http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/21830103/its_a_class_war_stupid

QuoteHere's the thing: nobody needs me or Bernie Sanders to tell them that it sucks out there and that times are tougher economically in this country than perhaps they've been for quite a long time. We've all seen the stats — median income has declined by almost $2,500 over the past seven years, we have a zero personal savings rate in America for the first time since the Great Depression, and 5 million people have slipped below the poverty level since the beginning of the decade. And stats aside, most everyone out there knows what the deal is. If you're reading this and you had to drive to work today or pay a credit card bill in the last few weeks you know better than I do for sure how fucked up things have gotten. I hear talk from people out on the campaign trail about mortgages and bankruptcies and bill collectors that are enough to make your ass clench with 100 percent pure panic.

Quote from: droog;235999http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/21830103/its_a_class_war_stupid

Welcome to the real America.  

I've been saying this shit for years now.

Quote from: J Arcane;236082I've been saying this shit for years now.

"Systematic assault on the middle class" and "conversion from 'middle class' to a 'consumer class' " are the phrases I've been using for years.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;236088"Systematic assault on the middle class" and "conversion from 'middle class' to a 'consumer class' " are the phrases I've been using for years.

!i!

I tend to prefer more dramatic terms like "neo-feudalism".

Anyone who draws comparisons between the current economy and the "Great Depression" instantly loses all credibility.

Instantly?  All credibility? How convenient. And hyperbolic.  Rather takes the edge off considering someone else's opinion.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;236103Instantly?  All credibility? How convenient. And hyperbolic.  Rather takes the edge off considering someone else's opinion.

!i!

Remember kids, the best way to prevent something, it to just pretend it could never happen again ever.

This is going to get me in hot water with folks around here, but...statistics are a funny thing.  For example:

According to this site (which, unfortunately only goes to 2006), the median income is the same as it was in 1999/2000 (using equivalent 2006 dollars). So if it has slipped in the past two years, which is of course possible, it's not 7 years.  In fact, according to those numbers, it looks like the median income was making a recovery - it appears until recent economic issues have taken their toll.

According to this site it looks like the personal savings rate has been zero (or lower!) since the Great Depression (Side Note: Corollary to Godwin: The Great Depression). According to this site, it's been steadily dropping since the 70's.

I don't know about poverty level, I'd have to research that and I'm hungry.

But it strikes me that he focuses on the last eight years for a reason. Unfortunately, it's the wrong focus (wrong isn't quite right...misguided?). This situation is the culmination of a number of influences from bad habits to rising prices and taxes - none of which are going to be largely changed regardless of who gets elected, IMHO.

FWIW - I know it's a relatively unpopular ideology around here not to believe that America is purposefully and maliciously stacked against the middle class/lower class; but there it is, I'll cop to it.

Quote from: CavScout;236095Anyone who draws comparisons between the current economy and the "Great Depression" instantly loses all credibility.

Too bad reality does bend to a forceful assertion.

When you say something like this, you need to provide a "because."  Anyone who draws comparisons between the current economy and the "Great Depression" instantly loses all credibility because...

See, when you don't provide the because we just have to assume it's something like because...

...I don't want it to be a possibility.
...Rush Limbaugh told me so.
...I'm too dull witted to imagine that.
...it scares me.
...only a liberal would believe that, and liberals are evil!

I think this is why right-wingers never explain their assertions.  Because if they gave the because, everyone would laugh at them.  Maybe it's how they're raised.

Right Winger Child: "Hey mom, I think we should replace the progressive income tax with a flat national sales tax because ..."
Right Winger Mother: "No!  Don't say it!"
Right Winger Child: "Because..."
Right Winger Mother: "No!  They're all going to laugh at you!"
Right Winger Child: "But mom..."
Right Winger Mother: "Noooooooo!  They're all going to laugh at you!"
Right Winger Child: "Ma-"
Right Winger Mother: "NOOOOOOOOOO!  THEY'RE ALL GOING TO LAUGH AT YOU!"

Quote from: J Arcane;236082Welcome to the real America.  

I've been saying this shit for years now.

Oh, I know. I thought it was a good article, though.

Quote from: James J Skach;236109But it strikes me that he focuses on the last eight years for a reason. Unfortunately, it's the wrong focus (wrong isn't quite right...misguided?). This situation is the culmination of a number of influences from bad habits to rising prices and taxes - none of which are going to be largely changed regardless of who gets elected, IMHO.

I think you've rather missed the point, because it is certainly not a partisan electioneering piece.

Quote from: droog;236117I think you've rather missed the point, because it is certainly not a partisan electioneering piece.

I know you think that. But really, read it a few times and think of yourself as a right of center person. I think you'll find there's a quite a nice little bias running through that piece, dressed up as a non-partisan-neither-side-gets-it piece.

I say this based on the very examples provided (for which I read the article to make sure I understood the context).

The point is that the entire idea that there is a class war going on in the US and the election will affect it in an significant way is itself a piece of electioneering.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, you're correct and I've missed the point. Why use statistics that are..well..a bit off? why say something like:

QuoteHere, however, is something that is a secret: that this is a class issue that is being intentionally downplayed by a political/media consensus bent on selling the public a version of reality where class resentments, or class distinctions even, do not exist. Our "national debate" is always a thing where we do not talk about things like haves and have-nots, rich and poor, employers versus employees. But we increasingly live in a society where all the political action is happening on one side of the line separating all those groups, to the detriment of the people on the other side.

First, the bolded part is simply hilarious. This stuff comes up all the time, particularly during election time. Second, all of the political action is on one side? Really? So people who are fighting for illegal aliens to be made citizens are on...which side again?

You don't think this:

QuoteAnd while we've all heard stories about how much waste and inefficiency there is in our military spending, this is always portrayed as either "corruption" or simple inefficiency, and not what it really is — a profound expression of our national priorities, a means of taking money from ordinary, struggling people and redistributing it not downward but upward, to connected insiders, who turn your tax money into pure profit.

You want an example? Sanders has a great one for you. The Senator claims that he has been trying for years to increase funding for the Federally Qualified Health Care (FQHC) program, which finances community health centers across the country that give primary health care access to about 16 million Americans a year. He's seeking an additional $798 million for the program this year, which would bring the total appropriation to $2.9 billion, or about what we spend every two days in Iraq.

isn't electioneering? Because really, all it's doing is making the other guys priorities seem dangerous and wasteful - just like the other side is doing to the author's priorities.

QuoteWe have officially spent and mismanaged our way out of la-la land and back to the ugly place where politics really lives — a depressingly serious and desperate argument about how to keep large numbers of us from starving and freezing to death. Or losing our homes, or having our cars repossessed. For a long time America has been too embarrassed to talk about class; we all liked to imagine ourselves in the wealthy column, or at least potentially so, flush enough to afford this pissing away of our political power on meaningless game-show debates once every four years. The reality is much different, and this might be the year we're all forced to admit it.

Large numbers? Really? How many, really? Where are the statistics on the large numbers of people who are starving or freezing or losing homes or having cars repossessed - and how is that broken down by class and how has it changed over the last 60 years?

Nope, nothing about that. Just a way to latch on to some grim tough economic statistics to proclaim there's a class war going on that is really as much electioneering as the "flip-flopper" and "experience" jargon the author sneers at early on in the piece.

But class war seems to be popular here, so I'm sure I'm up already up against the wall on this one...

Quote from: Ian Absentia;236103Instantly?  All credibility? How convenient. And hyperbolic.  Rather takes the edge off considering someone else's opinion.

!i!

If one wants to compare the current economic times to the Great Depression, why yes. Instantly.

Quote from: Jackalope;236110Too bad reality does bend to a forceful assertion.

When you say something like this, you need to provide a "because."  Anyone who draws comparisons between the current economy and the "Great Depression" instantly loses all credibility because...

See, when you don't provide the because we just have to assume it's something like because...

Just imagine if "facts" would actually make you change your mind. They won't, so why ask for 'em?

Besides, you could provide your own "because" for why I am wrong. I won't hold my breadth.

Quote from: James J Skach;236127I know you think that. But really, read it a few times and think of yourself as a right of center person. I think you'll find there's a quite a nice little bias running through that piece, dressed up as a non-partisan-neither-side-gets-it piece.

I think it's obvious that the writer is not a supporter of the Republican party, yes. But in no way does he suggest that this one election will affect anything much. Rather the reverse.

He can't slam Obama for policy, because the guy hasn't been in power.