What is "Middle Class?"

[cel]

The Democrats rate those with no earned income as poor, those making minimum wage as middle class and those making more than minimum wage rich. If you listen to what the Democrats have said in the past and what B.O. says today this fits.

[widgeon13]

That sounds right and he is going to be "Robin Hood" stealing from the rich and giving to the poor!

[stevepaa]

Originally Posted by cel

The Democrats rate those with no earned income as poor, those making minimum wage as middle class and those making more than minimum wage rich. If you listen to what the Democrats have said in the past and what B.O. says today this fits.

No, it doesn’t. He said families at 150K should not have any increase, but at 250K the increase should start

Originally Posted by s_wilwerding

He now makes around $300K a year. Obama's solution to all my uncle's hard work - he ought to be taxed more to support the lazy folks that can't get off their rears to find work..

No, it isn’t to support lazy people, it is to pay the bills.

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

Originally Posted by Hugh R

Wasn't it senator Dick Gephardt who referred to some of us as "lucky sperm"? Makes me sick.

USMC at 17, went to undergraduate part time at night while working full time, ditto for my MBA. Put myself though with no financial aid (sorry baby, wrong color). Saved, trying to buy my first house 750 sq. ft. Moved up over 30 years of work, and I'm the lucky one? Give me a break.

Yes, you are. And you are on the far side of the bell curve.

They above examples cite an EE who got a sweet deal and Hugh got an MBA. You guys are not average. The posters on this board are predominantly high earners.

I don’t know how this myth started: that people who don’t make as much as most of us are lazy. They aren’t. Most people in the workforce couldn’t do the things high earners do. They are doing the best they can.

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by stevepaa

No, it doesn’t. He said families at 150K should not have any increase, but at 250K the increase should start.

If you look at sales, state income, local income and real estate taxes in places like New York or San Jose - $250K is not a lot of money. More like $140K in much of rural America. Why should we bear the brunt of Obama's tax increases?

$250K around here could be a teacher married to a dentist... Not exactly living on Park Avenue. More like 1+ hour commutes to a three bedroom house.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by stevepaa

Yes, you are. And you are on the far side of the bell curve.

They above examples cite an EE who got a sweet deal and Hugh got an MBA. You guys are not average. The posters on this board are predominantly high earners.

I don’t know how this myth started: that people who don’t make as much as most of us are lazy. They aren’t. Most people in the workforce couldn’t do the things high earners do. They are doing the best they can.

Not this crap again. I've known a lot of people that weren't particularly smart that made something of themselves. Hell, I make decent money as an engineer, but there's experienced licensed plumbers that make better money. There are MANY trade related jobs that don't require formal education, but can be quite lucrative. Your mistake is correlating book smarts and money. Common sense, business acumen, and work ethic can carry you a long way in America.

Further, "that money is to pay the bills". Where do you suppose those "bills" come from? Possibly an ever increasing spread of social entitlement programs? Not to mention government regulation of EVERYTHING? You know, when I need more money, I try to cut spending. Perhaps government can learn a lesson from the personal finances of many Americans? Of course, I don't have the luxury of stealing money out of everyone else's pockets when I want to increase my spending.

[stevepaa]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

If you look at sales, state income, local income and real estate taxes in places like New York or San Jose - $250K is not a lot of money. More like $140K in much of rural America. Why should we bear the brunt of Obama's tax increases?

$250K around here could be a teacher married to a dentist... Not exactly living on Park Avenue. More like 1+ hour commutes to a three bedroom house.

I make under 150 and do okay in San Jose, at 250K I would be doing very well indeed.

The brunt would be carried by the rich, and I catagorize >1M/yr as rich.

[stevepaa]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Not this crap again. I've known a lot of people that weren't particularly smart that made something of themselves. Hell, I make decent money as an engineer, but there's experienced licensed plumbers that make better money. There are MANY trade related jobs that don't require formal education, but can be quite lucrative. Your mistake is correlating book smarts and money. Common sense, business acumen, and work ethic can carry you a long way in America.

I am not simply correlating book smarts and money, but that is the common thread in the examples given.

Why not address the real question?

Are people who make less than mosty of us simply lazy people who don't work hard enough??

[Taz's Master]

I believe class standing is determined by financial situation and income doesn't necessarily determine financial situation.

[stevepaa]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Further, "that money is to pay the bills". Where do you suppose those "bills" come from? Possibly an ever increasing spread of social entitlement programs?

Yep. social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment and welfare make up 55% of the budget not counting the wars we fund.

If you can find a reasonable means to decrease these you should be in Congress.

[rcecale]

Originally Posted by stevepaa

Yep. social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment and welfare make up 55% of the budget not counting the wars we fund.

If you can find a reasonable means to decrease these you should be in Congress.

A time limit on welfare would be a good start! Hell, even Bill Clinton knew that...

Mr. Clinton's call for a limit on welfare was part of his claim to be a responsibility-oriented Democrat, and as President he has continued to say he will "end welfare as we know it."

Randy

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by stevepaa

Yep. social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment and welfare make up 55% of the budget not counting the wars we fund.

If you can find a reasonable means to decrease these you should be in Congress.

You're kidding me, right? People are in Congress because they are exceptionally talented at kissing ass, lying, and fundraising. Real solutions? Riiiiiiight.

You want my ideas?
Social Security: Privatize it, allow individuals to actually receive a return on their investment, as opposed to the nothing that money makes with the govt. Make it like a 401k, but don't allow early withdrawls.

Unemployment: WTF is unemployment? Throughout my years as a blue collar worker (prior to returning to college), I never had trouble finding a new job. Why should people get a check to take their sweet time finding work? Buh bye.

Welfare: Make it based on pure physical need. If you're a paraplegic, you should get government assistance. If you have a mild physical disability, you're on your own. If you're lazy or have 10 kids (from different daddies), you're SOL. I have a coworker with one arm, the other is a stub from a birth defect. He used to do engineering drafting, ride motorcycles, and was a private pilot. So don't tell me that your back pain keeps you from sitting at a desk somewhere.

So, how much have I saved thus far? I'd be willing to bet that I've saved enough to reduce taxes and still take a serious bite out of our national debt.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by stevepaa

I am not simply correlating book smarts and money, but that is the common thread in the examples given.

Why not address the real question?

Are people who make less than mosty of us simply lazy people who don't work hard enough??

Your question insinuates that there should be equity, "make less than most of us". That's not life, sorry. So lets change it to be more relevant.

Are people who make too little to live comfortably simply lazy people who don't work hard enough

To that I would answer, yes. In America we have an abundance of good jobs where a good living can be made. If you're willing to work hard, you can still live comfortably.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

You want my ideas?
Social Security: Privatize it, allow individuals to actually receive a return on their investment, as opposed to the nothing that money makes with the govt. Make it like a 401k, but don't allow early withdrawls.

at most, 20% of the population is qualified AND has the time to manage an investment portfolio.

Privatization and deregulation guarantees corruption.

I am agreeable to an opt-out program after you pass an investment proficiency class and test.

The result, otherwise, is a social bailout on twice the scale of the typical corporate/banking bailout, and 3x leaving SS alone.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

at most, 20% of the population is qualified AND has the time to manage an investment portfolio.

Privatization and deregulation guarantees corruption.

I am agreeable to an opt-out program after you pass an investment proficiency class and test.

The result, otherwise, is a social bailout on twice the scale of the typical corporate/banking bailout, and 3x leaving SS alone.

You're right. The fed. gov't. has done a much better job than I could have done. They know best and have my best interests at heart.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Rick, I don't understand your post as it relates to mine.

if you are in the 20% that has both the time and knowledge, great! I recommended a proficiency class and test that would allow you to opt out of the government-run program.

I don't understand why you posted what you did. Please explain.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

at most, 20% of the population is qualified AND has the time to manage an investment portfolio.

Privatization and deregulation guarantees corruption.

I am agreeable to an opt-out program after you pass an investment proficiency class and test.

The result, otherwise, is a social bailout on twice the scale of the typical corporate/banking bailout, and 3x leaving SS alone.

Nice to see how stupid you think the average American is.

Thank God the govt is running things. I'll spend my entire life paying in. When I'm 65, I'm confident that it will have all been pissed away on other "more important" things. If it's still there, it will have grown at an astounding 0% interest. Well done Uncle Sam!

By giving Americans options such as bonds or mutual funds, there would be reasonably safe investment options available.

[rcecale]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

You're right. The fed. gov't. has done a much better job than I could have done. They know best and have my best interests at heart.

+1

And I especially love how our politicians continue to use 'scare tactics" with "my" money, telling me it won't be there for me in the future!

Randy

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Nice to see how stupid you think the average American is.

Thank God the govt is running things. I'll spend my entire life paying in. When I'm 65, I'm confident that it will have all been pissed away on other "more important" things. If it's still there, it will have grown at an astounding 0% interest. Well done Uncle Sam!

By giving Americans options such as bonds or mutual funds, there would be reasonably safe investment options available.

Yes, the average American is completely unsophisticated when it comes to investment Matt. Please do me a favor and reconcile the housing crisis and massive credit card debt with being able to manage a lifetime of investment. I applaud you for your hope and faith in the average American being able to manage a portfolio, sadly, reality is cruel master.

But it's not just about investment knowledge and sophistication. it's about time. the Average American does not have time I believe.

And it's also about grades and school. Matt, the bell curve is real and exists. 50% of our population is below average.

For smart people like yourself who have the time to manage a portfolio, I have recommended the class and test.

When compiling the reconciliation, please show your work.

[widebody911]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Nice to see how stupid you think the average American is.

When it comes to investing, the average American is stupid. Wall Street has come to rely on this stupidity in recent years with the rise of the 'retail investor' If you privatize SS, the fleecing will begin in earnest.

Thank God the govt is running things. I'll spend my entire life paying in. When I'm 65, I'm confident that it will have all been pissed away on other "more important" things. If it's still there, it will have grown at an astounding 0% interest. Well done Uncle Sam!

By giving Americans options such as bonds or mutual funds, there would be reasonably safe investment options available.

What you're missing is that SS isn't really a retirement program: it's an extra layer of income tax, but run as a ponzi scheme.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Shawn, I'm actually not even proposing a wide open program. Make it similar to a 401k, where you have a variety of programs available, most mutual fund based. You provide Americans with a book that describes each program, with it's risks and rewards. You then allow them to pick several for the purpose of diversification, say 3. For a simple program like that, you could summarize the benefits of diversification and balancing risk/reward on one page. ANYONE can invest in mutual funds.

Hell, even bonds or CDs are a better option. Guaranteed return, no risk. It's better than NOTHING, which is what the money earns right now.