CDZ Civil War?

[Dragonlady]

Citizens United gave the corporations WAY more power than it gave to the unions because it allowed for the creation of PAC's. It allows people like George Soros, Sheldon Edelson, the Koch Bros. to spend $50 million on elections, to fund efforts for gerrymandering. The Koch Bros. funded the Tea Party once they saw it's potential to promote their no taxes, no social programs agenda.

If you question their influence, consider this: Since the Citizen's United decision, the House and Senate have been controlled by the Republican Party, even though Repulicans have consistently lost the popular vote in the House. I'm sure right wingers will have no problem with any of this but even the right wing Supreme Court knew it had gone too far.

In theory, it does benefit the unions, except there are far fewer unions than corporations, few of the private sector unions have big piles of cash to donate or to create PAC's. Most corporations, banks, and brokerage firms donate to both parties to hedge their bets, but privately encourage their employees to vote Republican.

I highly doubt the gains made in Congress since Citizens has anything to do with that ruling. IMHO the Democrats stopped listening to pretty much everyone else except the far left and it caught up with them. Passing the unpopular ACA didn't help either. You can blame Citizens if you want too, but correlation does not prove causation.

You're absolutely correct, correlation does not prove causation, and I can think of a number of other factors at play that also factored into the results. After Republicans lost the White House in 2008, they went on an absolute media campaign against the Obama Administration.

Although they seldom appeared on the Sunday morning TV shows while W was President (why set yourself up to have to defend W's policies on network TV?), once Obama was sworn in, they were everywhere on the networks criticizing the President and his attempts to stem the bleeding. Even though Obama held the House and Senate, Republicans were 70% of the guests on the network and public network Sunday morning political broadcasts. That's a LOT of free airtime, which Republicans used very effectively to sell the idea that Obama's policies were the wrong way to go.

In my opinion, you fuck up the economy that bad, you've got a lot of damn gall to criticize the guy whose cleaning up your mess, especially when your solution is more of the cut and spend policies that got us all into this mess in the first place. I don't even want to hear from you until you come back with some new ideas, because this cut taxes and spend shit doesn't work. It didn't work for Reagan (stock market crashed in 1987, 6% unemployment rate), and it sure as hell didn't work under W (world economic meltdown, 2008, 10% unemployment rate).

First of all, let's not presume that because the big recession hit when W was in office that it was all his fault. It wasn't his policies that were responsible or even contributed to that economic catastrophe, certainly not the 2003 tax cuts. He had a recession to deal with in his 1st year too, and then 9/11 hit. Had we not gone to war in response to that (which BTW many Dems supported at the time), maybe his administration would have been more successful economically speaking. Certainly the years from 2003-2007 leading up to the recession were pretty damn good, so maybe those tax cuts were on the whole a positive influence.

As far as Reagan's tax cuts are concerned, the US enjoyed a lengthy period of economic success for 20 some years after they went into effect. To say they didn't work is a load of crap. And then there's Obama, who's record of sub-par economic growth during his 8 years are the worst since WWII. And the only reason it was even that good was because of the boom in fracking, which he opposed. He spent money like it was water but the only people who benefited were the richest people; everyone else barely treaded water.

The Reagan tax cuts appeared to usher in a period of properity but only because the were accompanied by an immediate increase in military spending and a big arms build-up, all funded with borrowed money. When the deficit doubled, unemployment hit 6% and the stock market crashed, Reagan decided that maybe the tax cuts weren't such a good idea, and he raised taxes substantially.

Look at the economic numbers.

• Up uptil 1980, wages kept pace with inflation - afterward 1880 working class wages stagnated
• Up until 1980, the working class had savings. After 1980, those savings started to erode
• Similarly, middle class savings and wages started to erode after 1980
• The transfer of the wealth to the top 5% began in 1980.

In 1987 the stock market had it's biggest crash since the Great Depression - 6 years after Reagan cut taxes and deregulated businesses. 8 years after Bush cut taxes and deregulated businesses, there was an even bigger market crash.

The second market crash was much harder on the US economy because of the steady erosion of savings which was the result of 30 years of wage stagnation. People cut back on luxuries, took second jobs. But the working class has exhausted its savings, and maxxed out its credit cards, and has been living paycheck to paycheck for quite some time. The middle class hasn't been thoroughly drained yet, but it's getting far too close.

 

[usmbguest5318]

• Up until 1980, the working class had savings. After 1980, those savings started to erode

• Similarly, middle class savings and wages started to erode after 1980

How are those two things different in your mind? To me they seem not similar, but identical.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The Reagan tax cuts appeared to usher in a period of properity but only because the were accompanied by an immediate increase in military spending and a big arms build-up, all funded with borrowed money. When the deficit doubled, unemployment hit 6% and the stock market crashed, Reagan decided that maybe the tax cuts weren't such a good idea, and he raised taxes substantially.

Look at the economic numbers.

• Up uptil 1980, wages kept pace with inflation - afterward 1880 working class wages stagnated
• Up until 1980, the working class had savings. After 1980, those savings started to erode
• Similarly, middle class savings and wages started to erode after 1980
• The transfer of the wealth to the top 5% began in 1980.

In 1987 the stock market had it's biggest crash since the Great Depression - 6 years after Reagan cut taxes and deregulated businesses. 8 years after Bush cut taxes and deregulated businesses, there was an even bigger market crash.

The second market crash was much harder on the US economy because of the steady erosion of savings which was the result of 30 years of wage stagnation. People cut back on luxuries, took second jobs. But the working class has exhausted its savings, and maxxed out its credit cards, and has been living paycheck to paycheck for quite some time. The middle class hasn't been thoroughly drained yet, but it's getting far too close.

One thing I'd add to the narrative above is that while government policies have had an impact on the lifestyles of the middle class, the middle class itself needs to bear the burden of its present situation.

• Reagan, nor any other president, could have gotten elected were it not for the votes of the middle class.
• The Congresses that legislated the policies that led to the events you described also were elected, and re-sent time and time again to the Capitol, primarily by the votes of the middle class.
• Members of the middle class, and they alone, are responsible for failing, as a class, to exercise good financial judgment and overextending themselves and preferring to have "X" now, rather than have something less dear than X now and have money in the bank.
• Members of the working class need to be held accountable for their insistence on doing "whatever it is they do for a living" and not having developed the skills needed to do something that is more remunerative. I'm not saying they shouldn't do whatever they prefer to do for a living. I'm saying that in choosing to do it, it's incumbent on them to recognize that work isn't highly compensated and accept that fact rather than complain that it isn't and blame others because it isn't and for their wage dissatisfaction/dismay. Nobody forces any American citizen to pursue a low wage career.

 

[Divine Wind]

• Up until 1980, the working class had savings. After 1980, those savings started to erode

• Similarly, middle class savings and wages started to erode after 1980

How are those two things different in your mind? To me they seem not similar, but identical.

IMHO, Working class meaning blue collar workers and "middle class" white collar workers. Nowadays, blue collar workers often make close to what white collar workers make, but that doesn't mean they caught up. It means the white collar worker's income has fallen as the Middle Class was eroded in our nation.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Why do republicans feel that democrats are conspiring against them and all-but declaring war on them.

This is an honest question, I'm trying to get a perspective of the mindset.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

You obviously do not feel that Democrats feel the same way about Republicans, so any "discussion" would be pointless. Until you recognize that this "feeling" is a two way street, a game played by two, you will never find perspective.


I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

I recognize that it is both ways, but republicans just seem to voice it more, from what I have personally seen. I am a democrat, but I try to stay as neutral as possible and base my ideals on my own judgement.

I personally believe both sides are being "brainwashed," so to speak, to hate the other side.

Republicans are too intelligent to succumb to brainwashing tactics but one can purchase a Democrat Brainwashing Kit at any Walgreens.

​

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Where does this hatred come from? I've not said anything to offend anyone, but the fact that I have a different opinion immediately makes every republican hate me. As if my very existance were insulting to them.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The Democrats have been in office and control of the country for the majority of the time. During this time spending on Progressive ideas and projects have been out of control and for reason that are just plain stupid. Taxes raised during this time are in record area. The have tried to limit the freedoms and right of the citizens and cause many people to lose jobs, houses and marrages. The have tried to take away the freedom of the internet freedom of speech. The list is very long. Therefore many conservatives have just had to stand up and say NO to the rape of the Consitution. I am not a republican but I vote "for the Man".

 

[Dan Stubbs]

It seems to me that our reps in DC have beaten down the middle class to the point that they are not in the position of living pretty well off. It been done by Both parties and it up to us to pick them out of the lineup and vote them into retirement.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Where does this hatred come from? I've not said anything to offend anyone, but the fact that I have a different opinion immediately makes every republican hate me. As if my very existance were insulting to them.

............................

 

[usmbguest5318]

• Up until 1980, the working class had savings. After 1980, those savings started to erode

• Similarly, middle class savings and wages started to erode after 1980

How are those two things different in your mind? To me they seem not similar, but identical.

IMHO, Working class meaning blue collar workers and "middle class" white collar workers. Nowadays, blue collar workers often make close to what white collar workers make, but that doesn't mean they caught up. It means the white collar worker's income has fallen as the Middle Class was eroded in our nation.

Dan Stubb, what had you in mind to say in post 129? There's nothing showing there.

 

[Divine Wind]

IMHO, Working class meaning blue collar workers and "middle class" white collar workers. Nowadays, blue collar workers often make close to what white collar workers make, but that doesn't mean they caught up. It means the white collar worker's income has fallen as the Middle Class was eroded in our nation.

It seems to me that our reps in DC have beaten down the middle class to the point that they are not in the position of living pretty well off. It been done by Both parties and it up to us to pick them out of the lineup and vote them into retirement.

Agreed on both points. Who is fighting for the Middle Class? Both major parties claim they do, but in reality, neither does.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Well hate is something I have never really felt, I strongly dislike those people who can not disuss a subject without gettig personal. When that happens I just walk away. I my way of handling the problem. Someone who displays that attitude has already lost the debate.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

What makes you believe that, because from what I've seen, republicans are taking a counteroffensive against a non-existant enemy. The two parties are supposed to work together and compromise to find what's best for the american people

They really got totally upset when a brown skinned family moved into the Whitehouse.
.

If you believe that then here's no hope for you.

I still remember the reaching across the isle that the Demos always talked about the real meaing was WE GOT OUR WAY

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Democrats have been in office and control of the country for the majority of the time. During this time spending on Progressive ideas and projects have been out of control and for reason that are just plain stupid. Taxes raised during this time are in record area. The have tried to limit the freedoms and right of the citizens and cause many people to lose jobs, houses and marrages. The have tried to take away the freedom of the internet freedom of speech. The list is very long. Therefore many conservatives have just had to stand up and say NO to the rape of the Consitution. I am not a republican but I vote "for the Man".

Stop your unmanly boo hoo. The budget is 1 trillion plus, a tax cut for the rich funded on a deficit card. The Pubs did this, Dan.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It seems to me that our reps in DC have beaten down the middle class to the point that they are not in the position of living pretty well off. It been done by Both parties and it up to us to pick them out of the lineup and vote them into retirement.

It seems to me that our reps in DC have beaten down the middle class to the point that they are not in the position of living pretty well off.

It seems to me that more people in the middle class have moved into the upper middle or upper income segments of our society than have moved to the lower income segment.

• The Growing Size and Incomes of the Upper Middle Class
  
• America's upper middle class is thriving
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• "While the share of U.S. adults living in both upper- and lower-income households rose alongside the declining share in the middle from 1971 to 2015, the share in the upper-income tier grew more."
  
  
  

While it may be that the shrinkage of the population who are squarely in the middle income group has decreased, I'm not of a mind to be terribly concerned about it when the fact is that most of those people who no longer are middle income are not "squarely in the middle" because they are financially/economically better off:

• The middle class went from being 62% of the population to 43% of it. That's a 19% drop.
• The lower income segment went from being 10% to 9%. That's a 1% drop.
• The upper income group went from being 29% of the population to 49% of the population. That's a 20% increase. It's not hard to see where it came from. 19% came from the middle class and 1% from the lower income segment of society.

What is so terrible about that? In my mind, not much. What would people griping about the demise of the middle class prefer? That more people remain middle income rather than become upper income?

P.S./Edit:
One anecdotal indicator of the fact that the nation is better off: when greedy people in fact have sufficient amounts of money, they "bitch and moan" more about all sorts of things, and the "bitching and moaning" quotient in the U.S. has definitely increased over the years. Why does it work out that way? Because one can spend one's resources complaining instead of going to work to earn the/more/enough money to put food on the table and roof over one's head.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The only "Civil War" happening anytime soon will be LEOs and Americans against Antifa.


LEOs and Americans will win. This isn't Europe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only "Civil War" happening anytime soon will be LEOs and Americans against Antifa. LEOs and Americans will win. This isn't Europe.

No problem. Crush antif lefties and righties right and left.

 

[Dragonlady]

It seems to me that our reps in DC have beaten down the middle class to the point that they are not in the position of living pretty well off. It been done by Both parties and it up to us to pick them out of the lineup and vote them into retirement.

It seems to me that our reps in DC have beaten down the middle class to the point that they are not in the position of living pretty well off.

It seems to me that more people in the middle class have moved into the upper middle or upper income segments of our society than have moved to the lower income segment.

• The Growing Size and Incomes of the Upper Middle Class
  
• America's upper middle class is thriving
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• "While the share of U.S. adults living in both upper- and lower-income households rose alongside the declining share in the middle from 1971 to 2015, the share in the upper-income tier grew more."
  
  
  

While it may be that the shrinkage of the population who are squarely in the middle income group has decreased, I'm not of a mind to be terribly concerned about it when the fact is that most of those people who no longer are middle income are not "squarely in the middle" because they are financially/economically better off:

• The middle class went from being 62% of the population to 43% of it. That's a 19% drop.
• The lower income segment went from being 10% to 9%. That's a 1% drop.
• The upper income group went from being 29% of the population to 49% of the population. That's a 20% increase. It's not hard to see where it came from. 19% came from the middle class and 1% from the lower income segment of society.

What is so terrible about that? In my mind, not much. What would people griping about the demise of the middle class prefer? That more people remain middle income rather than become upper income?

P.S./Edit:
One anecdotal indicator of the fact that the nation is better off: when greedy people in fact have sufficient amounts of money, they "bitch and moan" more about all sorts of things, and the "bitching and moaning" quotient in the U.S. has definitely increased over the years. Why does it work out that way? Because one can spend one's resources complaining instead of going to work to earn the/more/enough money to put food on the table and roof over one's head.

I question these figures. 49% of the US population is NOT upper middle class. Not even close.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Divine Wind]

It seems to me that our reps in DC have beaten down the middle class to the point that they are not in the position of living pretty well off. It been done by Both parties and it up to us to pick them out of the lineup and vote them into retirement.

It seems to me that our reps in DC have beaten down the middle class to the point that they are not in the position of living pretty well off.

It seems to me that more people in the middle class have moved into the upper middle or upper income segments of our society than have moved to the lower income segment.

• The Growing Size and Incomes of the Upper Middle Class
  
• America's upper middle class is thriving
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• "While the share of U.S. adults living in both upper- and lower-income households rose alongside the declining share in the middle from 1971 to 2015, the share in the upper-income tier grew more."
  
  
  

While it may be that the shrinkage of the population who are squarely in the middle income group has decreased, I'm not of a mind to be terribly concerned about it when the fact is that most of those people who no longer are middle income are not "squarely in the middle" because they are financially/economically better off:

• The middle class went from being 62% of the population to 43% of it. That's a 19% drop.
• The lower income segment went from being 10% to 9%. That's a 1% drop.
• The upper income group went from being 29% of the population to 49% of the population. That's a 20% increase. It's not hard to see where it came from. 19% came from the middle class and 1% from the lower income segment of society.

What is so terrible about that? In my mind, not much. What would people griping about the demise of the middle class prefer? That more people remain middle income rather than become upper income?

P.S./Edit:
One anecdotal indicator of the fact that the nation is better off: when greedy people in fact have sufficient amounts of money, they "bitch and moan" more about all sorts of things, and the "bitching and moaning" quotient in the U.S. has definitely increased over the years. Why does it work out that way? Because one can spend one's resources complaining instead of going to work to earn the/more/enough money to put food on the table and roof over one's head.

I question these figures. 49% of the US population is NOT upper middle class. Not even close.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Correct. As the article shows, it's 29.4%.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It seems to me that our reps in DC have beaten down the middle class to the point that they are not in the position of living pretty well off. It been done by Both parties and it up to us to pick them out of the lineup and vote them into retirement.

It seems to me that our reps in DC have beaten down the middle class to the point that they are not in the position of living pretty well off.

It seems to me that more people in the middle class have moved into the upper middle or upper income segments of our society than have moved to the lower income segment.

• The Growing Size and Incomes of the Upper Middle Class
  
• America's upper middle class is thriving
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• "While the share of U.S. adults living in both upper- and lower-income households rose alongside the declining share in the middle from 1971 to 2015, the share in the upper-income tier grew more."
  
  
  

While it may be that the shrinkage of the population who are squarely in the middle income group has decreased, I'm not of a mind to be terribly concerned about it when the fact is that most of those people who no longer are middle income are not "squarely in the middle" because they are financially/economically better off:

• The middle class went from being 62% of the population to 43% of it. That's a 19% drop.
• The lower income segment went from being 10% to 9%. That's a 1% drop.
• The upper income group went from being 29% of the population to 49% of the population. That's a 20% increase. It's not hard to see where it came from. 19% came from the middle class and 1% from the lower income segment of society.

What is so terrible about that? In my mind, not much. What would people griping about the demise of the middle class prefer? That more people remain middle income rather than become upper income?

P.S./Edit:
One anecdotal indicator of the fact that the nation is better off: when greedy people in fact have sufficient amounts of money, they "bitch and moan" more about all sorts of things, and the "bitching and moaning" quotient in the U.S. has definitely increased over the years. Why does it work out that way? Because one can spend one's resources complaining instead of going to work to earn the/more/enough money to put food on the table and roof over one's head.

I question these figures. 49% of the US population is NOT upper middle class. Not even close./QUOTE]

I question these figures.

Well, by all means, click the link, download the study from which they came, examine the methodology by which they were obtained and cogently share with us why it is flawed.

I question all sorts of things. Some times the things I questions don't "hold water" and other times, they do. The mere fact that I question them and have in mind a different hypothesis than does the speaker/writer of the assertion I questioned has no bearing on the validity of their assertion. FWIW, I tend not to publicly question things that I either cannot or will not endeavor to rigorously verify.