Originally Posted By woody >>What does that even mean? You're not being clear.<< You need to back up a few quotes. You copied your most recent quote that doesn't follow. In other words, LOOK AT WHAT I SAID PREVIOUSLY ("Spoken like someone who hasn't read the book. All indications are that you bought into the premise without thinking about it.") You haven't thought the premise of the book "War on the Middle Class" is really credible. (Is there a war on the middle class? Maybe the book is wrong because obviously the war covers the poor as well or maybe we ignore the rich. Maybe all their interests intersect?) >>On the contrary, he's done a far better job supporting his than you have supporting yours.<< Since you said it, your opinion means nothing to me. >>RT already pointed out that saying two things do not intersect is essentially saying they never do. Two lines that do not intersect never do. "I don't cheat on my wife" means I never do.<< Whatever RT said (and I don't know what you're referring to), it doesn't make a complete list that negates the word "don't". In fact, "don't" doesn't mean "never." >>Still, I posed "never?" as a question specifically to give you a chance to clarify. You didn't do so until about 50 posts later after you'd been woodshedded.<< Which is the problem isn't it? You asked and I didn't respond directly to you. There is no implication that I agreed with you. Is there? You only managed to "woodshed" (you're borrowing Beau's words here) a strawman. >See number 73. He gave several excellent examples which completely blow open your argument, and of course you didn't respond to them then.<< I didn't see any examples in THIS POST. Which RT post are you referring to (see above)? >>If I thought you'd understand the difference...<< The difference of what? The meaning of "don't" and "never". How about this? Just because I didn't respond directly doesn't mean I agree with you. Do you know the difference???
Originally Posted By fkurucz Another article, from the Ft. Collins paper: <a href="http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060918/BUSINESS/609180311/1046" target="_blank">http://www.coloradoan.com/apps /pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060918/BUSINESS/609180311/1046</a> The observations in the article about personal spending do match what I am seeing locally: no waits at restaurants, sales taxes not meeting projections, houses not selling, etc. Hopefully the state recession won't come to pass next year, as we have yet to recover from the previous recession.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>What does that even mean? You're not being clear.<< <You need to back up a few quotes. You copied your most recent quote that doesn't follow.> Tell me what you're not following, and I'll explain. <In other words, LOOK AT WHAT I SAID PREVIOUSLY ("Spoken like someone who hasn't read the book. All indications are that you bought into the premise without thinking about it.")> All indications are that you haven't the slightest clue about my thought process. But apparently you thought you did. No wonder you're so incoherent. <You haven't thought the premise of the book "War on the Middle Class" is really credible.> How in the world would you know? I've never said anything like that. <(Is there a war on the middle class? Maybe the book is wrong because obviously the war covers the poor as well or maybe we ignore the rich. Maybe all their interests intersect?)> Maybe you're getting more and more incoherent all the time. No, make that definitely. Anyway, I've said several times that the war on the middle class is a real thing (although "war" might be a bad metaphor; "the middle class squeeze" is probably more accurate). As a member of the middle class, I understand it from the inside. >>On the contrary, he's done a far better job supporting his than you have supporting yours.<< <Since you said it, your opinion means nothing to me.> Alrighty then. >>RT already pointed out that saying two things do not intersect is essentially saying they never do. Two lines that do not intersect never do. "I don't cheat on my wife" means I never do.<< <Whatever RT said (and I don't know what you're referring to),> I suppose this is where I should rant "LOOK AT WHAT HE SAID PREVIOUSLY!!" LOL. <it doesn't make a complete list that negates the word "don't". In fact, "don't" doesn't mean "never."> In the context you used it, it usually does. As RT said (and I'm copying here, so you don't even have to find it) "I don't cheat on my wife" DOES in fact mean "I never cheat on my wife." >>Still, I posed "never?" as a question specifically to give you a chance to clarify. You didn't do so until about 50 posts later after you'd been woodshedded.<< <Which is the problem isn't it? You asked and I didn't respond directly to you. There is no implication that I agreed with you. Is there?> No, but then you shouldn't respond 50 posts later as though you HAD responded earlier. <You only managed to "woodshed" (you're borrowing Beau's words here) a strawman.> Obviously, I borrowed Beau quite consciously. And you can't "woodshed" a strawman. Look up the definition. ><See number 73. He gave several excellent examples which completely blow open your argument, and of course you didn't respond to them then.<< <I didn't see any examples in THIS POST. Which RT post are you referring to (see above)?> Is "number 73" beyond your comprehension? Can you not click on the little link that says "71-80" and read it? >>If I thought you'd understand the difference...<< <The difference of what? The meaning of "don't" and "never".> No, the difference between "misrepresentation" and what I posted. Because nothing in #159 misrepresents anything. <How about this? Just because I didn't respond directly doesn't mean I agree with you. Do you know the difference???> Of course I do. But when you do respond to me later, you should respond to what I said, not what others did.
Originally Posted By woody >>Anyway, I've said several times that the war on the middle class is a real thing (although "war" might be a bad metaphor; "the middle class squeeze" is probably more accurate). As a member of the middle class, I understand it from the inside.<< Again, I say, you buy into the argument without thinking about it. What makes the middle class unique from the poor? Okay, I missed the Post 73, but what does that mean? RT list some things that affect both groups, but the premise of the book is the middle class in other ways unique from the poor. >>In the context you used it, it usually does. As RT said (and I'm copying here, so you don't even have to find it) "I don't cheat on my wife" DOES in fact mean "I never cheat on my wife."<< You misread my quote. You get off on it. You restate it to your benefit. You can't get it out of your brain that in saying "don't" in my sentence, it doesn't mean NEVER. In your example, the sentence only has one answer. Did you cheat or didn't cheat? I wrote my sentence, clarified it again, and then you called it a back pedal. It's amazing what you do to my language. >>But when you do respond to me later, you should respond to what I said, not what others did.<< Oh brother.
Originally Posted By woody >>Okay, I missed the Post 73, but what does that mean? RT list some things that affect both groups, but the premise of the book is the middle class in other ways unique from the poor.<< Let me fix this sentence. RT list some things that affect both groups, but the premise of the book is how the middle class is affected in ways unique from the poor.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <What makes the middle class unique from the poor? Okay, I missed the Post 73, but what does that mean? RT list some things that affect both groups, but the premise of the book is the middle class in other ways unique from the poor< Because for the most part the middle class is made up of those who have followed the blueprint of American success. They have gotten an education ( or a trade) and have worked , sometimes long and hard for major companies. They have done what it has been said it takes to succeed, and their limited success is slowy being drawn away from them. That is how they are different. Again you can't broadbrush any one group, as there are exceptions to each. This is on average though the makeup of the middle class. Even more so than the wealthy, I feel the middle class embodies the American dream.
Originally Posted By woody Let me respond to RoadTrip's Post 73 based on my sentence..."The interests of the middle class and poor don't intersect." >>Places where the interests of the middle class and poor intersect.<< Of course, whatever you say. >>1) The price of gas. This is a concern of the poor and middle class. I don’t think the rich care too much what their driver has to pay when he gasses up the limo.<< The poor can't afford cars and therefore rely on other ways to go to work. If they can buy it, then they can afford to pay for gas. Otherwise, they will do without like they can do without MANY other things. The middle class, in general, will buy the gas. They maintain their lifestyles. Sure, the gas budget will hurt the pocketbooks so they can't buy other stuff (even basic necessities), but gas prices will affect the middle class in more significant ways. >>2) Quality public schools. The poor and middle class still primarily use public schools. The rich send their kids almost exclusively to private schools.<< The middle class have more mobility and choices than you think. They also are concerned about cultural issues and make decisions on schools based on values. Many middle class people will move to the good school districts. If not, then they will send their kids to private schools. Those who opt out will have to pay to attend good schools. Another expense for them. The poor students have no choice and no options. Many poor students have parent who just don't care. It's a generality to say both classes care about schools in the same way. The middle class and poor don't have the same goals. >>3) A strong and solvent Social Security system. The poor and middle class rely on it to form the base of their retirement income. The rich could care less (which is why the Bush administration wanted to dismantle it).<< The middle class already given up on expecting Social Security to help them out. They expect other sources like pensions and IRAs. They are concerned about SS taxes, in which any dollar going to the government will not go to their own retirement plans. >>4) Quality low cost healthcare available to all. Again, a concern of the poor and middle class that the rich don’t worry about very much.<< The poor don't have it. They rely on public assistance. The middle class relies on the insurance from their companies. Certainly low cost is helpful, but do you realize health care costs are impacted by having more poor people getting free care? The middle class should be very scared of free riders (poor and the illegal alien free loaders). >>5) Good mass transit. The poor and elderly rely on it; the middle class would use it if it were more widely available. Mass transit for the rich is sharing the Lear Jet with a couple of friends.<< The middle class cannot use it sufficiently with all the errands they must make and the distance to their homes. The poor can use it more effectively since their live in high density locations where mass transit is more available. >>I could go on and on, but you get the idea.<< Yeah, I get the idea. Do you?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip What you smoking there Woody? You saying it doesn't make it true, and it certainly isn't. <<The poor can't afford cars>> Many poor people drive cars. They aren't good cars, and they aren't always insured, but they do own cars. <<The middle class have more mobility and choices than you think. They also are concerned about cultural issues and make decisions on schools based on values. Many middle class people will move to the good school districts. >> But they still rely on public schools, don't they Woody. Yes, they may move to where the public schools are regarded as being better. Minnesota has open enrollment in any district, so that happens with some frequency here. But you are still talking public schools. We need good public schools. Besides, do you really want all the inner city black kids going out to the suburbs because that is where the better public schools are? Going to school with YOUR kids? I didn't think so. We need good public schools for all. <<The poor don't have it. They rely on public assistance.>> Wouldn't it be better if that were not the case? <<The middle class relies on the insurance from their companies>> And it is increasingly becoming unaffordable for the middle class. The university where I work provides much better benefits than the average employer. Still, we've gone from a situation where individual coverage was free to where we now have to pay a significant premium, and it keeps going up. Family coverage used to be available for about $20 per month, and now it runs about $100 per month. As I said, this is GOOD coverage and I am lucky to have it. Many people have to pay hundreds of dollars per month for family coverage. <<The middle class already given up on expecting Social Security to help them out. >> No they have not. I certainly hope it will be there. I will live much more nicely if it is. Will I be able to live a middle class lifestyle if it goes away? Yes. Will I be able to live like I am now, and like I could in retirement if Social Security does not go away? No chance. <<The middle class cannot use it sufficiently with all the errands they must make and the distance to their homes.>> B.S. When you have good, convenient mass transit HUGE numbers of people who are not poor use it. Look at NYC. Look at Chicago. Look at the huge increase in ridership when Minneapolis put in a light rail system that ran out to the suburbs. You are way off on this one Woody. I don't know what your experience is, but it must not be in a mid to large sized city with mass transit.
Originally Posted By woody >>You saying it doesn't make it true, and it certainly isn't.<< That's not a way to prove a point. >>Many poor people drive cars. They aren't good cars, and they aren't always insured, but they do own cars.<< Very few in proportion to the middle class, which is my point. Again, I didn't say NEVER. >>But they still rely on public schools<< Yes, but I addressed that in saying they have mobility to choose and they demand better quality in more significant ways than the poor. The middle class have unique needs (values, extracurrular activities, advanced classes) that go beyond just a good school, although that helps too. >>You are way off on this one Woody. I don't know what your experience is, but it must not be in a mid to large sized city with mass transit.<< Gee, most middle class live in suburbs, which are away from mass transit. I live in Southern California in the LA/Orange Cty areas. Everyone I know drives to work. Those, who don't drive, use van pools, but they are not mass transit. RT: You certainly are entitle to think the needs are similar, but they are not. It's not only different, but they are different in huge degrees.
Originally Posted By woody With all the other rebuttal points from RT. I disagree. Just because I didn't respond to some rebuttal points doesn't mean I agree. Like with Social Security, don't rely on it. With healthcare, if you don't have assets, you can get all the free care you want.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <And it is increasingly becoming unaffordable for the middle class. The university where I work provides much better benefits than the average employer. Still, we've gone from a situation where individual coverage was free to where we now have to pay a significant premium, and it keeps going up. Family coverage used to be available for about $20 per month, and now it runs about $100 per month. < Consider yourself lucky as can be here RT -- my family insurance has gone from $0 contribution 7 years ago to $410 / month today, and yes that is just my portion of the contribution. Then since my insurance coverage is considered above average, I pay $27 a month in additional taxes.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I live in Southern California in the LA/Orange Cty areas. Everyone I know drives to work. Those, who don't drive, use van pools, but they are not mass transit.>> That says it all right there. Anyone who would rely on Southern California to judge the potential of mass transit is totally off their rocker. Surely you know Woody that LA is mass transit hell. The only thing it is an example of is what NOT to do. And by the way... successful transit systems DO go out to the suburbs. If you'd actually read my post you’d know that. <<Look at the huge increase in ridership when Minneapolis put in a light rail system that ran out to the suburbs.>> I guess that's my last response. Debating with you isn't quite as hopeless as debating with Beaumandy, but it still isn't something I want to spend a lot of time on.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <And by the way... successful transit systems DO go out to the suburbs. If you'd actually read my post you’d know that< The ridership of the Metra system in Chicago - to and from downtown - is mainly middle class and above from the northern and western suburbs. The trains carry 150,000 round trips per day and 250,000 claim to be regular riders. This are attorneys from Wilmette as much as they are secretaries from Wheaton and many others. I rode the train for years while working downtown, versus a 3 - 4 hour round trip from 35 miles west of the Loop.
Originally Posted By woody >>That says it all right there. Anyone who would rely on Southern California to judge the potential of mass transit is totally off their rocker. Surely you know Woody that LA is mass transit hell. The only thing it is an example of is what NOT to do.<< This suggests ignorance of Southern California. People live in all parts of the county. No mass transit system can serve a majority in the same way. >>And by the way... successful transit systems DO go out to the suburbs. If you'd actually read my post you’d know that.<< Do I know it? Yes. Again, you speak in as though I excluded the term "suburb" when I did no such thing. I'm not speaking for you either. However, I think the confidence on mass transit is misplaced for the middle class. >>I guess that's my last response. Debating with you isn't quite as hopeless as debating with Beaumandy, but it still isn't something I want to spend a lot of time on.<< Neither do I, but I thought you were a challenge, which I'm certainly up for. It's not like you can't debate, but you're rather silly with all this.
Originally Posted By woody One more note, the term "suburb" as applied to Southern California usually means a distance of 30 miles and over. Some people may drive as far as 50 to 70 miles to work. Believe me, there is no way mass transit will get you to work.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<One more note, the term "suburb" as applied to Southern California usually means a distance of 30 miles and over. Some people may drive as far as 50 to 70 miles to work.>> Although Chicago is not as spread out as LA, it is a HUGE city with suburbs reaching almost all the way to Milwaukee. It has VERY good mass transit; with the Metra that vbdad mentioned going way out to the far suburbs. Not sucking up to vbdad or anything, but Chicago is without a doubt the best large city in America on any number of different measures. If you haven't been there, you really should check it out.
Originally Posted By woody >>Because for the most part the middle class is made up of those who have followed the blueprint of American success. They have gotten an education ( or a trade) and have worked , sometimes long and hard for major companies. They have done what it has been said it takes to succeed, and their limited success is slowy being drawn away from them.<< >>That is how they are different. Again you can't broadbrush any one group, as there are exceptions to each. This is on average though the makeup of the middle class. Even more so than the wealthy, I feel the middle class embodies the American dream.<< vbdad55: Sorry for not acknowledging your explanation. I don't disagree with this at all.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I guess that's my last response. Debating with you isn't quite as hopeless as debating with Beaumandy, but it still isn't something I want to spend a lot of time on.<< Neither do I, but I thought you were a challenge, which I'm certainly up for.>> I should give credit where credit is due. Recently you have not engaged in the "lib-moonbat-smackdown-woodshed" garbage that I find so useless and offensive. Although I obviously don't agree with your point of view, you have started to present your views in a more meaningful way and I do respect that.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The ridership of the Metra system in Chicago - to and from downtown - is mainly middle class and above from the northern and western suburbs." In the SF area, all sorts of middle to upper middle class people ride mass transit. In just about every large city I've been to, it's like that. Only in LA is it not like that. That I have seen, anyway.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <However, I think the confidence on mass transit is misplaced for the middle class. < with a quarter of a million riders here in Chicagoland and trains you can usually set your watch to here, explain this statement if you can ? it is better for traffic, for auto emissions, for safety....just how is that misplaced ?
