Comments for Middle class grow fearful about their prospects »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 1 year, 7 months ago in Business & FinanceGrowing numbers of middle-class Americans say they are not better off than they were five years ago, reflecting economic pressures amid growing debt, a study released Wednesday shows. Their short-term assessments of personal progress, according to the study, is the worst it has been in almost half a century.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 77 of 78 Comments
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mdual1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I grew up middle class and still am and one thing I know is that today's "middle class" is just trying to pretend they're rich and can't sustain it. EVERYONE I know leases a car, maxes their credit cards to buy designer, nobody owns a darn thing, it's all borrowed. This is just stupid and pretentious.
I drive a mercedes, bought it used, five years old but looks new and drives like new and cost less than a new jeep. I don't need new car smell so this luxury I can afford.
Government needs to be in the business of running the country and not the business of subsidizing lifestyles.
Reply
-
-
DanmLiberalsComment removed: Retracted by user18 Replies
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In 1929 before the Great Depression, the concentration of wealth (all assets including money, property, stocks, etc.) in the hands of the richest 1% reached a high of 50%. One percent of the people owned 50% of everything here. The middle class was in shambles. By 1933 when Hoover left office, the Republicans had held the Presidency for all but 12 of the past 44 years.
The Great Depression brought some equity back to the distribution of wealth and a long run of Democratic rule. The top 1% retained between 25 and 30% of the nation's wealth during that time.
Beginning with Nixon in 1969, the tide began to turn again. By the end of George W. Bush's term in 2009, the country will have again been under Republican rule for all but 12 of the past 40 years. And concentration of wealth is back to near 50% in the hands of the elite 1%.
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Real income has been stagnant for 8 years while inflation has roared ahead unchecked. Good paying manufacturing and technology jobs have been flying offshore to be replaced with low paying service-sector work offering no health care. Nearly 1/5th of Americans are without any health care now, and another large block are under-covered or have plans that routinely cancel coverage for anyone who gets seriously ill.
If McCain wins and makes the Bush tax advantages for the very wealthy permanent, there will soon be no more middle class. America will have been reduced to third world status like so many banana republics to our South.
The very wealthy will either remain in heavily guarded enclaves here or move on to better climes like Dubai or Switzerland or the French Riviera.
Reply-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FDR put a stop to the elitists using the infrastructure provided them by the common man to succeed, & giving nothing back. He allowed them their fortunes, of course, but put a cap on them. Anything over was taxed at 70%, to stop the building of dynasties that could become so powerful, the common man would become a slave to them. This allowed the masses to keep more of their earnings, & created the middle class.
I'm dumbfounded by people who struggle, yet keep voting this class of vultures into power. They're being used with childish BS like 'prayer in schools', or 'gay marriage' emotionalism to get their votes, and they fall for it. They are sinking their own ship.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Report Says That the Rich Are Getting Richer Faster, Much Faster
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.
All figures are from the Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/business/15ri...
Reply -
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Corporate Wealth Share Rises for Top-Income Americans
In 2003 the top 1 percent of households owned 57.5 percent of corporate wealth, up from 53.4 percent the year before, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the latest income tax data. The top group's share of corporate wealth has grown by half since 1991, when it was 38.7 percent.
For every group below the top 1 percent, shares of corporate wealth have declined since 1991. These declines ranged from 12.7 percent for those on the 96th to 99th rungs on the income ladder to 57 percent for the poorest fifth of Americans, who made less than $16,300 and together owned 0.6 percent of corporate wealth in 2003, down from 1.4 percent in 1991.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/national/29ri...
Reply -
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From 1989: Top 1 percent holds 40 percent of wealth - U.S. inequality widening - Editorial
According to new studies reported last week in The New York Times, Federal Reserve figures from 1989, the most recent available, show that the wealthiest 1 percent of U.S. households -- with net worth of at least $2.3 million each -- owns nearly 40 percent of the nation's wealth. By contrast, the wealthiest 1 percent of the British population owns about 18 percent of the wealth there -- down from 59 percent in the early 1920s.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_...
Reply -
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I freely admit that I am projecting forward from the 1989 study and a more recent one in 2003 showing the percentage up to 43.2%. Applying the Bush tax cuts, which massively favored the wealthy, as well as cuts in capital gains and elimination of estate taxes, the number is now around the 50% mark. And the curve hasn't begun to level off. If you want to completely eliminate the middle class, vote for McCain and 4 more years of George Wealthy1st Bush.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned14 Replies
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If this is true, Americans are really dumb idiots who deserve it. If not, how can a sane person explain that John McCain is neck and neck with Democrat Obama? All he is offering is 4 more years of Iraq war and rest of Bush policies.
Unless all sane voters (except hardcore neo conservatives) take the upcoming election as a "revolution" in the making, the middle class is doomed.
Reply-
Neutral
TOD3961 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Have you looked at what Obama is truly offering? He will put the final nail in the coffin if he enacts all of his spending plans. There is no magic answer for the mess the US economy is in. One man or even one administration doesn't wield the power to bring down the economy. There are other factors that are beyond the control of government that explain why the economy is down. It will take the united effort of maybe 200 to 250 million US residents to change the course. The problem is, that everyone else thinks it is up to everyone else.
The government is not responsible for financial prosperity. Prosperity is NOT your birthright!
Reply-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While it IS true that a large national economy is not subject to the will of a single man at the top, the government AS A WHOLE can certainly INFLUENCE the economy. Even that one man (the head of the fed) can greatly INFLUENCE the economy. Should it be that way? Well, not really. Government interference CAN be responsible for as many ills as it cures. Maybe just not immediately. A lot of our current problems right now (and, really, a RECESSION is not the end of the world...) are a DIRECT result of the "war" in Iraq. And there are a lot of indirect consequences too. WHY is the price of oil suddenly over $100/bbl? Has there been a sudden increase in demand? Well, we doubtless use a LOT in military actions, no? Would our national economy be better off if we had never gone to Iraq? Only to the tune of several MILLIONS of dollars PER HOUR!
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned4 Replies
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Banana republics DO exist, and in every single case, they exist because there is a government in the back pocket of the extremely wealthy and the corporations making sure they exist.
The big Con lie is that government can't do anything at all, but it must be kept in the hands of the Cons anyway.
Reply -
Neutral
cleare1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
prosperity may not be our birthrights, but an even playing field is. government is responsible for leveling the playing field and has done an abysmal job.
the giant crashes we see with Bear & Stearns, the junk bond crisis in the 1980s...Enron and the current crisis in home mortgages is directly related to deregulation policies initiated in the 1980s under Reagan. it seems everyone forgot why those regulations were in place to start with.
i'm a passionate capitalist, but capitalism has to be tempered with fairness. i still don't get why the rich aren't willing to pay living wages to their workers. 2/3rds of our economy is run on consumer spending. the more disposable income people have the more profits the rich are going to make.
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
damn, that made me think of how the baseball owners said free-agency would bankrupt them and ruin baseball.
they fought fair market wages for ball players tooth and nail, including using collusion in the 80's
and guess what? baseball is more popular than ever and baseball owners make more money than ever. New ballparks are constantly being built.
thats what flashed thru my mind when I read about fair wages and then 'more profits the rich are going to make'
RIP Kurt Flood
Reply -
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cleare - It's simple today's rich greed exceeds its commonsense. Look back in the days people were really proud to be Americans, an in American ingenuity. Today they just pay lip service to how much of an American they are. If we were challenged back in the days the rich of this nation funded that challenge and make sure we win, today they are funding the other side because of the promise of more profits and less taxes. I look at Henry Ford do you think he would outsource American jobs hell no! Then we had true Americans today we just have greed!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course you know that democrats can't. CONS filibuster every GD piece of legislation. A filibuster requires a greater number of votes to break. Democrats don't have that greater number of votes. Too bad those damn voters don't get off their sorry butts and start electing decent Congress people.
Reply -
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just be patient, Commodore. After the next election, the democrats will have enough of a majority to be able to fix the damage caused by seven years of republican out-of-control spending and welfare for the ultra-rich programs.
Until then, we will have to survive with the Administration plan (Secretary of Treasury Paulson's plan) to solve the financial crisis by lining the pockets of Wall Street tycoons with $200 billion of newly printed money (to be obtained via the Federal Reserve System in return for worthless Wall Street paper).
Happy yachting.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those who complain about Democrats in Congress are ignorant of the fact that it is 50-50 split in US Senate. A party needs a 65-35 majority to push through legislation especially with a President whose only line is "my way or no way".
With religion, faith, abortion and gay & lesbian twists that control elections in this country, there is hardly any chance for a "REAL" candidate with solid economic & foreign policies to get elected. Does such a candidate exist?. Hard to tell.
Reply -
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The analysis did not measure wealth directly. It looked at taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest and rents. Income from securities owned by retirement plans and endowments was excluded, as were gains from noncorporate assets such as personal residences.
This technique for measuring wealth has long been used in standard economic studies, though critics have challenged that tradition.
Sounds to me like a typical government measurement. If you don't include personal residences in the mix, you don't have anything remotely close to accurate. For most of us, that is the source of our wealth.
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not so. There are two separate metrics discussed. One is income. That excludes real estate. But with the burst of the real estate bubble, if that were included, it would further depress the lower income levels, who have most of their net worth in property.
But the 50% projection comes from two separate studies of wealth. That includes cash, stocks, property, businesses owned, retirement plans, endowments. It is MUCH harder to get at all that data. Hence the most recent study available was from 2003. But again, projecting that study forward with the impact of Bush's tax advantages to the massively wealthy, the wealthiest 1% now own somewhere around 50% of everything in the country. And they are increasing their hold on wealth at a very rapid rate.
Reply
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.