A New New Deal?

[Jon Miller]

I vastly prefer to help the poor rather than the middle class. I just disagreed with the middle class being the most pampered.

BTW, my sister and her husband are proof that with hardwork/etc you can still reach upper middleclass without a degree (or being an entertainer).

JM
(Same with my stepdad actually. Although this economy has hurt him.)

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
My mom and step dad, and my sister and her husband, both have had incomes at the ~100k range (combined).

And they are definitely not wealthy. They have enough to have a house and some nice stuff. But they can't go on vacation when they want or eat out when they want or many of the general activities associated with being rich.

And I don't see that changing if their incomes went up to 150k.

JM

boo hoo

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I vastly prefer to help the poor rather than the middle class. I just disagreed with the middle class being the most pampered.

BTW, my sister and her husband are proof that with hardwork/etc you can still reach upper middleclass without a degree (or being an entertainer).

JM
(Same with my stepdad actually. Although this economy has hurt him.)

They are the most pampered in terms of receiving the most value from the government versus the amount they pay to the government.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Political initiatives aimed at helping the middle class are a waste of money.

No they aren't. These people almost always vote and donate to campaigns and have the biggest entitlement complex of any stratum of society. From a politician's point of view it is a necessary investment.

If you read an op-ed or listen to a politician these days, you are more than likely listening to someone who is a member of this class or started out there. I call them the "foghorn" class, because they love the sound of their own voices and seem to have this belief that the rest of the world must listen to them, whatever they say.

Watch a movie or a TV show and the protagonists are almost certain to be members of this class. I don't watch many movies any more because I'm sick of it being about some ****ing ad exec, or journalist or lawyer or some other piece of entitlement made flesh.

I am old enough to remember the 70s when TV shows were about normal people living in normal homes on normal incomes. The Bunker's or Cunningham's homes would be evidence of massive deprivation if portrayed on a contemporary sitcom.


This class of people dominates our society in one way or another. It is, as Marx said (and this is something he's still right about), the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Now we're bailing them out....

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon


No they aren't. These people almost always vote and donate to campaigns and have the biggest entitlement complex of any stratum of society. From a politician's point of view it is a necessary investment.

This is my point. It is the median voter theorem.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


This is my point. It is the median voter theorem.

Ok. I'm having trouble reading the screen... as I have a nasty flu. My apologies.

Let's all raise a glass to our demented society.

[KrazyHorse]

Don't apologise. I was just making myself clear.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


They are the most pampered in terms of receiving the most value from the government versus the amount they pay to the government.

That seems reasonable, although I don't think I agree.

JM

[Jon Miller]

We are actually mostly bailing out the very wealthy... not the middle class.

JM

[Velociryx]

Amen! Preach it, Brother Aeson!!

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

I agree with KH that as a matter of public policy, setting out to help people in my situation as a priority is rather silly. If we're even middle class. I mean, what use is a term that apparently includes everyone not on welfare but making less than $250k/year?

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Arrian
I agree with KH that as a matter of public policy, setting out to help people in my situation as a priority is rather silly. If we're even middle class. I mean, what use is a term that apparently includes everyone not on welfare but making less than $250k/year?

-Arrian

It's a convenient polymorphic term for politicians.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Aeson
I made ~$6k this year (+whatever my room and board is worth.. I own my computer, and that's about it...) and plan on living leisurely off what I've been able to save up. I have enough for an indefinite vacation in the Philippines at the least.

I think most of the US population is a bit insane. Not everyone can live as frugally as I do (education, or raising a family), but if you can't live on 10x what I make, there's something fundamentally wrong with your plan.

Because of taxes, they would have to make 20x what you make in order to make 10x what you make.

Overall, I do agree that reasonable frugality appears to be a lost art.

[KrazyHorse]

they would have to make 20x what you make in order to make 10x what you make

Nobody pays a 50% effective tax rate on a nominal income of 120k.

[DanS]

Close.