Go to The decline & fall of the USA.
- Add a comment
- Go to The American Middleclass: An endangered species.
Excellent post Spy!!!
Really good, I like it.
Worrywort.....
posted by
worrywort
on
February 15, 2004
at
3:31 PM
| |
reply
As Usual, DEMS...
...misses the point so spectacularly that one is left wondering - was s/he born this stupid, or is it the result of some serious hard work? Or a blow to the head, perhaps?
Wittering on about Reps and Dems and who controlled Congress and budgets and stuff is all superficial bollocks.
The reality Spy's post points to is that Americans are worse off today in terms of finance and freedom, but most are either too dumb or too afraid or too asleep or too glued to Faux News to do anything about it. Here's a few facts to bolster the financial arguements..
- The wealth of the Forbes 400richest Americans grew an average $1.44 billion each from 1998-2000, for an average daily increase of $1,920,000 per person ($240,000 per hour or 46,602 times the minimum wage).
- The financial wealth of the top one percent of US households now exceeds the combined household financial wealth of the bottom 95 percent.
- The share of the nation’s after-tax income received by the top one percent nearly doubled from 1979-1997. By 1998, that one percent had as much combined income as the 100 million Americans with the lowest earnings.
- The top fifth of US households now claim 49.2 percent of national income while the bottom fifth gets by on 3.6 percent.
- Between 1979 and 1997, the average income of the richest fifth jumped from nine times the income of the poorest fifth to 15 times.
- The average hourly earnings for white-collar males was $19.24 in 1997, up from $19.18 in 1973.
Oooh! An extra $0.06 an hour in 24 years! Let's PARTY!!!
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on
February 11, 2004
at
1:51 AM
| |
reply
There was a time in America when the middleclass was strong and growing. There was a time when the rich, the poor and the middleclass saw growth in their incomes and wealth at or about a four or five percent/year level.
A TIME? IN YOUR DREAMS PERHAPS? Are you talking about the Jimma Carta years of massive inflation, long gas lines and the misery index? And you miss that?Corporations were considerate of their employees and offered them pension plans, health benefits and decent pay for their loyalty and hard work. Many families had one breadwinner as mom stayed home to raise the kids.
TIMES CHANGE WITH PROGRESS, if you can't keep up, you're history.The rich were taxed at a 70% mariginal tax rate once they entered stratospheric income levels of millions or more and the middleclass had a tax structure that rewarded them with numerous deductions such as interest on debt not related to a home mortgage and significant charitable contributions.
70%? Wow, thank God for REAGAN! Then America elected a third-rate, Republican actor who had been picked by the plutocrats who owned the party to play the part of the "Great Communicator."
Clinton and the Democrats blame "Reaganomics" for the deficits, but fail to consider one simple fact: Democrats then controlled both Houses of Congress until '94, and the Constitution grants all legislative authority to Congress.
As illustrated by the appropriations committees in the House and the Senate originating action for Congress to pass a spending bill, and the annual bickering over the budget, it was a Democrat-controlled Congress creating the deficits called "Reaganomics." In fact, Congress proclaimed every Reagan budget "dead on arrival in Congress" for five years in a row as it set about spending in excess of revenue to create the deficits.
posted by
DEMSareEVIL
on
February 11, 2004
at
1:08 AM
| |
reply
I hope you're right, Brwisk
I remember very well not having enough money. Really, really not having enough. When it was the good work of an anonymous person leaving food at our doorstep that saved our lives. Yes, there are people like that out there. Sadly, many of those same people barely have enough for themselves, let alone enough to share.
posted by
myrrhage_
on
February 9, 2004
at
9:12 PM
| |
reply
These neocons are so stupid.
Or clever, depending on their true aims. (I think we know what those are, by the way.)
A large, financially strong middle class equals a financially secure majority of the population, which (most of the time) equals people less desperate to become violent. Many other factors contribute to a peaceful society, but one of the main ones is the absence of fear for survival.
Has anyone here ever not had enough money? I mean, REALLY not had enough money? You get scared. Very scared. Faith is a good thing that helps in such situations, but even as the Book of James teaches us -- for all those fundamental Christians out there who are shaking your heads -- faith without good works is worthless (and frequently goes unrewarded).
"Well," responds the right-wing conservative Christian, "that's why they should be pulling their own weight instead of expecting me to drop some of my $50,000 per year [or whatever it is] for their sorry asses."
True...to a point. But don't for one minute think the "good works" part is not a call to action for government, too. And the government is not (at least not yet) an abstract devoid of people like us. The last time I heard, we have a government for, by, and of the people.
posted by
BrWiSk
on
February 9, 2004
at
8:27 AM
| |
reply
Another good point
and, of course I can't resist commenting. Please forgive me for my somewhat scattered thought process today. I'm medicated for a nasty cold and probably shouldn't be blogging.
I believe that a person would have to be going around with blinders on not to realize that the Republican party has an agenda. For instance, they are so excited about this supposed increase in jobs. However, I wonder if you ask the average American worker how happy he is about his new job flipping burgers if he'll tell you how grateful he is to the Bush administration. Never mind that his real job has been moved to China.
posted by
myrrhage_
on
February 8, 2004
at
3:10 PM
| |
reply
freerain.
Thanks for the kudo my friend. The author was Elizabeth Warren, who wrote a book with her mother (both Harvard educated) called, "The Two Income Trap." It describes how the middleclass is getting clobbered when the buy a home in a good neighborhood so their kids can go to decent public schools and then if one parent or the other loses their job or has a major health problem, they fall into bankruptcy.
Bush & the Republicans changed the bankruptcy laws to protect the banks and the credit card companies while doing nothing to protect the middleclass jobs or their healthcare coverage. Another nail in the coffin of the American middleclass.
posted by
spyinthesky
on
February 8, 2004
at
2:23 PM
| |
reply
A good blog
gives birth to more good blogs--that is the greatness of this medium. Sadly, though, we sing to our own choir. I have long been reflecting on the Women's movement and the tragedy of institutionalization of children. I'll be posting on my thoughts on this, since it also focuses on the demise of middle America (aka: earth), to borrow an analogy.
I listened to Bill Moyer's NOW this last friday, and (I'm not good with remembering names) an author was interviewed concerning the trials of the middle class and the disparatiy of income then (70's) and now. We are spending less, making less with two incomes, and just as much concerned with health, education and welfare matters of domestic tranquility as far as the PEOPLE are concerned--but the wealthy political elite with their insatiable need for money and power care far less.
Thanks for the post, Spy, my hero.
FR
posted by
freerain
on
February 8, 2004
at
2:16 PM
| |
reply
Don't use tar brush on all politicians - even the ones trying to help.
I certainly agree with the frustration expressed by Ren & Merri, but the fact is that there are guys and gals in the congress and in Washington who are trying to help. Ted Kennedy is one and congressman Waxman is another. It's important to identify your enemies, be they Dem or Republican and eliminate them from power, but don't sweep out the good guys with the bad.
posted by
spyinthesky
on
February 8, 2004
at
2:15 PM
| |
reply
Good point Ren3
The new rhetoric is all about a "living wage" for all Americans. Yet, I find it hard to take someone seriously whose own "living wage" could feed ten "working class" families for a year. It's easy to talk about money not buying happiness when you're rolling in the dough.
posted by
myrrhage_
on
February 8, 2004
at
1:09 PM
| |
reply
The reason why political arguments are Non-win-able is this: Both Republicans and Democrats are liars and theives. Our congress and senate is filled with people who don't really give a shit about me and you. They play a little game, a waltz, a dance of deception. In fact, the political arena is so far detached from being in touch with a typical American family that the two do not even belong in the same conversation.
posted by
Passionflower
on
February 8, 2004
at
12:57 PM
| |
reply
Ah yes, "Family Values" hard at work
Only in religion and politics is one allowed to have both sides of the story. I think I will post something in response to this, if you don't mind. The far-right Republican regime is sickening, at once chastising women for returning to work while beating further and further into poverty those who do the "right thing" by staying home. I chose to stay home because it is what my children need. But what's the alternative? By the time I pay my daycare, transportation and clothing expenses, my "profit" at the end of the month amounts to about 300 dollars, which is then taken away at tax time anyway. In essence, I would be paying to go to work.
Oh yes, I have something to say about this, and it won't be pretty.
posted by
myrrhage_
on
February 8, 2004
at
11:45 AM
| |
reply
Copy (or write down) this comment's web address (URL), which is:
Next, go to the email or web page where you want to link to this comment, and paste
(or type) the web address.
