Posted on 09/22/2004 11:19:11 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
This just kills me. Liberals (well, most Americans too) have long forgotten what poverty is. It seems they have no idea what rich is either.
As usual, FR is ahead of the media, even the conservative media:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1202510/posts?page=57#57
What I would like to know is, how much of this income from the earlier data is coming from single paycheck households compared to the double paycheck households prevelant today? I have no doubt the Times is playing loose with figures to promote their agenda, but there's an underlying problem here that many seem to overlook.
It seems that it used to be much easier to achieve Middle-Class on one paycheck than it is now. You technically end up with people working twice as hard for the same amount of money.
Timothy Egan
2004
• August 26 -- Swift Vets "Have Reopened Wounds" of Vietnam
Timothy Egan's "Wounds Opened Anew As Vietnam Resurfaces" lays the blame on the Swift Boat Veterans: "But the advertisements by one group of veterans attacking the war record of Mr. Kerry, advertisements that are closely tied to supporters of President Bush, have reopened wounds about class and service and frayed some of the unifying threads."
• August 9 -- Freaked-Out Librarians vs. Patriot Act
Timothy Egan takes seriously the view of some easily spooked librarians: "Whether federal agents are monitoring reading habits or not, the newfound power to do so has already had an effect on how people use their libraries, Ms. Sheketoff, the library association official, said, citing evidence from fellow librarians. Many libraries have posted notices saying that because of the law, they cannot protect the privacy of patrons' reading habits."
• June 23 -- Gassing Up For Higher Taxes
Timothy Egan pumps up prospects for an increase in the federal gas tax: "Gas prices finally headed down last week, and may have peaked for the year, the Energy Department reported….the pattern over the last 30 years suggests that this is bad news for anyone who believes that Americans, the world's biggest oil consumers, can ever curb their energy consumption."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:E89DPh75kBYJ:www.timeswatch.org/topicindex/E/egan_timothy/welcome.asp+Timothy+Egan&hl=en
Timothy Egan
Timothy Egan is a third-generation westerner who was inspired to write this book after living in Italy for a year. The recipient of a Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for his part in a series on race in America, he has worked for the last fifteen years as a national reporter for the New York Times. He lives in Seattle with his wife, Joni Balter, and two children, Sophie and Casey.
Your definition of Middle Class is so unfocused as to be practically meaningless.
We should just measure poverty by the combined total of all the government handout programs --- TANF, Medicaid, government assisted housing, food stamps, WIC, SSDI, Medicare, and all the rest --- if the economy is good that total should be very low, if the economy is bad it will be high.
The handouts that the government doles out are for those who fall a significant distance from the median income who cannot [will not?] get a better basket. These are political realities that must be dealt with because most people cannot [will not?] deal with inequity, even if they claim to be conservatives who champion for limited government.
I don't think looking at the trinkets people are buying is a real measure of how we're doing --- how many of those color televisions and DVD's were purchased by credit card debt? How many people will foreclose on their mortgages at some future date? What happens to all the "assets" someone thinks they have when they declare bankruptcy? A lot of what gets counted as wealth has very little real value. And someone living off all the government programs can appear to be quite wealthy if you judge by what they can afford to buy with government handouts --- new cars, homes, cell phones, the best clothes and food --- but if they can earn very little, they are still not middle class just because we've propped up their lifestyles so well.
Then I guess instead of looking at the level of government spending on all the handout programs, we could look at the national debt --- if people are going into debt, then they are worse off --- if they are coming out of debt, then they are better off.
Oh no? What is then?
...how many of those color televisions and DVD's were purchased by credit card debt? How many people will foreclose on their mortgages at some future date? What happens to all the "assets" someone thinks they have when they declare bankruptcy?...
While I agree with your assessment that debt is not necessarily a good thing - especially if it cannot be serviced - this has nothing to do with the income data that we're referring to nor does it have anything to do with what that income can purchase. Please stick to the current topic and debate it before we move on to this issue.
...but if they can earn very little, they are still not middle class just because we've propped up their lifestyles so well.
According to the income data/chart, you are correct. But, the welfare effect of social programs and outright redistribution does give real economic benefit or purchasing power to those who were propped up. It does not matter whether or nor the "propped up" receive cash payments or whether some good or service is directly provided, they are afforded a better standard of living as a result. I am not arguing in favor of these things, mind you; I'm simply pointing these things out to you.
I'd appreciate the answer to my original question I posed to you at the very beginning of this post.
I don't believe in Socialism or any kind of wealth redistribution that involves those getting money they never earned --- I don't think any real economic benefit is gained by Socialism --- if people are working and can support their families, then the economy is good --- if reliance on government programs is a large part of the economy then it's not good --- and if people are saving money --- living in the black it's good but living in debt is not good at all.
I agree with you. I was pointing out that some people's standard of living was improved by a redistribution effect. Do I agree with doing this? Only in a very small number of case where a person truly cannot provide for themselves because of a real disability. But general, no I do not. Because the redistribution effect has more cost in the aggregate than does the total benefit achieved.
Now, we were discussing the ambiguousness of the data and graph. Do you still wish to argue about the data as you wanted to previously or are you conceding my point and are now moving on?
I'd appreciate some candid answers. Thank you in advance.
Read my keys.. I don't care. It has nothing to do with the ethics of it - does it. Throwing Americans out on the streets and giving Their jobs to Mexicans because the slaves are cheaper is unethical no matter who the business owner is. Maybe it would be more clear to you if we used an example of the business owners giving American jobs to Al-Qaida members. The ethical problem wouldn't be apparent; but, at least you'd see the legal problem. Others here can see the ethical problem without such an example. Average americans can and that's why the poll numbers are so far south on the issue.
You wrote that crap above in response to this?
Unethical? Ya know what makes a great example of a completely bankrupt idea? A great example of a bankrupt idea is believing that that job belongs to you, replete with property rights on it and everything. It's believing that crap when the real owner of the job is the EMPLOYER that you work for. Sometimes the owner/employer is one person and sometimes the owners/employer are many different people with varying degrees of fractional OWNERSHIP of that company. Many times these true OWNERS delegate the personnel decisions to managers and supervisors. These people get to decide what is best for their company in order to maximize profits. Profit maximization is balanced between short, intermediate, and long-term goals and strategies - every little variable is considered and hard choices have to be made. The quicker you learn these facts, the sooner you'll be on the road to success.
I think that hiring al-Qaida members would qualify as a move that would cut profits, don't you? You're posing extreme scenarios and trying to get away from the argument at hand...this does seem to be becoming a pattern with you.
I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that you guys are ethically challenged and cannot understand issues of ethics. This is why you want to change the subject to something you think seems to make sense to you. I'm sorry you don't get it. The rest of America does. So take some tv time announce a press conference and condescend to them.
I'm sorry, but I took a good long look at #34 as well as my response to it. I personally don't see how I've changed the subject...I tried to educate you on whose job it really is and I discussed that the purpose of a business is to maximize profits. I thought I addressed your post and did stay on subject. It would be nice if someone else could reciprocate and then stop his misplaced blame on everyone else but himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.