Author Topic: US Politics  (Read 47275 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2340
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #75 on: December 30, 2012, 01:46:50 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
1. I gave you the scholarly sources so argue with them

No, you didn't, you gave me what some people say. You argued that this was pretty much universally accepted, you have produced absolutely nothing to back up that patently ludicrous claim.

Quote


I didn't, care to read my post again:

Leonard Beeghley (born December 14, 1946) is Professor Emeritus of sociology at the University of Florida since 1975. He received his Ph.D. from the University of California at Riverside in 1975 and has since published seven books over the course of his career. Two of these seven books, The Emergence of Sociological Theory and The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States "become standard references in the field."[1] His interests include the relationships between social stratification, public policy and societal problems. He has been covering the socio-economic class structure of the United States in five volumes since 1978.

Leonard Beeghley, 2004

Middle class (plurality/
 majority?; ca. 46%)
 
College-educated workers with considerably higher-than-average incomes and compensation; a man making $57,000 and a woman making $40,000 may be typical.

Working class
 (ca. 40% - 45%)
 
Blue-collar workers and those whose jobs are highly routinized with low economic security; a man making $40,000 and a woman making $26,000 may be typical. High school education.

The poor (ca. 12%)
 
Those living below the poverty line with limited to no participation in the labor force; a household income of $18,000 may be typical. Some high school education.

Pearson, Allyn & Bacon; Beeghley, L. (2004). The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 04:27:45 PM by Maximus »

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22458
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: US Politics
« Reply #76 on: December 30, 2012, 02:34:20 PM »
Inheritance taxes will rise from 35% to 55% on properties worth more than $1m if a deal isn't done to avert the fiscal cliff.


Offline The Unknown Caller

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 18912
  • TORIIIIIINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Re: US Politics
« Reply #77 on: December 30, 2012, 05:04:37 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
1. I gave you the scholarly sources so argue with them

No, you didn't, you gave me what some people say. You argued that this was pretty much universally accepted, you have produced absolutely nothing to back up that patently ludicrous claim.
I didn't, care to read my post again:

And having read your entire post, we again establish that you are citing single academics and when you claimed you were speaking for a consensus, you were just making things up. Trying to tell me the credentials of your academic does not actually magically make them the entire field. It literally takes a five second google search to show you that there is no consensus on the definition of middle class and that the view you present is one of many, obviously just cherry-picked so you can pretend Romney won it and then pretend that this is important despite him getting thumped in the election. In fact, there's an entire wikipedia article about different ways of modelling the middle class, further showing that your pretending that there is one "accepted" definition is hilariously misguided.

I genuinely would have thought that being spectacularly wrong in almost every single election and polling prediction based off your methodology would have made you a bit more reluctant to try that sort of thing again.

So to recap; there is no universal definition, you have repeatedly tried to pretend that there is. Depending on the definiion, Romney almost certainly didn't win the middle class, but you have decided that your chosen definition is the only one which counts, so he did. And of course, winning the votes of those in your group are worth no more than any other votes, but you've decided that they're the most important.

And all of it a desperate rationalisation exercise to cover for the fact that despite all your confident predictions for nearly a year (Caveat; you did start backtracking in late September and again in late October) the President won re-election by a thumping margin and a landslide by the standards of most GOP pundits.  The GOP has no idea how to react to this so it's busy imploding in Congress; you have no idea how to react so you're frantically seeking illusory justifications to maintain your delusions.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 05:06:19 PM by The Unknown Caller »

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2340
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #78 on: December 30, 2012, 06:48:00 PM »
No--It's clear you no nothing about America. You think the middle class starts below the poverty line. Just say you are wrong

You are just digging deeper. I actually quoted 3 academics in my post+ US News and world report.

You just want our country to go to hell in a hand basket just like western Europe. And yes their votes are more important becuase they give to society, they build society what we had this year was a lot of people voting themselves gifts out of the US treasury, When you get more benifts than you pay in taxes that's a problem, esp when we are running huge deficts. and the getters become the majority, it is an unsustainable model.

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said that socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money.

Oh and BTW my insurance is going up 800 dollars this year and 1600 next thanks to Obama care.

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22458
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: US Politics
« Reply #79 on: December 30, 2012, 06:53:37 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You just want our country to go to hell in a hand basket just like western Europe. And yes their votes are more important becuase they give to society, they build society what we had this year was a lot of people voting themselves gifts out of the US treasury, When you get more benifts than you pay in taxes that's a problem, esp when we are running huge deficts. and the getters become the majority, it is an unsustainable model.

A red state like Alaska is subsidized by the rest of the USA.  Is that a problem?  Is Alaska unsustainable?


Offline JTBaby

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4325
Re: US Politics
« Reply #80 on: December 30, 2012, 07:17:18 PM »
My insurance is going up too.

Quite happy to pay the premium, the benefits outweigh the added cost.



Offline The Unknown Caller

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 18912
  • TORIIIIIINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Re: US Politics
« Reply #81 on: December 30, 2012, 07:31:49 PM »
Okay, so now you're just throwing out a range of disparate things and not in any way refuting the point.

Again, this really isn't hard; there is no consensus on what constitutes middle class. Lots of definitions do in fact begin at $20,000- others don't. I realise that it makes you very angry that this is true but be that as it may.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

"Depending on class model used, the middle class may constitute anywhere from 25% to 66% of households."

"Everyone wants to believe they are middle class...But this eagerness...has led the definition to be stretched like a bungee cord — used to defend/attack/describe everything...The Drum Major Institute...places the range for middle class at individuals making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year. "

And yes, you will also find quotes which support your view too... proving my point that there is no agreed upon definition! This is just a weird argument.

Oh, and by the way Max, it is incredibly unlikely that your premiums are going to rise next year due to Obamacare. It is literally impossible that they are rising due to it this year since the main provisions of Obamacare which will raise premiums for a select few while slowing their growth for the majority don't actually kick in until 2014. I'd check your sources; most likely its your insurer just trying to sneak in some more above-inflation rises while they can.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 07:36:08 PM by The Unknown Caller »

Offline Domenico of Lovetown

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2836
Re: US Politics
« Reply #82 on: December 30, 2012, 08:46:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You just want our country to go to hell in a hand basket just like western Europe. And yes their votes are more important becuase they give to society, they build society what we had this year was a lot of people voting themselves gifts out of the US treasury, When you get more benifts than you pay in taxes that's a problem, esp when we are running huge deficts. and the getters become the majority, it is an unsustainable model.

A red state like Alaska is subsidized by the rest of the USA.  Is that a problem?  Is Alaska unsustainable?



Good point, TD.  Many Red States get more back from the Federal Government than what they contribute. 

If you also look closely at the employment data some of the most "conservative" states have a higher percentage of government workers.

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2340
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #83 on: December 31, 2012, 10:14:02 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Good point, TD.  Many Red States get more back from the Federal Government than what they contribute. 

If you also look closely at the employment data some of the most "conservative" states have a higher percentage of government workers.

Well they don't (read my post above)

And OMG  of course there are more federal workers in the south--that is where most of our military bases are. FT Hood in Texas alone has about 53,000 soldiers and FT Bragg in NC has about 29,000 soldiers and there are ddozens and dozens of bases across the south (becuase the weather is better, so they can train year round) yes so of course there are more federal employees in the south.

You guys need to learn to ask the question behind the question--- But thats how libs work--just a sound bite and a distorted fact that has some basis in truth, but the twist it to fit thier world view.

Offline The Unknown Caller

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 18912
  • TORIIIIIINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Re: US Politics
« Reply #84 on: January 01, 2013, 07:16:51 AM »
I am shocked, shocked to see Maximus running from an argument he was losing in order to deliberately miss Domenicos point entirely. (He still hasn't explained why virtually all net 'takers' are red states and net contributors are blue states.) Although it's nice of him to admit that he thinks that voters who fall into his highly selective definition of middle class should count more than everybody else.

Meanwhile, Reps just lost out big time in the fiscal cliff deal. Slightly higher estate tax, higher income taxes on the wealthy, unemployment insurance extended, stimulus measures extended, and absolutely zero spending cuts. Ouch.

And the best part is, they've convinced themselves that it's a win because they can use the debt ceiling as a hostage in two months. Well, we will see how that goes for them!
« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 07:18:49 AM by The Unknown Caller »

Offline Inishfree

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5863
Re: US Politics
« Reply #85 on: January 01, 2013, 07:57:48 AM »
Max or to anyone else who would know.  What income is the middle class?  Thanks in advance.

Offline The Unknown Caller

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 18912
  • TORIIIIIINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Re: US Politics
« Reply #86 on: January 01, 2013, 08:52:33 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Max or to anyone else who would know.  What income is the middle class?  Thanks in advance.

There is no agreed upon definition. There are a lot of different definitions of 'middle class' encompassing anywhere from about a quarter of the population to two thirds of the population. Max is currently trying to use one which suits his argument, but the honest answer is that it's a contested concept and social scientists disagree.

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2340
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #87 on: January 01, 2013, 08:56:54 AM »
Leonard Beeghley  who is the stanard reference in the field of socio economic classes defines the midle class as someone making around 57,000 andthe working class with somebody making around 40,000.

TUC wants to expan it all the way down to 20,000 (which no one else does)

The thing that TUC doesn't get is that "Middle Class" isn't all about income. It is a socio economic class Definded by education, community standing, home ownership, job type and income in addition to earning potentail. If my income dropped below a certain level or I lost my job  I would still be middle class. However midd;e class income does not start below thw poverty line as TUC woul have us believe

Leonard Beeghley The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Middle Class:
College-educated workers with considerably higher-than-average incomes and compensation; a man making $57,000 and a woman making $40,000 may be typical.

Working Class:
Blue-collar workers and those whose jobs are highly routinized with low economic security; a man making $40,000 and a woman making $26,000 may be typical. High school education.

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2340
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #88 on: January 01, 2013, 09:00:00 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am shocked, shocked to see Maximus running from an argument he was losing in order to deliberately miss Domenicos point entirely. (He still hasn't explained why virtually all net 'takers' are red states and net contributors are blue states.) Although it's nice of him to admit that he thinks that voters who fall into his highly selective definition of middle class should count more than everybody else.

Meanwhile, Reps just lost out big time in the fiscal cliff deal. Slightly higher estate tax, higher income taxes on the wealthy, unemployment insurance extended, stimulus measures extended, and absolutely zero spending cuts. Ouch.

And the best part is, they've convinced themselves that it's a win because they can use the debt ceiling as a hostage in two months. Well, we will see how that goes for them!

Once again you Libs can't think for your self--Red states are not net takes. I explain it to you--Thats where all our military bases are they are very expensive to run--Further farm subs to prevent food inflation for everybody.

If you looked at just welfare hand outs the blue states would the biggest takers.

I am sorry you cannot understand this.

The economist did a similiar study --Here are some of the comments left by readers:

This whole argument has been a joke from the very beginning, something for the liberals to cling to in their desperation for defending their religion of entitlements.
 
These figures are pointless without specifying HOW the money is spent on the net-recipient states. There's a difference between spending money on food stamps for a poor family in Richmond Va and paying farm subsidies in Kansas. If you want it to be fair, then fine, cut off the farm subsidies. Just don't come back whining like little wusses when you're paying $25 for a loaf of bread.
 
(Since that went over the head of 995 of the liberal readers, the point is that in many cases, particularly farm subsidies, or even interstate highways, the money GOES to a red state but actually benefits the people who are supposedly net "givers".)


Another thing that makes these figures meaningless is that it doesn't specify the SOURCE of the taxes. This is the part the liberals don't get: STATES don't pay taxes to Washington, individuals and CORPORATIONS do. I wonder if the reason Delaware tops the list on net 'giving' is because 60% of the Fortune 500 is incorporated in Delaware, and they pay all that money to Washington REGARDLESS of where it's earned!

« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 09:26:12 AM by Maximus »

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2340
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #89 on: January 01, 2013, 09:12:36 AM »
Quite simply TUC has Middle class and Middle Income confused