and dirt under their fingernails).

The middle class in America today is almost everyone in America today. And not just in America; Most OECD nations are completely dominated (in population terms) by their middle classes. Labourers are scarce, and aristocrats even more so.

So, it certainly makes a lot of sense to discuss social strata within the middle class, in terms of income (albeit with the ongoing necessity to define what criteria are employed, and to read the definitions that are provided). But it's horribly confusing to say "middle class", when what you mean is "middle income". These are not synonymous.

Just to make it more simple and relevant for present times.

A. If you are wealthy and able to donate large sums of money at a candidate or political party....you are ultra rich (bourgeoisie)
B. If you can gainfully support yourself yet not have the ability to donate large money to politics.....you are middle class (proletariat)
C. If you must live off a check from the government or charity to get by or living on the street....you are ultra poor

You don’t know what bourgeoise means. You also fail to define what you mean by ‘large sums’ of money. In my community, it is generally considered to be that $50 is the usual political donation.

 

[TomC]

At least 30 years ago, probably 40, somebody gave me a comeuppance I've never forgotten.

I said something about the American middle class getting squeezed or something. She said, "Ya know Tom, here in America our poverty line would be very rich for most people. Here, people think that they're poor if their car is really old. Most people don't even know anyone rich enough to own a private car."
Something like that.
Tom

 

[bilby]

At least 30 years ago, probably 40, somebody gave me a comeuppance I've never forgotten.

I said something about the American middle class getting squeezed or something. She said, "Ya know Tom, here in America our poverty line would be very rich for most people. Here, people think that they're poor if their car is really old. Most people don't even know anyone rich enough to own a private car."
Something like that.
Tom

I believe it's Hans Rosling who divides the world up into wealth categories based on their transportation, with each category aspiring to, and occasionally managing to obtain on special occasions, the category above the one they usually belong to.

The most numerous category are those who walk, but aspire to own a bicycle (the poor); Then come those who own a bicycle, who aspire to own a motor vehicle (the middle); Then those who own a motor vehicle, who aspire to travel on an airplane (the rich).

There are two further categories: At the lowest end are those who go barefoot, and aspire to own shoes (the destitute); And at the opposite end are those who own (or routinely travel on) a privately owned airplane (the ultra rich).

The US population are almost all in the fourth of these five categories (rich); they own cars, and aspire to become (frequent) fliers. And many are at the top of that class, in that they get to fly places on a fairly regular basis, while falling short of being ultra rich.

 

[Patooka]

ust to make it more simple and relevant for present times.

A. If you are wealthy and able to donate large sums of money at a candidate or political party....you are ultra rich (bourgeoisie)
B. If you can gainfully support yourself yet not have the ability to donate large money to politics.....you are middle class (proletariat)
C. If you must live off a check from the government or charity to get by or living on the street....you are ultra poor

You openly advocate the idea of living in a nation that has 1% of its population in group A and the rest in group C. Why the fuck should anyone care about what you think about the middle class when you are a cheerleader for its elimination?

 

[blastula]

Even now you don't know this. Because even now, after the pandemic is over with we actually do not have any valid data with regards showing how un-vaccinated populations did against the vaccinated ones. I'm guessing the Amish (who were not vaccinated) had far fewer deaths than anyone else.

You didn't come up with this Amish "guess" on your own, it's popular antivax dogma, but it's a stupid myth/lie.

Pathways to Immunity: Patterns of Excess Death Across the United States and Within Closed Religious Communities

Public health officials promoted COVID-19 vaccines to limit burdens placed on the U.S. healthcare system and end the pandemic. People in some closed religious communities refused to vaccinate and likely acquired temporary immunity through infection. This ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population was immunized against COVID-19, while few in the Amish/Mennonite community were. We find divergent patterns. Once vaccines became available, excess deaths declined in the general population and remained elevated among Amish and Mennonites.

 

[TomC]

I believe it's Hans Rosling who divides the world up into wealth categories based on their transportation, with each category aspiring to, and occasionally managing to obtain on special occasions, the category above the one they usually belong to.

I don't recall ever hearing about Mr Rosling.
What I'm certain of is that the local woman I was chatting with wasn't talking about transportation. We were talking about global wealth disparity.

Probably in the context of "poor" American people and "poor" Haitians. Although the conversation was decades ago and I don't remember the details. But it remains with me. It seriously impacts my opinions about poor Mexicans, Congolese, Indians, Chinese...
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

You didn't come up with this Amish "guess" on your own, it's popular antivax dogma, but it's a stupid myth/lie.

I think it's obvious that RVonse is getting his info/talking points from right-wing rags that continually lie to him. Then he brings the lies here, they get disproven, he gets humiliated. The real question is, why does he keep going back for more lies? Is it because he wants to believe them more than he wants the truth?

 

[Toni]

I believe it's Hans Rosling who divides the world up into wealth categories based on their transportation, with each category aspiring to, and occasionally managing to obtain on special occasions, the category above the one they usually belong to.

I don't recall ever hearing about Mr Rosling.
What I'm certain of is that the local woman I was chatting with wasn't talking about transportation. We were talking about global wealth disparity.

Probably in the context of "poor" American people and "poor" Haitians. Although the conversation was decades ago and I don't remember the details. But it remains with me. It seriously impacts my opinions about poor Mexicans, Congolese, Indians, Chinese...
Tom

But what's your point, exactly? I'm pretty certain that it is almost universally agreed that the poor in the US and most western developed nations enjoy a standard of living well above that found in the rest of the world.

That does not negate the fact that in the US and other countries, there is a socioeconomic based class system that divides people into categories based largely upon annual income.