Be sure to include Carl Jung in your footnotes. Karl Marx too. Of course you have to read them first.
American middle class made it's most gains from the election of FDR until around 1995 when Clinton decided to cave in and enact republican policies like nafta and ending welfare as we know it. These years, the republicans almost never controlled congress. Careful what you wish for if you think republicans will ever do anything for anybody but the very wealthy. Why are people always bringing up Marx anyway. We've never had a marxist politician although some have been led to believe Obama is one when he's not being a muslim.
I'm betting you've never read Marx? You should read the Communist Manifesto, it sounds as if it could be the DNC platform.
You demonstrate a point made in the OP about the liberal mind when you mention NAFTA. Liberals supported it, some Republicans supported it, so a Democrat signed it into law, claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread. As conservatives predicted, it has been a terrible thing for us. Now comes the liberal laying the blame on conservatives, oblivious to the facts.
Like a dog returning to it's vomit, you are back to talking about the "middle class" as if America is only comprised of people belonging to established classes they can't escape. The fact is, in a free capitalist system, people move into and out of this so-called "middle class" all the time.
That's why I said the middle class made gains till around 1995! Reread my post and you'll see.
I read Marx in high school early 60's. Reread it in the navy where I became interested in other philosophies. I don't see anything Marxist about present day democrats. We do not have a free capitalistic system like you say either. We have one or two big players in each industry that get together to set prices. This used to be called monopolies. We had a president who talked against this about a hundred years ago. Teddy Roosevelt. He gave us anti trust legislation, but our politicians, bought off with big money, choose not to pursue trust busting or illegal immigration busting either. We now have very conservative democrats like obama and clinton because the conservative DLC vetted candidates, making sure that we would never get a liberal, progressive, or man of the people such as: Kucinich, Wellstone, Gravel or a number of other decent candidates. You say liberals supported Nafta? Wrong. The democrats voters were against Nafta. Clinton was no liberal and neither is Obama and our elected democrats go along with them. But these guys are the choices democrat voters are given, and we believe that they're better choices than anything republicans have to offer.
Kucinich ran for president, he couldn't get votes. Wellstone died, you have to be alive to run. My guess is, he couldn't have gotten votes either. You do understand how the political process works in America, right? No one is preventing liberals from running for president.
Most of your rant here is delusional. We don't have one or two big players in each industry setting prices, if we did, a bunch of small players would come along and undercut their prices and eat their lunch. We don't have monopolies, we do bust them up, ask Microsoft. Obama is not a conservative, he is a Marxist like his parents and mentors. Liberals supported NAFTA because conservatives opposed it.
You're either lying about reading Marx or lying about your understanding of Marx because virtually everything coming from the liberal left is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. You see it all in the rhetoric with the constant talking up of "class" and "workers." Your memes are all from 19th century eastern Europe where people were born into classes of either "workers" or "elite" and the proletariat were the worker class. We don't have that in America, we're a free society. People don't have to be "workers" or remain in any "class" because they have freedom and liberty.
