[Plantagenet]

The middle class has now shrunk to the point that it is a minority of the population---- more and more Americans are now poor and dependent on government social services and benefits.

middle-class-erosion

This has big implications for the US economy and politics going forward. Traditionally the US has relied on the middle class consumer to pull the economy out of recessions and power the GDP growth. But as the middle class shrinks this isn't working anymore. The US has had remarkably slow economic growth since the "great recession" ended in June 2009---the shrinking of the middle class is part of the reason.

This also has big implications for US politics. The shrinking of the middle class has come as free-trade treaties like the Clinton NAFTA treaty and now the Obama TPP treaty send US jobs and factories overseas to low wage countries. White working class men who can't find good jobs are especially disaffected and angry, fueling the rise of populist outsiders like Barack Obama in 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016. Looking ahead this trend will benefit the Ds, as poor people tend to vote for politicians who promise to increase their benefits.

The US economy is likely to get much worse in the future. Low energy prices won't last. More jobs will be lost. The population of the US is projected to double by 2050---and the middle class will probably shrink even more and more and more US jobs go overseas, while most of the population gain in the USA will be amoung poor people of color----who traditionally are undereducated, underpaid, and dependent on government services.


The US is no longer a middle class country and will never be a middle class country again.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The middle class has now shrunk to the point that it is a minority of the population---- more and more Americans are now poor and dependent on government social services and benefits.

middle-class-erosion

This has big implications for the US economy and politics going forward. Traditionally the US has relied on the middle class consumer to pull the economy out of recessions and power the GDP growth. But as the middle class shrinks this isn't working anymore. The US has had remarkably slow economic growth since the "great recession" ended in June 2009---the shrinking of the middle class is part of the reason.

Except that this is NONSENSE, based on the article.

Instead of measuring whether people can afford a middle class lifestyle, they are measuring income inequality. Since that widening causes lots of moaning, it gives the article something to moan about.

From the article (Pew did the study):

The Pew research found that the shares of upper-income and lower-income households grew in recent years as the middle shrank — with the higher-income tier growing more. In that sense, the nonpartisan group said, “the shift represents economic progress.”

Pew defined middle class as households earning two-thirds to twice the overall median income, after adjusting for household size. A family of three, for example, would be considered middle income if its total annual income ranged from about $42,000 to $126,000. So this is a political message from those who won't quit complaining about wealth redistribution until they're allowed to redistribute every dime and completely eliminate any incentive to work hard.

And yet, Obamacare has supposedly just made the critical service of medical care much more affordable to the "lower class" on the backs of the higher earners. It's things like that (being able to afford critical goods and services) which actually matter to material well being.

There is so much chasing of a fancier lifestyle driven by envy today that the vast majority of first world people think if they can't live in a big house, drive fancy late model car(s), travel internationally, etc. that they are poor.

Let's not forget all the incredible absolute wealth via improved goods that technology has brought them -- which they don't even think about. (Dirt cheap microwaves in nearly every home, big flat screen TV's, smart phones, much more reliable cars, etc. etc). These things enhance the standard of living of the US "underclass" even as the complaints about stagnant incomes since the 70's abound. (If those same inflation adjusted incomes buy MUCH MORE, they're not actually stagnant).

"Myths of Rich and Poor" does an excellent job of explaining this, with lots of examples and facts and figures. But let's not think about that. It interferes with the narrative of the left wing redistributionists and the economic doomers.

This points to the continued dumbing down of our society. Any rational adult should see very quickly that this "study" merely is another way of complaining about income inequality. Since high school graduates often can't make change (i.e. subtract), sadly, a large proportion would likely fail to see this obvious point, so this will score left wing political points.

[Apneaman]

There goes planty again trying to spin this as a partisan political issue, like with everything. It started with Reagan and Thatcher. Trickle down economics which you conservatards cheered liked the second coming. Trickle down - get on your knees and you might get a few drops. They all sold you out planty. Both parties. There is no difference between them. You only think there is which is exactly how the propaganda is intended to work. Blow up the few differences in cultural attitudes to monumental proportions and transfer that anger and blame to every issue. That you and those like you are still playing the blame game at this late hour is proof positive how effective the divide and rule strategy has been. Next y'all (left-right) will be killing each other while your 1% puppet masters continues to rake in the profits, gain more power and control and laugh their asses off at how fucking easy it has been to play y'all. Planty, you know what separates the ruling elite from sheep like you? It's not necessarily intelligence or ability - it's sentiment. They are not emotionally attached to ideology or religion. These are merely tools of control for them. They don't get all teary eyed when they raise Old Glory and play the national anthem and talk about the sacrifice of the troops or the dedication of "the working man". They do know that the sheep do. This is why most apes are so easily manipulated. Trust me they really are laughing their ass off at how easy you are to control - useful idiot.

Trump is going to bring back the manufacturing job don't cha know? He said so and millions believe him. You deserve him.

[Apneaman]

Trumps mentor


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA

[Apneaman]

America Is Too Dumb for TV News

Good ole Matt Taibbi uses the story about Donald Trump watching Muslims in New Jersey cheering as the Twin Towers fell on 9/11 to prove that America is dumb, at Rolling Stone:

Until recently, the narrative of stories like this has been predictable. If a candidate said something nuts, or seemingly not true, an army of humorless journalists quickly dug up all the facts, and the candidate ultimately was either vindicated, apologized, or suffered terrible agonies.

Al Gore for instance never really recovered from saying, “I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” True, he never said he invented the Internet, as is popularly believed, but what he did say was clumsy enough that the line followed him around like an STD for the rest of his (largely unsuccessful) political life.

That dynamic has broken down this election season. Politicians are quickly learning that they can say just about anything and get away with it. Along with vindication, apology and suffering, there now exists a fourth way forward for the politician spewing whoppers: Blame the backlash on media bias and walk away a hero.

This season has seen an explosion of such episodes. Carly Fiorina, in a nationally televised debate, claimed to have watched a nonexistent video of evil feminists harvesting fetal brains. Ben Carson has been through a half-dozen factual dustups, including furious debates over whether or not he stabbed someone and whether or not he once won $10 for being the only honest student in an (apparently nonexistent) Yale psychology class.

Trump, meanwhile, has been through more of these beefs than one can count, even twice blabbing obvious whoppers in live televised debates. Once he claimed the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to help China, moving Rand Paul to point out that China isn’t in the TPP. Another time he denied that he once called Marco Rubio “Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator.” The line was on Trump’s website as he spoke…

http://disinfo.com/2015/12/america-is-t ... r-tv-news/

[Apneaman]

"This is not the sign of a healthy society. This is a society in the grip of madness. This is the other dieoff.

America is one giant tapestry of scam artistry. From pedophiles in Congress, to hedge-funders jacking the price of drugs, to shaking down taxpayers to fund sports stadiums for billionaires, to gutting finance laws, everywhere you turn there is a scam where someone is either trying to rip someone off, or is getting ripped off. And those who are getting ripped off are busily looking to get in on the hustle where they take advantage of someone else below them. It's a society of predators and prey. And we think this is somehow normal. How much longer can a society like this last?

Isn't it time we start acknowledging that this is what capitalism is. I mean inherently. It's the law of the jungle. It's every man for himself. It's the "survival of the fittest." It's everyone jockeying for some sort of advantage, every minute of every day, morality be damned. It's a society dedicated to nothing else besides getting every last dollar from the next guy by any means possible. It's appealing to the lowest and basest instincts in humanity. Yet we're told that "naked self interest" is natural and is the sole engine of prosperity, and that extreme inequality drives us to "achieve" by the pseudoscience of economics, and most of us appear to believe it.

This is the society we've made for ourselves. Are your proud of it? So is it any wonder there's a backlash, whether from religious fundamentalists or radical political ideologies like Trumpism?"


http://hipcrime.blogspot.de/

[Plantagenet]

that this is NONSENSE, based on the article.

From the article (Pew did the study):

The Pew research found that the shares of upper-income and lower-income households grew in recent years as the middle shrank...

I don't get what your objection to the Pew Study is. The study found that the middle class is shrinking. You quoted directly the Pew finding that "the middle [class] shrank" in your own post above. Do you not understand what those words mean?

The Pew study found that middle class has shrunk to the point that it now constitutes less then 50% of the US population, and it will continue to shrink even more.

Get it now?

Cheers!

[GHung]

Simple enough solution. Just redefine what constitutes "middle class". Works with unemployment, inflation, and what is considered 'oil'. Why should any other government metric be different. Jeez, they even broadened the definition of money and resources.

[Shaved Monkey]

The right will tell you its because there is too much taxes going to the lazy poor.
A bit of austerity aimed at the poor will instantly make the middle class feel richer,and the 1% can eat caviar in peace.

America's richest 20 people own more wealth than the bottom half of the country's population - about 152 million people - combined, according to new research.
And even this is probably an understatement, ​​

"The growing use of offshore tax havens and legal trusts has made the concealing of assets much more widespread than ever before,"


The findings include:

The wealthiest 100 households now own about as much wealth as the entire African-American population in the US.
The wealthiest 186 members of the Forbes 400 own as much wealth as the entire Latino population.
The Forbes 400 now own about as much wealth as the nation's entire African-American population ­– plus more than a third of the Latino population ­– combined.

A flat levy of just 1 per cent imposed on only the top 1 per cent of wealth holders, for example, would generate $260 billion a year - "more than the federal government now spends on education and environmental protection combined", the report says.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/the-e ... lha3i.html

[Pops]

Not sure where the surprise comes from.

The plan was the rich get richer.

It worked.

[Outcast_Searcher]

that this is NONSENSE, based on the article.

From the article (Pew did the study):

The Pew research found that the shares of upper-income and lower-income households grew in recent years as the middle shrank...

I don't get what your objection to the Pew Study is. The study found that the middle class is shrinking. You quoted directly the Pew finding that "the middle [class] shrank" in your own post above. Do you not understand what those words mean?

The Pew study found that middle class has shrunk to the point that it now constitutes less then 50% of the US population, and it will continue to shrink even more.

Get it now?

Cheers!

As I said, they''re not saying anything new.

As I said, they're not defining middle class as what a middle class income can buy (i.e. a middle class lifestyle), but on how narrow the income distribution is, which means nothing, except something for the income redistributors to whine about.

They artificially define "middle class" as a narrow income distribution, so they can whine about how the "middle class is shrinking". Based on how they defined it, this is NO DIFFERENT than the constant complaining from the left about how the income distribution is growing (i.e. mean old income inequality).

i.e. about "economic fairness". There is nothing new here. Merely using different words to complain about the same "problem" == actually the some phenomenon due to computer technology, which lets people with brains utilize technology to analyze data.

And what do we get in response (following your post)? The left whining about the "evil rich". Yes, how DARE they earn a good living and pay lots of US income taxes on that.

Get it now?

[Apneaman]

Outcast_Searcher, spare us all your brown nosing parroting of neo liberal think tank talking points. They have corrupted and destroyed everything that was decent in your country. None of your ass kissing and worshiping will spare you and yours if and when the time comes. If you are not a 1%er then you are the ultimate useful idiot.

[dissident]

It's not survival of the fittest. It is survival of the opportune. At any given instant the economy is a zero sum game and not everyone can be a billionaire. The corrupt, retarded elite is successful because it has dumbed down the education level in the USA to basically nil and every inane narrative spewed by the oligarch tool media is believed basically without question. The middle class is obsolete and was from an era when people still used their brains and were engaged in constructive work. Now you have masses of consumer lemmings waiting to stomp over each other on Black Friday to spend their credit card "money" on total shit.

[Apneaman]

Yet another example of the rich fucking over the US taxpayer.


Congressman Blasts The Coal Industry: ‘American Taxpayers Are Being Ripped Off’

"“American taxpayers are being ripped off. It’s as simple as that.” Cartwright said in the hearing, which was called by a subcommittee of the House Energy Committee. He then went on to explain his bill, the Coal Royalties Fairness and Communities Investment Act, which would reform the coal program by “closing this loophole and ensuring the federal government receives fair compensation for the coal extracted from public lands.”"


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/1 ... -hearings/

[Outcast_Searcher]

Outcast_Searcher, spare us all your brown nosing parroting of neo liberal think tank talking points. They have corrupted and destroyed everything that was decent in your country. None of your ass kissing and worshiping will spare you and yours if and when the time comes. If you are not a 1%er then you are the ultimate useful idiot.

If name calling were the gateway to brilliance, you'd be a genius. If only assigning empty political labels provided meaningful insight, you might be onto something. Sadly, looking at the typical hostile drivel you post (across many topics in recent months), you appear to be the opposite. Congratulations.

I'm a libertarian who thinks for himself on each issue, not worrying which group my viewpoint on any issue happens to align with. And no, I'm not a member of the one percent, but I'm comfortable, and I earned my way there through decades of study and hard work and frugality (which I now aim toward minimizing my personal carbon footprint). Don't like it? Go ahead and rant.

[Hawkcreek]

And yet, Obamacare has supposedly just made the critical service of medical care much more affordable to the "lower class" on the backs of the higher earners. It's things like that (being able to afford critical goods and services) which actually matter to material well being.

You really do swallow the propaganda ejaculate.
If you don't know that Obamacare made most of the already poor, even poorer, by forcing them to give part of their wages to the insurance companies, you just aren't paying attention.
The "higher earners" aren't paying for the poor - they are paying more to the insurance companies to raise their profits.
All the above brought to you by the corrupt politicians of both sides of the aisle.

[Pops]

Talk about propaganda.

The situation is as plain as this chart and it has nothing to do with "Obamacare" - or even Obama. If you won't admit to the reality of the situation, my guess is you are an owner since they are way ahead on points




This one is even better, showing the relative decline in wage labor




Not that it matters but here is a discussion about the success of several states in making sure those who don't deserve medical care go without.

The ACA Medicaid expansion was designed to address the high uninsured rates among low-income adults, providing a coverage option for people who had limited access to employer coverage and limited income to purchase coverage on their own. However, with many states opting not to implement the Medicaid expansion, millions of uninsured adults remain outside the reach of the ACA and continue to have limited, if any, option for affordable health coverage: they are ineligible for publicly-financed coverage in their state, most do not have access to employer-based coverage through a job, and all have limited income available to purchase coverage on their own.

The majority of people in the coverage gap are in poor working families—that is, either they or a family member is employed either part-time or full-time but still living below the poverty line. Given the characteristics of their employment, it is likely that many will continue to lack access to coverage through their job even with ACA provisions for employer responsibility for coverage are effective in 2016.12 Further, even if they do receive an offer from their employer that meets ACA requirements, many will find their share of the cost to be unaffordable. Because this population is generally exempt from the individual mandate, and because firms will not face a penalty for these workers remaining uninsured, they will continue to fall between the cracks in the employer-based system.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brie ... an-update/


It really is no wonder the suicide rate among low educated whites is up. They've been listening to the "welfare queen" talking points all their life and voting for policies that benefit the ownership. Their one solace was the ability to be outraged and look down on the class (and races) "below".

Now they are in the position they have been shaming for generations and have no one to blame but themselves
.

[Hawkcreek]

It has changed from a "War on Poverty", to a "War on the Poor".
It is obvious which side is winning. If only we could switch sides whenever we wanted.

[Outcast_Searcher]

And yet, Obamacare has supposedly just made the critical service of medical care much more affordable to the "lower class" on the backs of the higher earners. It's things like that (being able to afford critical goods and services) which actually matter to material well being.

You really do swallow the propaganda ejaculate.
If you don't know that Obamacare made most of the already poor, even poorer, by forcing them to give part of their wages to the insurance companies, you just aren't paying attention.
The "higher earners" aren't paying for the poor - they are paying more to the insurance companies to raise their profits.
All the above brought to you by the corrupt politicians of both sides of the aisle.

Ah yes, Hawkcreek represents the "something for nothing" class. No matter how many social programs get passed to help the "disadvanteged", it's never enough. Got it. (OTOH, in the real world, the TRULY poor get massive help on the premium payments and even the actual medical costs remaining, so they pay very little. But let's pretend they don't. )

Obamacare raised income tax rates on the high earners AND raised the amount of income middle class earners must pay before they can deduct medical expenses, like high insurance premiums.

So how do you propose health care costs be paid? Magic?

The left has been complaining about the uninsured for many years. Obamacare claims to have "fixed" that (though they ignore the little matter of MASSIVE copays and deductibles on all those "affordable" bronze and most silver plans).

So what do you want? If you want the "poor" to get "free" medical insurance, what social programs do you propose to cut to pay for that?

[Hawkcreek]

And yet, Obamacare has supposedly just made the critical service of medical care much more affordable to the "lower class" on the backs of the higher earners. It's things like that (being able to afford critical goods and services) which actually matter to material well being.

You really do swallow the propaganda ejaculate.
If you don't know that Obamacare made most of the already poor, even poorer, by forcing them to give part of their wages to the insurance companies, you just aren't paying attention.
The "higher earners" aren't paying for the poor - they are paying more to the insurance companies to raise their profits.
All the above brought to you by the corrupt politicians of both sides of the aisle.

Ah yes, Hawkcreek represents the "something for nothing" class. No matter how many social programs get passed to help the "disadvanteged", it's never enough. Got it. (OTOH, in the real world, the TRULY poor get massive help on the premium payments and even the actual medical costs remaining, so they pay very little. But let's pretend they don't. )
That is always the attitude of those fighting the war on the poor. Saying they want something for nothing. Did you ever think they just want a level playing field?

Obamacare raised income tax rates on the high earners AND raised the amount of income middle class earners must pay before they can deduct medical expenses, like high insurance premiums.
Raising tax rates on the "high" earners and raising deductibles does what?? to help the poor. The extra cash went to the health industry. And raising rates doesn't do anything to affect the take home pay of the really rich. How about cutting exemptions - most high earners "earn" most of their income from investments - something the poor can not afford. And if you are a corporate big shot, how about counting all the "perks" as income, and then taxing them at the same rate I paid last year (yes, I made over 200K, which probably makes me a high earner).

So how do you propose health care costs be paid? Magic?
How about the same type of magic most other industrialized nations use - like Japan, Canada, Sweden, almost all of Europe, etc, etc. The only difference is that their medical field is not as controlled as ours by the big pharma and big insurance.

The left has been complaining about the uninsured for many years. Obamacare claims to have "fixed" that (though they ignore the little matter of MASSIVE copays and deductibles on all those "affordable" bronze and most silver plans).
Is your beef with Obama or with health care in general? Everyone already knows that Obama is just a house-N***er for the corporations - just like all the others. Hope and change was a joke.

So what do you want? If you want the "poor" to get "free" medical insurance, what social programs do you propose to cut to pay for that?
How bout cutting corporate welfare first, and then maybe claw back some of the trillions blown in giveaways to the banks, and then maybe (heaven forbid) start working on cutbacks on spending by the military. What exactly have we bought with our trillions spent in Iraq, Assganistan, Libya, and Syria

I know I have been wasting my time in writing this response. The definition of Conservative is to keep everything the way it was, change nothing, even if it is obvious it is unjust or just plain wrong.