The Disappearing American Middle Class

[Nbadan]

http://www.arteutile.net/art_content/images/BIGBIG_gianni_A3F564-1.jpg




INDIANAPOLIS -- Middle-class neighborhoods, long regarded as incubators for the American dream, are losing ground in cities across the country, shrinking at more than twice the rate of the middle class itself.

In their place, poor and rich neighborhoods are both on the rise, as cities and suburbs have become increasingly segregated by income, according to a Brookings Institution study released Thursday. It found that as a share of all urban and suburban neighborhoods, middle-income neighborhoods in the nation's 100 largest metro areas have declined from 58 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 2000.

Widening income inequality in the United States has been well documented in recent years, but the Brookings analysis of census data uncovered a much more accelerated decline in communities that house the middle class. It far outpaced the decline of seven percentage points between 1970 and 2000 in the proportion of middle-income families living in and around cities.

Middle-income neighborhoods -- where families earn 80 to 120 percent of the local median income -- have plunged by more than 20 percent as a share of all neighborhoods in Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. They are down 10 percent in the Washington area.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101735.html)

Just look at housing around San Antonio, instead of using their savings in taxes to create jobs and trickle down some that wealth to the rest of us, rich landlords from around the country are buying up a big chunk of the new properties in SA and raising property values and thus taxes for all the locals in the process. It's not like many people living in San Antonio are earning all that much more money in real terms than they were before the current housing boom. Now that housing has gotten so expensive, more and more people are chosing to forego buying a house and raising rental values in SA.

[fyatuk]

Hrmm... I feel poor now. I don't make 80% of local median income... Of course I own a house in a low-middle class neighborhood, so close enough.

Blame the Mexican nationals who are buying all the available property to hide assets out of Mexico just in case that one guy (in the vein of Chavez and Castro) gets elected. They are really inflating both markets since they buy houses and let them rot empty.

Dunno. I always thought of those people who really qualify as middle class were rich, which shows how skewed my judgement is.

[Extra Stout]

One key piece of data is missing from the article... what replaced the 17% of housing that had been middle-class? Cardboard boxes? Lofts? McMansions? Overpasses in San Francisco?

[smeagol]

Go to LatAm, check the gap between the rich and the poor . . . then come and talk to me.

[mookie2001]

Go to LatAm, check the gap between the rich and the poor . . . then come and talk to me.oh really?

are you the poor or rich?

[Nbadan]

Every Breath you take (http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/06/greatest_econom.html) by Dean Glenn Hubbarb

[boutons_]

June 19, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist


Class War Politics

By PAUL KRUGMAN

In case you haven't noticed, modern American politics is marked by vicious partisanship, with the great bulk of the viciousness coming from the right. It's clear that the Republican plan for the 2006 election is, once again, to question Democrats' patriotism.

But do Republican leaders truly believe that they are serious about fighting terrorism, while Democrats aren't? When the speaker of the House declares that "we in this Congress must show the same steely resolve as those men and women on United Flight 93," is that really the way he sees himself? (Dennis Hastert, Man of Steel!) http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Of course not.

So what's our bitter partisan divide really about? In two words: class warfare. That's the lesson of an important new book, "Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches," by Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, Keith Poole of the University of California, San Diego, and Howard Rosenthal of New York University.

"Polarized America" is a technical book written for political scientists. But it's essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what's happening to America.

What the book shows, using a sophisticated analysis of Congressional votes and other data, is that for the past century, political polarization and economic inequality have moved hand in hand. Politics during the Gilded Age, an era of huge income gaps, was a nasty business * as nasty as it is today. The era of bipartisanship, which lasted for roughly a generation after World War II, corresponded to the high tide of America's middle class. That high tide began receding in the late 1970's, as middle-class incomes grew slowly at best while incomes at the top soared; and as income gaps widened, a deep partisan divide re-emerged.

Both the decline of partisanship after World War II and its return in recent decades mainly reflected the changing position of the Republican Party on economic issues.

Before the 1940's, the Republican Party relied financially on the support of a wealthy elite, and most Republican politicians firmly defended that elite's privileges. But the rich became a lot poorer during and after World War II, while the middle class prospered. And many Republicans accommodated themselves to the new situation, accepting the legitimacy and desirability of institutions that helped limit economic inequality, such as a strongly progressive tax system. (The top rate during the Eisenhower years was 91 percent.)

When the elite once again pulled away from the middle class, however, Republicans turned their back on the legacy of Dwight Eisenhower and returned to a focus on the interests of the wealthy. Tax cuts at the top * including repeal of the estate tax * became the party's highest priority.

But if the real source of today's bitter partisanship is a Republican move to the right on economic issues, why have the last three elections been dominated by talk of terrorism, with a bit of religion on the side? Because a party whose economic policies favor a narrow elite needs to focus the public's attention elsewhere. And there's no better way to do that than accusing the other party of being unpatriotic and godless.

Thus in 2004, President Bush basically ran as America's defender against gay married terrorists. He waited until after the election to reveal that what he really wanted to do was privatize Social Security.

Pre-New Deal G.O.P. operatives followed the same strategy. Republican politicians won elections by "waving the bloody shirt" * invoking the memory of the Civil War * long after the G.O.P. had ceased to be the party of Lincoln and become the party of robber barons instead. Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential candidate, was defeated in part by a smear campaign * burning crosses and all * that exploited the heartland's prejudice against Catholics.

So what should we do about all this? I won't offer the Democrats advice right now, except to say that tough talk on national security and affirmations of personal faith won't help: the other side will smear you anyway.

But I would like to offer some advice to my fellow pundits: face reality. There are some commentators who long for the bipartisan days of yore, and flock eagerly to any politician who looks "centrist." But there isn't any center in modern American politics.And the center won't return until we have a new New Deal, and rebuild our middle class.

======================

I remember the comment about 2000 and 2004 elections where the genius of the Repugs was to get elected by lower-class/middle-class red-staters by distracting them on "other issues (values, gays, abortion, Bible toting, etc). The lower-class red-staters elected the Repugs to cut taxes for the rich + corps, and start a war with heavy but unpoliced out-sourcing to enrich the M.I.C. The lower-class and middle-class red-staters didn't get shit from the Repugs. They were suckered into voting tax cuts for the rich, not for themselves. Will they be suckered again in 2008?

[fyatuk]

June 19, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist


Class War Politics

By PAUL KRUGMAN


Op-Ed says it all. While a few decent points are made, the entire piece is an effort to demonize Republicans and hint at sainthood for Democrats.

The Democrats are just as bad at slinging insults instead of talking issues. Its pointless to try and portray one party as worse than that other at mudslinging.

The reason the Republicans have won recent elections is because the Republican party shows a strong united front with a common platform, while the Democrats can't seem to agree on much internally. A united party has appeal, especially in times like these.

In the last election, Bush actually spent a lot of time talking about privatizing social security, passing the energy legislation he proposed in 2001, simplifying the tax code, and immigration reform. More than he talked about gay marraige. People don't remember that though, because they aren't really "newsworthy" issues.

Kerry spent the entire election saying Bush screwed up and that America could do better without saying how. The only thing he talked about in depth was creating a national health care system similar to Tennessee's state system (which is ineffective and costs way too much). He also promised to never propose something without proposing how to pay for it, but on gave information on paying for about 1/3rd the things he suggested.

Kerry and the Democrats ran a platform of "Bush sucks" because that was the only thing they could agree on. They lost because the could never figure out anything else to show the people.

The interesting thing is, we have a party that favors the rich over the middle class, and one that favors the middle class over the rich. So where does that leave the poor, besides getting the token entitlement programs that do nothing to help people improve their situation.

Either way, both parties suck right now. This would be an excellent time for the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and other minor parties to make a move. Especially the Libertarian, which has been gaining % in just about every election, with the current hate of Republicans.

[boutons_]

"demonize Republicans"

Devilish partisanship and extremely mean spiritedness has marked Repug politics for the last 10 years, at least. Starting with Bush I, Lee Atwater, and Willie Horton shit, Gingrich and the 1994 Repug revolution, aided and abetted corrupt Tom "I wish I had hammered even harder (meaner)" DeLay, Swift-boat dishonest, hypocritical, vengeful slime jobs, the emty-handed witch hunt/Starr jobs on the Clintsons, epitomizes the period.

I don't see Krugman, not one word, beatifying the Dems.

I don't see how you can exclude the lower-classes from traditional Democratic supporters beneficiaries. The Dems have always fought elections by (over)enfranchising the poor and ethnic groups, while the Repugs have fought to disenfranchise the same groups. The huge waves of European immigrants sought by the Dems were poor, Catholic, Jewish have-nots, not middle-class haves. The East Coast haves were/are the upper class Repugs.

Yes, negative, sliming campaigning works. That says as much, even more, about the voters as it does about the campaigners.

The voters and corps get the candidates the deserve. The corps then purchase the winners.

The two-party system is inhabited by total, corrupt assholes, but that doesn't mean the corps will allow anybody from outside the the two-party system to get any traction.

=====================

And nothing will change. 100% corrupt Congress will continue vote their own personal enrichment:

Call for Lobbying Changes Is A Fading Cry, Lawmakers Say

Calming of Political Storm Cited as Reason for Attitude Shift

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Jim VandeHei

Washington Post Staff Writers

Monday, June 26, 2006; A03

When Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) announced his resignation as majority leader in January -- soon after lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to corruption charges -- House Republicans panicked. Dozens of GOP lawmakers, fearing a political backlash, flooded the office of House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) with urgent pleas for lobbying reform.

Their message was clear: Hastert needed to champion legislation to crack down on unethical behavior and impose tough new restrictions on lobbyists and congressional perks. Hastert, who had previously shown scant interest in the issue, responded with proposals that surprised longtime reformers with their reach: a ban on privately funded travel by lawmakers and severe restrictions on lobbyist-paid meals.

"We need to reform the rules so that it is clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what is ethically acceptable," Hastert said at a news conference 10 days after DeLay stepped down.

But that was then. Six months later, the legislation has slowed to a crawl. Along the way, proposals such as Hastert's that would sharply limit commonplace behavior on Capitol Hill have been cast aside. Committee chairmen once predicted the bill would be finished in March, but the Senate did not pass its ethics bill until March 29 and the House passed its version May 3. The House has yet to name negotiators to draft the final package.

Legislators and public-interest group advocates say the most likely result this year is a minimalist package that would allow members to say they have responded to the Abramoff situation and other scandals but would do little to crimp their ability to accept lobbyist favors.

The change, these people say, reflects a calculation that the political storm has mostly passed and that the need for more intrusive efforts to alter the congressional culture and the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship is less urgent.

"Initially, I worried that Congress would do this bill too quickly and that it might not be as well-thought-out as it needed to be," said Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which had partial jurisdiction over the legislation. "That fear seems ludicrous now."

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) illustrates the complex politics buffeting the proposals to overhaul lobbyist rules. At a private meeting in Hastert's office before the speaker's news conference, Blunt voiced support, according to others in the room. But when the moment came for him to stand next to the speaker in front of the cameras, Blunt had vanished. Locked in a tight race to replace DeLay, Blunt was among the first congressional leaders to perceive the disconnect between lawmakers' public calls for change and their private desire to keep things as they were.

"This is an area where we have to listen very carefully to the members," Blunt later explained.

They have said they want a go-slow approach, and they have gotten their way. Lawmakers considered a range of provisions, including a ban on privately funded junkets, a prohibition against taking gifts and an end to steeply discounted travel by private jet. Instead, they decided to strengthen and double the number of lobbyists' public disclosure reports, and they discarded -- or will probably discard -- almost everything else.

One exception is in the Senate-passed bill. Unlike the House version, it would bar lobbyists from providing gifts and meals to senators and their aides. The House bill would curtail big-money election groups, called 527s, but Senate Democrats and a few Republicans are working to kill this change.

Almost from the start, House and Senate leaders misread the wishes of their rank and file, lawmakers and lobbyists agreed. Most of the entreaties that deluged Hastert's office, for instance, came from lawmakers with difficult reelection fights and did not reflect the views of the GOP majority. Those members enjoyed lobbyist-provided meals and trips and did not worry that angry voters might turn them out of office for accepting them.

In fact, Blunt's chief opponent for majority leader, Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), gained a clear advantage in the race by publicly calling Hastert's travel ban "childish" and by privately assuring colleagues that he would weaken the bill if he were elected. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), the candidate for majority leader who championed the most dramatic changes, finished a distant third.

During a tense, hours-long, members-only meeting two weeks after Hastert's news conference, House Republicans complained bitterly about almost every aspect of the proposed measure, participants said. The protests prompted Shadegg to chide his colleagues for overreacting at first and then plotting to do nothing in the end.

The Senate's ethics legislation followed a similar path. Soon after Hastert's announcement, Senate Democrats and Republicans separately proclaimed their bold intentions at major media events. To prove their resolve, the GOP spotlighted the involvement of campaign finance reformer Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). The Democratic Party enlisted high-profile help from one of its rising stars, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I was eager to participate; I was excited about it," Obama recalled. "The timing was good not just for the party but for the country."

But soon after, senators with the most seniority raised the largest number of objections to limits on meals or travel. In private meetings, participants said, veteran Republicans and Democrats said they were offended that anyone would think they could be bought for mere hospitality. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

They also objected to altering Senate rules when the most egregious behavior had occurred in the House, including the then-recent bribery conviction of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.).

Powerful lobby groups also campaigned to protect their prerogatives. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbied vigorously against the travel ban, asserting how useful it is for lawmakers to get out of Washington to see the impact of their policies.

"We had meetings and meetings and meetings, and we were going to move forward," McCain recalled. "But a sense of urgency disappeared as we went through the committee process. I stopped having any meaningful input."

A steady stream of proposals favored by McCain and Obama was rejected by Senate panels. One would have established an independent office of public integrity to oversee ethics enforcement. Another would have forced lawmakers to pay charter fares for charter flights, rather than first-class ticket prices.

Government watchdog groups had assumed that members of Congress would not risk the public's ire by opposing such basic changes. But they were wrong; voters rarely complained, lawmakers said.

"The reason why it didn't happen was that members didn't feel a sufficient amount of pressure to change the way they do business," McCain said in reference to large-scale reform. "There's a belief among my colleagues that our constituents are not concerned."

The lack of powerful public backing for the legislation has prompted recriminations. "The advocates of reform utterly failed to mobilize public support," Collins observed.

Joan Claybrook, president of the liberal organization Public Citizen, said her group and others instigated thousands of e-mails to Congress and called it "totally ridiculous" that lawmakers place blame on her coalition for not producing more protests.

Nevertheless, the legislation remains in limbo and, so far at least, a shadow of its initial expectations. Several of the bill's earliest advocates, such as McCain and Obama, voted against it as a waste of congressional time. "We missed an opportunity," Obama said.

Even defenders of the legislation call it only a minor improvement over current law. David Dreier (R-Calif.), one of the architects of the House-passed bill, said he would like to "pursue more reform" as soon as the measure passes.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[xrayzebra]

"demonize Republicans"

Devilish partisanship and extremely mean spiritedness has marked Repug politics for the last 10 years, at least. Starting with Bush I, Lee Atwater, and Willie Horton shit, Gingrich and the 1994 Repug revolution, aided and abetted corrupt Tom "I wish I had hammered even harder (meaner)" DeLay, Swift-boat dishonest, hypocritical, vengeful slime jobs, the emty-handed witch hunt/Starr jobs on the Clintsons, epitomizes the period.

I don't see Krugman, not one word, beatifying the Dems.

I don't see how you can exclude the lower-classes from traditional Democratic supporters beneficiaries. The Dems have always fought elections by (over)enfranchising the poor and ethnic groups, while the Repugs have fought to disenfranchise the same groups. The huge waves of European immigrants sought by the Dems were poor, Catholic, Jewish have-nots, not middle-class haves. The East Coast haves were/are the upper class Repugs.

Yes, negative, sliming campaigning works. That says as much, even more, about the voters as it does about the campaigners.

The voters and corps get the candidates the deserve. The corps then purchase the winners.

The two-party system is inhabited by total, corrupt assholes, but that doesn't mean the corps will allow anybody from outside the the two-party system to get any traction.

=====================

And nothing will change. 100% corrupt Congress will continue vote their own personal enrichment:

Call for Lobbying Changes Is A Fading Cry, Lawmakers Say

Calming of Political Storm Cited as Reason for Attitude Shift

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Jim VandeHei

Washington Post Staff Writers

Monday, June 26, 2006; A03

When Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) announced his resignation as majority leader in January -- soon after lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to corruption charges -- House Republicans panicked. Dozens of GOP lawmakers, fearing a political backlash, flooded the office of House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) with urgent pleas for lobbying reform.

Their message was clear: Hastert needed to champion legislation to crack down on unethical behavior and impose tough new restrictions on lobbyists and congressional perks. Hastert, who had previously shown scant interest in the issue, responded with proposals that surprised longtime reformers with their reach: a ban on privately funded travel by lawmakers and severe restrictions on lobbyist-paid meals.

"We need to reform the rules so that it is clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what is ethically acceptable," Hastert said at a news conference 10 days after DeLay stepped down.

But that was then. Six months later, the legislation has slowed to a crawl. Along the way, proposals such as Hastert's that would sharply limit commonplace behavior on Capitol Hill have been cast aside. Committee chairmen once predicted the bill would be finished in March, but the Senate did not pass its ethics bill until March 29 and the House passed its version May 3. The House has yet to name negotiators to draft the final package.

Legislators and public-interest group advocates say the most likely result this year is a minimalist package that would allow members to say they have responded to the Abramoff situation and other scandals but would do little to crimp their ability to accept lobbyist favors.

The change, these people say, reflects a calculation that the political storm has mostly passed and that the need for more intrusive efforts to alter the congressional culture and the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship is less urgent.

"Initially, I worried that Congress would do this bill too quickly and that it might not be as well-thought-out as it needed to be," said Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which had partial jurisdiction over the legislation. "That fear seems ludicrous now."

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) illustrates the complex politics buffeting the proposals to overhaul lobbyist rules. At a private meeting in Hastert's office before the speaker's news conference, Blunt voiced support, according to others in the room. But when the moment came for him to stand next to the speaker in front of the cameras, Blunt had vanished. Locked in a tight race to replace DeLay, Blunt was among the first congressional leaders to perceive the disconnect between lawmakers' public calls for change and their private desire to keep things as they were.

"This is an area where we have to listen very carefully to the members," Blunt later explained.

They have said they want a go-slow approach, and they have gotten their way. Lawmakers considered a range of provisions, including a ban on privately funded junkets, a prohibition against taking gifts and an end to steeply discounted travel by private jet. Instead, they decided to strengthen and double the number of lobbyists' public disclosure reports, and they discarded -- or will probably discard -- almost everything else.

One exception is in the Senate-passed bill. Unlike the House version, it would bar lobbyists from providing gifts and meals to senators and their aides. The House bill would curtail big-money election groups, called 527s, but Senate Democrats and a few Republicans are working to kill this change.

Almost from the start, House and Senate leaders misread the wishes of their rank and file, lawmakers and lobbyists agreed. Most of the entreaties that deluged Hastert's office, for instance, came from lawmakers with difficult reelection fights and did not reflect the views of the GOP majority. Those members enjoyed lobbyist-provided meals and trips and did not worry that angry voters might turn them out of office for accepting them.

In fact, Blunt's chief opponent for majority leader, Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), gained a clear advantage in the race by publicly calling Hastert's travel ban "childish" and by privately assuring colleagues that he would weaken the bill if he were elected. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), the candidate for majority leader who championed the most dramatic changes, finished a distant third.

During a tense, hours-long, members-only meeting two weeks after Hastert's news conference, House Republicans complained bitterly about almost every aspect of the proposed measure, participants said. The protests prompted Shadegg to chide his colleagues for overreacting at first and then plotting to do nothing in the end.

The Senate's ethics legislation followed a similar path. Soon after Hastert's announcement, Senate Democrats and Republicans separately proclaimed their bold intentions at major media events. To prove their resolve, the GOP spotlighted the involvement of campaign finance reformer Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). The Democratic Party enlisted high-profile help from one of its rising stars, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I was eager to participate; I was excited about it," Obama recalled. "The timing was good not just for the party but for the country."

But soon after, senators with the most seniority raised the largest number of objections to limits on meals or travel. In private meetings, participants said, veteran Republicans and Democrats said they were offended that anyone would think they could be bought for mere hospitality. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

They also objected to altering Senate rules when the most egregious behavior had occurred in the House, including the then-recent bribery conviction of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.).

Powerful lobby groups also campaigned to protect their prerogatives. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbied vigorously against the travel ban, asserting how useful it is for lawmakers to get out of Washington to see the impact of their policies.

"We had meetings and meetings and meetings, and we were going to move forward," McCain recalled. "But a sense of urgency disappeared as we went through the committee process. I stopped having any meaningful input."

A steady stream of proposals favored by McCain and Obama was rejected by Senate panels. One would have established an independent office of public integrity to oversee ethics enforcement. Another would have forced lawmakers to pay charter fares for charter flights, rather than first-class ticket prices.

Government watchdog groups had assumed that members of Congress would not risk the public's ire by opposing such basic changes. But they were wrong; voters rarely complained, lawmakers said.

"The reason why it didn't happen was that members didn't feel a sufficient amount of pressure to change the way they do business," McCain said in reference to large-scale reform. "There's a belief among my colleagues that our constituents are not concerned."

The lack of powerful public backing for the legislation has prompted recriminations. "The advocates of reform utterly failed to mobilize public support," Collins observed.

Joan Claybrook, president of the liberal organization Public Citizen, said her group and others instigated thousands of e-mails to Congress and called it "totally ridiculous" that lawmakers place blame on her coalition for not producing more protests.

Nevertheless, the legislation remains in limbo and, so far at least, a shadow of its initial expectations. Several of the bill's earliest advocates, such as McCain and Obama, voted against it as a waste of congressional time. "We missed an opportunity," Obama said.

Even defenders of the legislation call it only a minor improvement over current law. David Dreier (R-Calif.), one of the architects of the House-passed bill, said he would like to "pursue more reform" as soon as the measure passes.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company


My God man, do you ever read your own post about demonizing the
other guy. That is all you ever do. And the articles you post are
the same. Read one of your post and you have read them all.

[fyatuk]

"demonize Republicans"

Devilish partisanship and extremely mean spiritedness has marked Repug politics for the last 10 years, at least. Starting with Bush I, Lee Atwater, and Willie Horton shit, Gingrich and the 1994 Repug revolution, aided and abetted corrupt Tom "I wish I had hammered even harder (meaner)" DeLay, Swift-boat dishonest, hypocritical, vengeful slime jobs, the emty-handed witch hunt/Starr jobs on the Clintsons, epitomizes the period.

I don't see Krugman, not one word, beatifying the Dems.

I don't see how you can exclude the lower-classes from traditional Democratic supporters beneficiaries. The Dems have always fought elections by (over)enfranchising the poor and ethnic groups, while the Repugs have fought to disenfranchise the same groups. The huge waves of European immigrants sought by the Dems were poor, Catholic, Jewish have-nots, not middle-class haves. The East Coast haves were/are the upper class Repugs.

Yes, negative, sliming campaigning works. That says as much, even more, about the voters as it does about the campaigners.

The voters and corps get the candidates the deserve. The corps then purchase the winners.

The two-party system is inhabited by total, corrupt assholes, but that doesn't mean the corps will allow anybody from outside the the two-party system to get any traction.

=====================

And nothing will change. 100% corrupt Congress will continue vote their own personal enrichment:



Don't have time to read the article. I'm not saying the Republicans haven't been doing some crappy things, they have, that's not even debateable. But the author of the op-ed is portraying them as a lot worse than they are.

The author makes the Dems look better than they are by stating that the only reason Dems lose elections is because of smear campaigns, completely ignoring their own faults that cost them more in the polls than the smears do.

I exclude the lower class from the Dems side because they don't really help them. The dem's solution to poverty is a welfare state that guarantees the poor stay poor. The repub's solution is low cost job training with some temporary assistance. The dem's get the votes because of free money, but they are not looking out for the poor's best interest, only their votes. The people who get the most benefits from democrat policies are the middle class, especially union workers. Bush has done more for the very poor than the Dem's did when they had both the legislature and presidency.

The biggest effect of smear campaigns is low voter turnout. We beat candidates into pulp that no one wants to vote for and few voters see a real difference in the quality of. What's the point in waiting in line to vote if all the candidates are scum?

[boutons_]

"The dem's solution to poverty is a welfare state that guarantees the poor stay poor. The repub's solution is low cost job training with some temporary assistance."

The level of poverty has increased in the US since Repugs won in 2000, so obviously whatever the TF the Repugs are doing to help the poor (anybody know?) ain't working.

I haven't seen a Dem I could support since Clinton, not one. I think they all suck and share full responsibility for letting the Repugs win/steal 2 elections.

The Swift-boating of Kerry, in a very tight election, combined with the voting irregularities in OH and FL that ALL favored Repugs, was as important as any 2004 Repug campaing effort. And, I think Kerry sucks. I think Swift-boating actually turned people out to vote, not turned they away.

Negative campagning works, both parties know that, that's why they do it, without limit, ad nauseam. The fault lies with the voters who make negative campaigning effective.

[Crookshanks]

The jobs being exported to other countries are mainly the "middle-class" jobs. I grew up in Flint, Michigan, and I've seen what it's become now that the majority of automotive jobs have been sent to Mexico or overseas.

I would like someone to tell me who's responsible and what can be done about it. I don't want the same old tired garbage - I want someone to tell me how the government can stop big business from sending their jobs overseas or to Mexico.

The CEO's are getting richer and richer and the middle class is shrinking because there are fewer jobs and the pay isn't keeping up with the cost of living. Tell me, what's the answer? Because I'm one of those middle-class workers who are being affected. I have a 4-year degree, but can't find a job here in San Antonio that will pay me more than $26,000 a year. It's getting very discouraging.

[Crookshanks]

at least buffet is giving away his money

How can I get on his list?! :lol

[fyatuk]

The jobs being exported to other countries are mainly the "middle-class" jobs. I grew up in Flint, Michigan, and I've seen what it's become now that the majority of automotive jobs have been sent to Mexico or overseas.

I would like someone to tell me who's responsible and what can be done about it. I don't want the same old tired garbage - I want someone to tell me how the government can stop big business from sending their jobs overseas or to Mexico.

The CEO's are getting richer and richer and the middle class is shrinking because there are fewer jobs and the pay isn't keeping up with the cost of living. Tell me, what's the answer? Because I'm one of those middle-class workers who are being affected. I have a 4-year degree, but can't find a job here in San Antonio that will pay me more than $26,000 a year. It's getting very discouraging.

Well, the outsourcing of jobs is a pretty weird thing. Both the Dems and Repubs have contributed to it via various tax initiatives and such. Neither has proposed a viable solution to fix it either. It's mostly because the lower cost of labor (pay + benefits) is so much cheaper in other countries it more than offsets the costs to bring the goods back to this country. The only real solutions are both unacceptable (reducing minimum wage and benefit requirements or imposing massive protectionist tarriffs).

What exactly is your degree in? I don't even have a 2 year degree, but I've found many jobs that pay 50k plus I know I could get fairly easily (I don't want that much responsibility though).

Also, the increase in median and mean salary in San Antonio have outpaced the increase in cost of living for the last 4 years, though obviously that doesn't apply to every job. I know I get more comfortable every year even though I'm borderline middle/lower class.


The level of poverty has increased in the US since Repugs won in 2000, so obviously whatever the TF the Repugs are doing to help the poor (anybody know?) ain't working

Well, part of that is due to the tragedy of 9-11. Also the poverty line has increased by a pretty hefty amount, and of course the unfortunate outsourcing of jobs. Lots of reasons, but the biggest being the economic downturn in 2001/02.

At any rate, the lower at the bottom edge of the tax bracket helped the poor, and the Repubs have proposed a lot of good ideas to improve access to at least community college education that unfortunately haven't made it out of Congress. Like I said, the Dems idea is just to keep people on Welfare, which while keeping people from having to suffer too badly, does nothing to help improve their situation. It's stagnation (see New Orleans where basically no one ever got off of welfare). At least the Repubs try to do things that would make it easier for those people to improve their situation and not rely on the government.


I think Swift-boating actually turned people out to vote, not turned they away.

It probably did, but only because it pertained to an issue that actually mattered. A lot of smear campaigns don't really pertain to any important issues. In fact it related to what most people responded as THE most important issue. It's the exception more than the rule though.

[Extra Stout]

The jobs being exported to other countries are mainly the "middle-class" jobs. I grew up in Flint, Michigan, and I've seen what it's become now that the majority of automotive jobs have been sent to Mexico or overseas.

I would like someone to tell me who's responsible and what can be done about it. I don't want the same old tired garbage - I want someone to tell me how the government can stop big business from sending their jobs overseas or to Mexico.

The CEO's are getting richer and richer and the middle class is shrinking because there are fewer jobs and the pay isn't keeping up with the cost of living. Tell me, what's the answer? Because I'm one of those middle-class workers who are being affected. I have a 4-year degree, but can't find a job here in San Antonio that will pay me more than $26,000 a year. It's getting very discouraging.
1) How old are you?
2) What is your degree in?
3) Have you looked any place other than S.A.?

Globalization itself is not so much the problem as it is the measuring stick. You can't have the systemic failures in education, leadership, and culture that America has suffered for 40 years and expect to keep up with rising countries that are hungrier than we are and don't take success for granted.

What we are suffering is the less bad of two options. If we choose to cut off globalization by restraining trade, we repeat the same mistakes of 80 years ago that led to the Great Depression.

[fyatuk]

access to community college? :rolleyes

like when they cut funding to the PELL GRANT program

You mean the one that even after the cuts is higher than anything Clinton approved of?

[xrayzebra]

access to community college? :rolleyes

like when they cut funding to the PELL GRANT program

Hey get a student loan. You aren't guaranteed a grant. The government
isn't the tooth fairy.

[smeagol]

oh really?

are you the poor or rich?
What's you point?

[Nesterofish]

Globalization itself is not so much the problem as it is the measuring stick. You can't have the systemic failures in education, leadership, and culture that America has suffered for 40 years and expect to keep up with rising countries that are hungrier than we are and don't take success for granted.
Yeah it really sucks here huh dumbass. That's why you see people all over the world trying to emigrate to China and India for those jobs...

Oh wait.

[Nesterofish]

access to community college? :rolleyes

like when they cut funding to the PELL GRANT program
Try getting a J-O-B to help pay for school.

[Clandestino]

The jobs being exported to other countries are mainly the "middle-class" jobs. I grew up in Flint, Michigan, and I've seen what it's become now that the majority of automotive jobs have been sent to Mexico or overseas.

I would like someone to tell me who's responsible and what can be done about it. I don't want the same old tired garbage - I want someone to tell me how the government can stop big business from sending their jobs overseas or to Mexico.

The CEO's are getting richer and richer and the middle class is shrinking because there are fewer jobs and the pay isn't keeping up with the cost of living. Tell me, what's the answer? Because I'm one of those middle-class workers who are being affected. I have a 4-year degree, but can't find a job here in San Antonio that will pay me more than $26,000 a year. It's getting very discouraging.

blame that shit on the unions... that is also why fords and chevys don't last long... that is why everyone is buying nissans and toyotas..

and why should a company pay an american 70,000 a year to do something that they can pay someone else 15,000 a year to do the same or even better? it doesn't make any fucking sense..

also, what is your degree in? and what kind of jobs are you looking for?

[Extra Stout]

blame that shit on the unions... that is also why fords and chevys don't last long... that is why everyone is buying nissans and toyotas..

and why should a company pay an american 70,000 a year to do something that they can pay someone else 15,000 a year to do the same or even better? it doesn't make any fucking sense..

also, what is your degree in? and what kind of jobs are you looking for?
It's interesting... as GM and Ford plants up north shrink, Toyota is on the verge of approving an expansion to double its San Antonio plant, and is discussing quadrupling it.

Those jobs are worth more than $15,000 a year. And they're here in America.

Michigan is a basket case, though.

[Clandestino]

It's interesting... as GM and Ford plants up north shrink, Toyota is on the verge of approving an expansion to double its San Antonio plant, and is discussing quadrupling it.

Those jobs are worth more than $15,000 a year. And they're here in America.

Michigan is a basket case, though.

great point... i guess it is the unions... toyota doesn't allow its employees to unionize

[Extra Stout]

great point... i guess it is the unions... toyota doesn't allow its employees to unionize
It's not just the unions. GM/Ford simply are not very good companies. They don't have innovative ideas, they're always playing catch-up, and they really don't have the means anymore to draw the pick-of-the-litter people they would need to turn things around.

And Michigan is stuck in stubborn nostalgia. They aren't willing to adapt to the changing economic realities, and instead just want to catch a death grip on the vestiges of the good life they used to have.

Sort of like Texas during the oil bust. We learned. They need to.

[DarkReign]

It's not just the unions. GM/Ford simply are not very good companies. They don't have innovative ideas, they're always playing catch-up, and they really don't have the means anymore to draw the pick-of-the-litter people they would need to turn things around.

And Michigan is stuck in stubborn nostalgia. They aren't willing to adapt to the changing economic realities, and instead just want to catch a death grip on the vestiges of the good life they used to have.

Sort of like Texas during the oil bust. We learned. They need to.

We are.

[Crookshanks]

and why should a company pay an american 70,000 a year to do something that they can pay someone else 15,000 a year to do the same or even better? it doesn't make any fucking sense..

Bingo! There are people, straight out of high school, who make $25 an hour, plus full medical and dental (which they don't pay a dime for), just for doing the same thing over and over and over on the assembly line. The unions have destroyed the automotive industry in Michigan and it's very sad.

I have a liberal arts degree, but I have a high concentration of business courses. I went back to school after my divorce in 1989, so that I could better support my children and not have to go on welfare or depend on getting remarried in order to support myself and my children. I was part of a specialized program for the non-traditional student that allowed us to graduate sooner. I wanted to get a business degree, but it would have taken me more than 4 years and I didn't have the money to do it.

Also, I planned on going to Law School, so my undergraduate degree wouldn't have mattered. I found out during my 1st semester of Law School that is was almost impossible to work part time, take care of 3 young children and go to Law School full time. I made the decision to put my children first - realized the world would not miss one less lawyer!

So anyway, I have held several positions in accounts payable and receivable and been Office Manager a few times. Companies expect that women should have a husband who makes good money and has benefits, so they don't pay women in these jobs very much. It's very discouraging because I'm very smart and I know I can do more than they give me credit for!

[Crookshanks]

i've seen more incompetent and overpaid people in that field than anywhere else

I'm not sure how to take that comment! But anyway, I would love to get into Public Relations. I love talking to people and I think I could do a pretty good job. However, it's been my experience that if you don't have the specific degree, or previous experience in the field, no one will give you a chance unless you know the right people to get your foot in the door.

Right now I'm working a as temp. I was at my previous assignment for 6 months, but they hired someone else permanently simply because I didn't have an accounting degree. It didn't matter that I'd been doing the job, and doing it very well, for 6 months!

[fyatuk]

So anyway, I have held several positions in accounts payable and receivable and been Office Manager a few times. Companies expect that women should have a husband who makes good money and has benefits, so they don't pay women in these jobs very much. It's very discouraging because I'm very smart and I know I can do more than they give me credit for!

Yeah, the whole pay women less thing is BS crap, but all over the place in many fields. Of course in a lot of places women make more than men in CSR type positions, so I guess it balances it out, sort of. Bleh.

[DarkReign]

Yeah, the whole pay women less thing is BS crap, but all over the place in many fields. Of course in a lot of places women make more than men in CSR type positions, so I guess it balances it out, sort of. Bleh.

You have a point, but I seriously doubt it even comes close to "balance(ing) out".

[fyatuk]

You have a point, but I seriously doubt it even comes close to "balance(ing) out".

yeah me too, but its a good enough rationalization for some people.