Are Democrats for The Middle Class?

[peach174]

The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class.

Silly ******* rabbit. Prove it. Beside's that. You are a rabbit and have no class. So where does that put you? The final 2% LMAO. Silly ******* rabbit.

Says someone who does not know the difference between a rabbi and a rabbit.

 

[The Rabbi]

There's no middle class for the Democrats, it's the poor (us) and the rich (them). No in between.

Exactly my point. There is the upper 1%, some mythical group somewhere that is putting it over on the rest of us, and "Us".

FYI - The upper 1% is not a myth, they exist, are very much real, and in control. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with either Democrats or Republicans. The upper 1% consist of a mixture of all political persuasions. All socioeconomic "classes" consist of a mixture of political persuasions.

It actually is a myth. People unlike Europe things here are fluid. Look at the top 500 wealthiest people this past year. Now compare that to the same list 40 years ago. There are hardly any of the same people on it.

 

[Sonny Clark]

There's no middle class for the Democrats, it's the poor (us) and the rich (them). No in between.

Exactly my point. There is the upper 1%, some mythical group somewhere that is putting it over on the rest of us, and "Us".

FYI - The upper 1% is not a myth, they exist, are very much real, and in control. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with either Democrats or Republicans. The upper 1% consist of a mixture of all political persuasions. All socioeconomic "classes" consist of a mixture of political persuasions.

It actually is a myth. People unlike Europe things here are fluid. Look at the top 500 wealthiest people this past year. Now compare that to the same list 40 years ago. There are hardly any of the same people on it.

We're not talking about the fluctuations in the numbers, or the individual wealth of each. We're talking about the class as a percentage. They are real. How can anyone deny that there is a class of very wealthy, and that class is the minority class? It doesn't matter if the names change, the percentage is still there. Yes, some enter and some exit. Yes, names change. But, even though the numbers are increasing, their percentage remains basically the same. It is NOT a myth. The wealthy are real. The percentage is real.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The middle class has been buried these past four years" -- Joe Biden Oct 2012

 

[Jarhead]

There's no middle class for the Democrats, it's the poor (us) and the rich (them). No in between.

Exactly my point. There is the upper 1%, some mythical group somewhere that is putting it over on the rest of us, and "Us".

FYI - The upper 1% is not a myth, they exist, are very much real, and in control. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with either Democrats or Republicans. The upper 1% consist of a mixture of all political persuasions. All socioeconomic "classes" consist of a mixture of political persuasions.

It actually is a myth. People unlike Europe things here are fluid. Look at the top 500 wealthiest people this past year. Now compare that to the same list 40 years ago. There are hardly any of the same people on it.

We're not talking about the fluctuations in the numbers, or the individual wealth of each. We're talking about the class as a percentage. They are real. How can anyone deny that there is a class of very wealthy, and that class is the minority class? It doesn't matter if the names change, the percentage is still there. Yes, some enter and some exit. Yes, names change. But, even though the numbers are increasing, their percentage remains basically the same. It is NOT a myth. The wealthy are real. The percentage is real.

Well, of course. There will always be a lower middle and upper class. The thing about the US is the open door to enter the upper class if you apply yourself. It is all up to the individual to do it....no one can stop you. However, one can give up trying.

 

[Sonny Clark]

There's no middle class for the Democrats, it's the poor (us) and the rich (them). No in between.

Exactly my point. There is the upper 1%, some mythical group somewhere that is putting it over on the rest of us, and "Us".

FYI - The upper 1% is not a myth, they exist, are very much real, and in control. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with either Democrats or Republicans. The upper 1% consist of a mixture of all political persuasions. All socioeconomic "classes" consist of a mixture of political persuasions.

It actually is a myth. People unlike Europe things here are fluid. Look at the top 500 wealthiest people this past year. Now compare that to the same list 40 years ago. There are hardly any of the same people on it.

We're not talking about the fluctuations in the numbers, or the individual wealth of each. We're talking about the class as a percentage. They are real. How can anyone deny that there is a class of very wealthy, and that class is the minority class? It doesn't matter if the names change, the percentage is still there. Yes, some enter and some exit. Yes, names change. But, even though the numbers are increasing, their percentage remains basically the same. It is NOT a myth. The wealthy are real. The percentage is real.

Well, of course. There will always be a lower middle and upper class. The thing about the US is the open door to enter the upper class if you apply yourself. It is all up to the individual to do it....no one can stop you. However, one can give up trying.

I agree, to an extent.

 

[Ubiquitor]

It's always amusing when people argue about which party is for the middle class when the fact of the matter is neither is. They both want the middle class gone. They want the rich paying them and the poor begging them to vote to give them free stuff.

 

[Jarhead]

It's always amusing when people argue about which party is for the middle class when the fact of the matter is neither is. They both want the middle class gone. They want the rich paying them and the poor begging them to vote to give them free stuff.

The GOP has a reputation of offering free stuff and that's why the poor vote for them?

 

[Jarhead]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

 

[The Rabbi]

There's no middle class for the Democrats, it's the poor (us) and the rich (them). No in between.

Exactly my point. There is the upper 1%, some mythical group somewhere that is putting it over on the rest of us, and "Us".

FYI - The upper 1% is not a myth, they exist, are very much real, and in control. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with either Democrats or Republicans. The upper 1% consist of a mixture of all political persuasions. All socioeconomic "classes" consist of a mixture of political persuasions.

It actually is a myth. People unlike Europe things here are fluid. Look at the top 500 wealthiest people this past year. Now compare that to the same list 40 years ago. There are hardly any of the same people on it.

We're not talking about the fluctuations in the numbers, or the individual wealth of each. We're talking about the class as a percentage. They are real. How can anyone deny that there is a class of very wealthy, and that class is the minority class? It doesn't matter if the names change, the percentage is still there. Yes, some enter and some exit. Yes, names change. But, even though the numbers are increasing, their percentage remains basically the same. It is NOT a myth. The wealthy are real. The percentage is real.

That might be the most asinine comment I've seen here in some time. And that's really saying something.
Yes, of course what you say is sort of true. In the sense that in any economy some people will be in the top 1% while other people will be in the bottom 1%. Because income is not equal. Even the Soviet Union had a top 1% of income earners and a bottom.
So what?

 

[candycorn]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

 

[BULLDOG]

There's no middle class for the Democrats, it's the poor (us) and the rich (them). No in between.

Exactly my point. There is the upper 1%, some mythical group somewhere that is putting it over on the rest of us, and "Us".

FYI - The upper 1% is not a myth, they exist, are very much real, and in control. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with either Democrats or Republicans. The upper 1% consist of a mixture of all political persuasions. All socioeconomic "classes" consist of a mixture of political persuasions.

It actually is a myth. People unlike Europe things here are fluid. Look at the top 500 wealthiest people this past year. Now compare that to the same list 40 years ago. There are hardly any of the same people on it.

Check the cemetery. After 40 years, you will probably find some there.

 

[Jarhead]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

I find it highly unlikely that those signs are the result of federal legislation...and if they are, it is likely not directed to the load itself, but to the gravel and other debris trucks tend to kick up with so much surface area on the road at any given time (18 tires). If, in fact, one is back 200 feet, they are less likely to be hit with any debris the truck may kick up.
However, how does one stay 2-00 feet back when, in fact, trucks pass cars on a regular basis on the highways.

But I highly doubt that there is a law that allows a truck owner a "pass" if they do not secure their load properly.

 

[BULLDOG]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

 

[Roadrunner]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

The problem is that the middle class has been for the Dems, and the mistaken idea that domestic tranquillity can be achieved through bread and circuses provided to the masses on borrowed money.

Rome proved the error of that kind of thinking.

The War on Poverty has created a dependent class seething in anger, and the middle class can no longer even afford to move out into the 'burbs.

The middle class is paying for being dupes of the Dems for so many years.

 

[Jarhead]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

But, not to stray from the spirit of your post, I agree....such legislation can AND DOES make it more onerous for the rest in some cases....an unfortunate bi product....just as the policies for the democratic party, although on the most part applied properly, DOES in cases open the door to fraud and in some cases opens the door to becoming dependent.
So both ideologies have good intentions...and in many cases excellent results....but they also, at times, have unfortunate consequences

 

[candycorn]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

I find it highly unlikely that those signs are the result of federal legislation...and if they are, it is likely not directed to the load itself, but to the gravel and other debris trucks tend to kick up with so much surface area on the road at any given time (18 tires). If, in fact, one is back 200 feet, they are less likely to be hit with any debris the truck may kick up.
However, how does one stay 2-00 feet back when, in fact, trucks pass cars on a regular basis on the highways.

But I highly doubt that there is a law that allows a truck owner a "pass" if they do not secure their load properly.

I think it's just to intimidate those who get dinged into not taking action. I doubt there are any laws behind it...if there are, it would be local.

I hope someone can shed some light on the topic.

 

[candycorn]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

The problem is that the middle class has been for the Dems, and the mistaken idea that domestic tranquillity can be achieved through bread and circuses provided to the masses on borrowed money.

Rome proved the error of that kind of thinking.

The War on Poverty has created a dependent class seething in anger, and the middle class can no longer even afford to move out into the 'burbs.

The middle class is paying for being dupes of the Dems for so many years.

Seething in anger? Oh...okay.

 

[Jarhead]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

The problem is that the middle class has been for the Dems, and the mistaken idea that domestic tranquillity can be achieved through bread and circuses provided to the masses on borrowed money.

Rome proved the error of that kind of thinking.

The War on Poverty has created a dependent class seething in anger, and the middle class can no longer even afford to move out into the 'burbs.

The middle class is paying for being dupes of the Dems for so many years.

I disagree. I believe the middle class is pretty much divided.
When I was poor...and there was a time where I was truly poor...actually homeless for a short period of time....I liked what the democrats had to say...and I believed "the man" was out to get me and "the man" only cared about making money. When I woke up and realized my future was in my hands, I changed my whole thinking....and started to like what the more conservative politicians said. When I was middle class I voted republican across the board.....when I achieved success, I stopped voting party line and started voting based on what I deemed best for the state I live in (NY)......and on the most part, that was GOP for federal, and a mix at the state level.

 

[Roadrunner]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

The problem is that the middle class has been for the Dems, and the mistaken idea that domestic tranquillity can be achieved through bread and circuses provided to the masses on borrowed money.

Rome proved the error of that kind of thinking.

The War on Poverty has created a dependent class seething in anger, and the middle class can no longer even afford to move out into the 'burbs.

The middle class is paying for being dupes of the Dems for so many years.

Seething in anger? Oh...okay.

Who is angry?

I am retired.

Impossible to be angry.