Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents: Just Being Middle Class Is Becoming out of Reach

By Nan Mooney, Beacon Press. Posted May 20, 2008.


Why does it take two incomes to support a middle-class lifestyle that used to require one?
picture2
nan mooney
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is an excerpt from "(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" by Nan Mooney (Beacon, 2007).

Since the 1950s, what we've considered the American experience -- be it sock-hopping, suburban living, or SUV buying -- has been largely dictated by the professional middle class. In her 1989 social critique, Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class, Barbara Ehrenreich defined this mainstream population in terms of education, occupation, lifestyle and tastes, but also in terms of income. "Middle class couples," she wrote, "earn enough for home ownership in a neighborhood inhabited by other members of their class; college educations for the children; and such enriching experiences as vacation trips, psychotherapy, fitness training, summer camp and the consumption of 'culture' in various forms."

This thriving middle class didn't develop by accident. It emerged with the introduction of government and social policies designed to lift the country out of the Great Depression and sustain economic health in the postwar era. By the 1950s, a combination of social programs including Social Security, unemployment insurance, the GI Bill, and federal housing loans helped middle class salaries stretch. Employers supplied health insurance and pensions. A surge in suburban building made housing widely accessible. You no longer had to be a doctor or a businessman to afford a two-story Colonial with a dishwasher and a color TV. For a white male supporting a family -- the typical middle class profile at the time -- it was possible to work in an array of professions whereby you didn't necessarily get rich, but you could count on being fairly comfortable. A house, a job, a car or two in the garage, a fun summer vacation, these were absolute indicators of middle class success.

Economic realities have undergone seismic shifts since our parents' and grandparents' generations. Education and housing cost more. Incomes have leveled off for all but a small minority. Employers and the government supply few social safety nets, cutting health insurance and pensions and replacing them with new "benefits" like 401(k)s and health savings plans that benefit only those with income to set aside. But many of those middle class expectations set in place back in the '50s still hold.

Alongside our schooling in philosophy and economics, today's college-educated professionals have been conditioned to see ourselves as among the financially stable, mainstream haves. Many of us attended what are considered strong academic institutions. Others come from families with comfortable financial backgrounds. Our childhood friends, our college roommates, the couple we met at that holiday party are those same lawyers and financiers who've hit the financial jackpot, driving multiple Mercedeses and buying $2 million starter homes. We know we aren't like them. We've aspired to different career and financial goals, those more rooted in education, the arts or public service. But, given our often-similar backgrounds and educations, it's clear we aren't entirely unlike them either. This rising and dramatic economic inequality among college-educated professionals, leaving so many of us to struggle while a select few enter the strata of the "super rich," was not supposed to be part of the package.

When we read about the middle class squeeze, we tend to think blue collar -- the machinist who used to make $25 an hour now making $15, the vocationally trained worker whose job just got cut. But what about the social worker who makes $30,000 a year, the environmental scientist who makes $40,000, the college professor who makes $50,000? The rules of the game have changed. The educated professional middle class experience no longer guarantees two cars in every driveway, or even the driveway itself. Instead we face relatively low-paying jobs in fields requiring a high-cost education, increasing mortgages, student-loan and credit card debt, less employer or government help with health care, retirement, education and child care, and an overall higher cost of living. As the gap between the rich and the middle class widens, a huge segment of that once-comfortable center section is finding that reality means plummeting financial and emotional security and lack of control over our lives.

Difficult times

Diana, 36, is a licensed psychologist with a PhD in clinical psychology. She splits her four-day workweek between two jobs: maintaining her own private practice and working as an assessment director for a nonprofit where she supervises and helps place school counselors. Though her income varies, she typically earns about $35,000 a year. Her husband, Byron, who has a BA in engineering, makes $40,000 as a technical writer for a patent attorney. They're both contract workers, getting paid on a per-project or per-client basis, so the size of their paychecks fluctuates from month to month. On months when the money coming in doesn't stretch quite far enough, they turn to credit cards to pay bills and buy groceries. They're currently carrying $17,000 in credit card debt.

Before the birth of their son five years ago, Diana worked 80-hour weeks as a clinician at a major research hospital in Cincinnati. "I was making $38,000 a year and working nonstop," she recalls. "The administration promised me raises and promotions, but they never came through. Instead, they demoted me when I came back from maternity leave. So I cut back to part-time work and opened my own practice."

The couple now has two children, a 5-year-old son and a 5-month-old daughter, plus a third on the way in the spring.

"This child was unplanned," Diana admits. "And I'm terrified how we're going to afford her. We haven't even recovered from the financial hit we took on my last maternity leave."

Both Diana's previous pregnancies were difficult, and she anticipates having to cut back her work hours as this one advances. In addition, her son suffers from a kidney disease that requires occasional hospital stays. The family has health insurance through Byron's job, but any days her son spends in the hospital are days Diana has to take off work.

Up until a month ago, the family paid $1,200 a month for child care, which included preschool for her son and day care for the baby. But when the day care shut down -- the family who owned it sold the building to real estate developers -- Diana and Byron decided the most economically feasible choice was to keep the kids home, hopefully until her son starts kindergarten in the fall.

"I'm only in the office two days a week and my husband works at home, so it's the best option right now," she explains. "We're saving on the child care bill, but we're also getting less work done, which means less money coming in. Until I had kids, I had no idea how insanely expensive child care would be. We'll see how long we can keep this up."

Though they own their house in a Cincinnati suburb -- a fixer-upper they bought six years ago and "put back together piece by piece all by ourselves" -- it currently contains very little equity. They pay $1,150 a month on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, and two years ago they maxed out their home equity line of credit to purchase the condominium that houses Diana's office space, plus two offices she rents out to other therapists. The 15-year mortgage on that property, plus condo fees, come to $750 a month. Diana also still pays $450 a month in student loans, a graduated plan that will go up to $550 next year, when their new baby is 6 months old.

"We're definitely not doing as well as my working-class parents did," Diana tells me. "My father owned his own garage for 30 years, and my mother worked for him. They raised seven kids on what he made, and though we didn't live extravagantly, we never wanted for anything. I was the first one in my family to go to college."

Diana and Byron have no savings left to raid and no equity, except for the $10,000 invested in Diana's office space. Though she had a 401(k) from her hospital job, Diana cashed it out last year to float them through her maternity leave. Neither she nor Byron have room for raises or promotion in their current jobs, save an annual cost-of-living increase, so the only way to boost their income is for Diana to add hours in her private practice.

"I feel like we've cut every corner we can cut," she says. "We don't take vacations. We never go out. Right now, I just keep my fingers crossed that nothing breaks. We need a new roof and new tires for the car. And we're going to get hit hard by taxes this year, because we haven't been able to set anything aside."

She wonders if she and Byron made some sort of crucial mistake along the way, if they should have sought out more lucrative and less personally rewarding careers, moved to a bigger or smaller city, invested less of their money in real estate or more. She sees neighbors buying a third car and remodeling their kitchens and worries what it will be like for her children growing up among kids who have everything, when they're struggling each week just to pay their bills.

"I'm scared," she tells me, her voice cracking. "I'm scared we'll never be able to retire. I'm scared we won't be covered for health care. I'm scared we won't be able to send our kids to college. We've never had much, but before, I always felt like we were doing our time. We were working our way toward a more comfortable future. That doesn't seem true anymore. At this point, I see no way out at all."

In the past few decades, this country has seen a dramatic economic polarization between educated professionals, dividing them into the very few very rich, and the many like Diana and Byron whose financial lives are chronically unstable and insecure. We're discovering that college or even graduate school is no longer enough. Having a full-time job is no longer enough. You can do everything you're supposed to do to "make it" in America and still wind up scrambling and scared.

The financial insecurity that's come to haunt so many educated professional middle class lives provides a powerful wake-up call about the extent of compromised choices in America today. It's pushing us away from many of the lower-paying public service professions that are essential to a well-functioning society like teaching, social work, and careers in the nonprofit sector, it's making us question whether we can afford to have families, and it's increasing the number of economic crises -- like bankruptcies and home foreclosures -- striking the middle-class population. Such insecurity obliterates the standard fallback that if only every worker had access to an education and a job they too could achieve the American dream. And it speaks to a shift that runs far deeper than just our financial state.

The economics

Why this dramatic change? The economics are simple and well documented. We're earning less and having to pay for more. Earnings for college graduates have remained stagnant for the past five years, but the costs of housing, health care and education have all risen faster than inflation. The share of family income devoted to "fixed costs" like housing, child care, health insurance, and taxes has climbed from 53 percent to 75 percent in the past two decades. Though a college degree still earns you a bigger paycheck than a high school one, the price of a four-year education has grown increasingly dear. Between 2000 and 2004, tuition rose 32 percent at four-year public colleges and 21 percent at private colleges, requiring the majority of students to take out loans to fund their educations.

Once we hit the workforce, those rising numbers do an about-face. Real earnings for those with four-year college degrees have flattened out since 2003, not even rising to keep pace with inflation.

Graduates quickly discover that many careers requiring a high level of education don't come with equally high-level salaries. Even the money we do make tends to arrive under tenuous circumstances, with middle class incomes subject to the dramatic peaks and dives economists refer to as income volatility. A typical annual drop has gone from 25 percent to as high as 40 percent. That means a couple like Byron and Diana, earning $75,000, could dip to just $45,000. In a single year. To add discomfort to discomfort, long-term unemployment is also booming, and the long-term unemployed are older, better educated, and more likely to be professionals than the general unemployed population.

When it comes to supporting a family, those numbers start climbing once again. Raising one child through age 18 costs a middle-income family roughly $237,000. Child care alone runs, on average, between $3,803 and $13,480 a year per child, with accredited care facilities charging as much as $5,000 more per child than their nonaccredited counterparts. And despite the surge in dual-income households since the 1970s, there has been no accompanying double-up on discretionary income. Once we cover all the major fixed-cost expenses, we're now relying on two incomes to support a lifestyle that used to require one.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: nan mooney, (not keeping up with our

"(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" by Nan Mooney (Beacon, 2008). Read more about the book and her work at Nan Mooney.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't I know it
Posted by: taisamarie on May 20, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have an MA degree and my husband a BA. We struggle to make ends meet every month and we live with credit cards. The only 'credit' we have is one car loan on a Ford Focus and my student loan payments of $500 a month.
My parent's had a modest house and we had a comfortable but not extravagent lifestyle. Together we make just as much as they did, yet because the cost of living keeps rising we can only afford a house half the size of the one I grew up in (our house is only 800 sq ft).
So much for moving up in the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: warpspasm
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: Hovey
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: warpspasm
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: taisamarie
» atleast you have a house... Posted by: rafaeltoral
» RE: atleast you have a house... Posted by: taisamarie
Simple ... Reaganomics and Fudged Stats
Posted by: mmckinl on May 20, 2008 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reagan broke the unions, began the outsourcing of jobs and the privatization of the public sector. The Democrats played along and all this went into hyperdrive once Bush was elected with a Republican Congress.

Less known, but just as important were the doctoring of all our economic measures. Both the inflation figures and the unemployment figures have been bogus for years. The Fed has stopped reporting several very important figures altogether including M3.

By some estimates inflation has been so underreported that SSI benefits are 40% lower today than they would have been had the inflation measures stayed the same.

Alternet just had a great article on this:

Washington's Great Inflation Hoax

It's simple really ... the American public has been scammed by the usual suspects; the corporatocracy, the main stream media and the political elites of both parties, to line their own pockets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Soon it will take three incomes for a household to have a sense of financial stability.
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on May 20, 2008 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because duplication of fixed housing expenses like initial construction costs, monthly utility services, daily commuting for work etc. burdens the environment and its limited resources. The more economically productive people aggregate in a single household, the more efficient that household is, at least in general.

The frills of middle-class life, including suburban homes, multiple vehicles, vacations, and frivolous consumption, have had a hideous effect on the natural world, and they need to be curtailed anyway. Economic forcing, via increasing financial stress, might be the only way to achieve this.

Still, economic insecurity is hell to live with, especially when it is dire enough that a person can see the specter of homelessness looming on the horizon if something simple goes wrong, like the car dies or someone gets sick and misses work. The best that people can do is to keep trying, while reassessing their expectations in order to be prepared if personal catastrophe does occur.

Political change can help the situation, but it's always uncertain whether such change will come and who it will impact, and at this point in time, it will still take years at least - if not decades - to reorganize our economy such that ordinary people can feel secure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's why it's called "nonprofit"
Posted by: Capitalist Pig on May 20, 2008 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard Nan Mooney on NPR yesterday. She bemoans the fact that "teaching, social work, and careers in the nonprofit sector" don't pay very well.

Of course they don't pay well, that's why it's called nonprofit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is just the beginning....
Posted by: xi_people on May 20, 2008 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American "middle-class" is history. Not only won't this generation be able to keep up with their parents, but the entire class is going to disappear. With the advent of Peak Oil, and perhaps Climate Change, the factors that have enabled the concept of a more equitable distribution of wealth (mainly cheap oil) are being obliterated.

These are the "good old days" that people will reminisce about for decades to come. Better enjoy them while you can!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real question
Posted by: warpspasm on May 20, 2008 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shouldn't the question be whether or not the "middle class" lifestyle of days gone by is a good thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The real question Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: The real question Posted by: fatbradley
» What are you prepared to do? Posted by: warpspasm
» RE: The real question Posted by: Logic's Edge
Hard Choices and Welcome to Reality
Posted by: terradea42 on May 20, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The middle class needs to wake up. Options for this family include abortion and defaulting on student loans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hard Choices and Welcome to Reality Posted by: world traveler
» What A Great Reason to Adopt! Posted by: pdxstudent
» An Even Better Reason To Foster! Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: What A Great Reason to Adopt! Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: What A Great Reason to Adopt! Posted by: world traveler
» RE: What A Pathetic System Posted by: FoonTheElder
Katrina Victims are our future
Posted by: fred_53_99 on May 20, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The victims of the ninth ward, the victims of Katrina they are our future. "po" not poor. most of them had jobs but they were still poor. Th ejobs they have could pay enough to live. Now it seem neither can most of the middle class. By next year ten percent of Americans will be on food stamps.Thats 23 million. But we're not bitter,The rich are supposed to screw us,that's how they got rich. Break out the industrial sized jar of vasoline, we're about to really get the big one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having trouble feeling sorry...
Posted by: Farasien on May 20, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...for the couple described in the article. They both have sub-standard jobs, for professionals. They were dumb enough to buy a house they couldn't afford, then compounding the issue, were dumb enough to have a kid they couldn't afford. Not once, but TWICE. She then opened her own practice instead of finding a more stable job, taking on MORE debt they couldn't afford...

Is it just me, or is it just a bit patheric that people like the dolts in this story, clearly victims of their own stupidity, are bitching? One of the reasons the boomer generation is doing better than the current one (of which, I'm disgusted to say, I'm a member) is that they had some sense of financial wisdom. THEIR parents bothered to teach them a touch of responsibility and common sense whereas the dipshits of my generation think they can do the procession of stupid shit described in the article (or even worse, in some circumstances) without having to pay for it. Unlike most of my generation, apparently, I learned how to conduct myself and my finances in a manner that resembles sanity. I'm married, happily child-free, I own my own (sane-sized and priced) house which I renovate continuously on my (not credit) money, 2 cars (both paid off), have a job that, while not saving the world provides me a lower-middle class lifestyle. I'm out of consumer debt and have been for the last 2 or so years. I'm saving an appreciable amount for retirement and am going to school on MY dime in my free time to learn a trade I love (CNC machining) in case my science job takes a permanent vacation in China. I do this in spite of both myself and my wife having (manageable) health issues and a mortgage. If we can do this with my and my wife's pittances of salaries, its damn hard to feel sorry for dolts like the ones in this article or others like them. If you want to be stupid in life, you should damn well be ready to pay the price for it. A little wisdom and discipline goes a hell of a long way, and contrary to the whining you might hear from what passes for parents these days, isn't too hard to teach or learn. I guess its just not fashionable to be intelligent these days.

Too bad for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's the sense of entitlement Posted by: suprmark
» It is JUST YOU! Posted by: Gravitas
» RE: It is JUST YOU! Posted by: Knot_Rich
» Read it again Posted by: Farasien
» Why Do You Think That? Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Credit the hippies Posted by: westomoon
» Solving and Blaming Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Some people need leaders Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Overcoming PSYOPS Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Greedy Sellers and Greedy Buyers Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
There Really Were "Good Old Days"
Posted by: Liberty G on May 20, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I approach the age of 70, I believe I have a good perspective on the societal history during my lifetime. I am no dreamer in rose-colored glasses when I look back - but by every concrete measure, the 1950s through the 1970s were vastly better for the majority of people. Certainly there were serious problems, and the wealth and civil rights were never shared equally. But the cost of living and quality of life were far superior to today for those not in the corporate, political or academic elite. I remember living in NYC in the early '60s with a salary of $60 a week - which was exactly the rent of the apartment in Brooklyn Heights I inhabited. Today, that apartment could never be mine, even with a job paying far more.

In particular, I have often pointed out to people the fact that needing two incomes to raise a family is not an improvement over being able to do it with only one. Thanks for speaking my mind!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I haven't worked in 2 years, I live on $800 a month in one of the most expensive areas of the U.S.
Posted by: blogbooks on May 20, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop spending more money than you make. It isn't hard. I haven't worked in 2 years. Kind of a temporary retirement.

You simply have to change the way you think about money. Stop thinking there is an unlimited money supply you have access to via loans and credit cards and start looking at how much money you actually have in your accounts and in your pocket.

I'm sorry but if you can't live comfortably on a combined income of nearly 80 grand a year then your sense of entitlement is simply too grandiose to ever be satisfied.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: i would love to konw how you do this!! Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
dave580b
Posted by: ed580b on May 20, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clue bus... cut up the credit cards. Shop with cash. Ask yourself if you can do without on every puchase until you are debtfree. That's how your parents made it to middle class status.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here we go again...
Posted by: grokked on May 20, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The willful self delusion in these discussions never fails to amaze me.

Oh, woe to the middle and working classes!! Victims of vast economic forces beyond far their ability to combat.

Actually, what they are, is victims of their own stupidity.

The truth is that the "ownership class" would never win a single election on the strength of their own numbers.

But, nevertheless, they do win election after election after election. Thanks, almost entirely, to millions of faithful middle and working class morons who continue to vote republican, despite seeing the cronic disintegration of their personal fortunes and lifestyles.

I see it constantly, even among my own family and friends. It seems that there is no degree of persuasion or connect-the-dots that will cause them to open their eyes to the republican bait-n-switch tactics. Vote for the "good christian man" (people who always make me itch), and get instead corpratocracy, free-market fundamentalism (a.k.a. offshored jobs), and "relaxed" work rules (a.k.a. shut up or you can be replaced).

The middle and working classes in this country have the government that they have repeatedly chosen. If it sucks, they have no one to blame but themselves.

In my uniquely uncharitable and unlefty way, I have taken to calling them the "christian stupids".

May their mindless holier-than-thou corpses rot in the sun. Soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here we go again... Posted by: fred_53_99
» RE: You got it absolutely right Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» RE: Taught to "believe" Posted by: Sushi
Not the number of incomes
Posted by: fdgsr on May 20, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I often wonder why we only count the number of incomes without noting the number of productive incomes. I wonder why we fret about the number of family incomes, and not so much about the number of non-productive people we support with those incomes.

When a number of working hours are spent on non-productive activities, the total cost to the economy is higher than when more of the incomes pay for production.

I have compared the cost in dollars adjusted for inflation for basics, such as flour, sugar, fat, and energy in the '30s with the same costs in adjusted dollars today. The cost of these things is lower today than then adjusted for inflation. So where do we spend the additional income?

If the cost of food is half what it was in 1935, the extra income can be used for technology and education. Eight grades of school was common as a max in 1935, while twelve grades are expected today. Jobs that went to high school grads in 1935 now go to college grads.

The fact that food costs half what it did in 1935 in terms of inflation adjusted dollars, means that half the man hours needed to produce all the food consumed can now be employed in other services and products. Still we want more. None of us had health insurance in 1935, yet a visit to a doctor cost $2.00 and the medicine he prescribed cost less than a dollar. Dentists could pull a tooth for $3.00 and there were no psychologists to deal with the stresses of the great depression. Only the rich, like the doctor and dentist who charged $2.00 per visit, could afford to go to a psychiatrist, who was also a medical doctor.

My doctor drove a new Buick every three or four years and my father drove a used Nash or Chevy. State sales tax was 2% and there was no income tax on the income of ordinary workers. Property tax was less than $20 per year on our 80 acres. It included enough to run the local school and to transport a couple of high school kids to town five days a week for their 'advanced' education. College was out of the question for most of us. Farmers could get all the labor they needed for $1.00 a day. At harvest time, they could double the pay to get more on a temporary basis.

If the work force worked as hard today and was as productive as they were in 1935 added to the production due to technology and machines, there would be no economic problems and enough left over to fund health care, dentistry, and mental treatment of the few who could not adjust to that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not the number of incomes Posted by: JERSEYDAN
Rev Wright caused all the decline of the middle class
Posted by: fred_53_99 on May 20, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know Rev Wright is the real cause of the middle class melt down. So lets have a Bud and make John McCain's wife richer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can we get real here?
Posted by: LeslieGem on May 20, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every few months we have an article on this theme, and it's the same unrealistic attitude.

Let's get real here -- my grandfather and father supported their families in a middle class lifestyle while their wives stayed home, but they weren't working their "dream job." They were working the job they needed to work to earn the money they needed to to support their family. My generation, on the other hand, seems to think that they are entitled to work their low-paying "dream job" and still earn an income at a certain level to support a certain lifestyle that they are "entitled" to.

It doesn't work that way. If you CHOOSE to work a job that pays "x" dollars, they you have to adjust your lifestyle accordingly. If you can't tolerate the lifestyle your income provides, then you are going to have to suck it up like our fathers and grandfathers did, and work in a higher paying field that doesn't fit your dream of "what you want to be when you grow up."

Work hard, spend wisely, save your money, and make a career change to your "dream job" when you can afford it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What career change? Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» Too Funny! Posted by: Gravitas
» RE: Dream job? Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Dream job? Posted by: HoboHomo
» (Eerie shiver) Posted by: westomoon
Keeping up with the Jonesesisum will keep you BROKE
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters on May 20, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get out the Northeast/Illinois of California

This reminds me of the Spitzer Side Girl and the sob story the media tried to give her and I got reminded quickly living in Boston, MA these are some very high cost of living cities. Gawd forbid you pack up the Volvo and move to "the Midwest or Southern States" pay down some of the credit Card debt oh and I forgot, staying home and cooking is so 1980's. That apartment you got in the trendy loft: You are paying for that address because gwad forbid we live in the getto, despite tha hood an't all that bad (well in Boston or DC) however you can pay another 1000 for that crap hole). Student Loans, that was the investment you placed in YOURSELF! You should of worked on that jump shot if you wanted to attend "very expensive private school" that most of is probably never herd of anyway. No one mention how you over drawn the max on your student loans for "drinking money" because you did not wanna work during college. I can keep going on and on however I have to go to a job for some side money because I live in Boston now however I'm packing up and getting the (bleep) out of here for greener pastures ells were. Americans have been doing this for years, so what are you doing other than blaming politics... oh wait, thats what Liberals do. No matter what happens in Washington or Beacon Hill I'm do what I need to do to live and be happy. Thats conservatives for ya, Reagan would be proud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» something to aim for Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
The Rest of the Story
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 20, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of the 'Middle Class' abandoned active political support of Unions and increasingly supported Republicans. Otherwise, they contributed to their own demise through their own delusion.

The next time someone tells you elections do not have consequences punch them in the face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Rest of the Story Posted by: VZEQICVA
I KNOW, YOUVE' HEARD THIS BEFORE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 20, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who came up at the end of the depression didn't need much to feel blessed. A modest house, job, enough to raise a family. There basis for comparison was different from young adults today. They never heard of a 'dream job' or a home equity loan'. They were happy with less than people are today because they had so much more than their parents. It is all relative. Now it's the other way around. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Depression... Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: home equity loan Posted by: Sushi
fight back with your spending behavior, don't support publicly traded companies
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on May 20, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If 2/3 of our GDP is based on consumer spending and most of which is done at anti-union, anti-benefit, pro-cost cutting corporations that pay their execs huge amounts of money and the people that actually run the corporation very little. Not to mention the stock holders get all the extra money that could go to the employees. If you want a middle class then......

Dont support it.

The shareholders and execs (who are big share holders) get all the money. Not the employees.

Boycott all publicly traded companies listed on stock exchanges that put shareholders before employees.
It will change how business is structured to make profit.
Support a pro-employee aka pro citizen government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wealth distribution is political, wealth is relative
Posted by: ischindl on May 20, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both empirical evidence and theoretical studies show that the distribution of wealth in a country is a political decision. For example 3 of the wealthiest men in the world are Indians, yet there are many very poor people in India with full time jobs. The culture accepts working poor.

When everyone makes the same amount of money, there is no growth. People seem to need "getting ahead" in order to work hard. This situation can arise when left wingers start distributing all the wealth "equally" or when right wingers become corrupt (as in the US) and a small group controles all the wealth by essentially cheating.

Remember that wealth is relative. I started my masters degree at the age of 30 at UC Irvine in 1986. Our family which ballooned to 4 before I got my PhD in 1992 survived on $12,000/year. Until our second child was born, I felt absolutely rich! I had spent the previous 8 years as a homeless tennis bum traveling the world (fantastic years). A teaching assistant job at UCI enabled me to pay rent for the first time in my life!

After getting my PhD, we moved to France. We still live on one salary: 31,000 euros or (wow has the dollar dropped) $47,000 per year. The biggest tip on living cheap is to avoid buying a car. Cars are ugly, polluting, dangerous, and expensive. Cars are for women and cripples, real men ride bicycles. I'm 52, I ride 5,000 km / year and I don't even have a French drivers licence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Chill Out Dude Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» Ayn Rand lives Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Ayn Rand lives Posted by: CatDad
» 'Twasn't always thus Posted by: westomoon
It's A New World
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 20, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a new and different world out there than previous generations have known. People will either adapt or not. You won't see anything really change until sanity prevails and government is no longer run by the corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Corporations or Big Media? Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» *EHNNNNT*! Guess again! Posted by: westomoon
» nock nock McFly Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: nock nock McFly Posted by: westomoon
» RE: nock nock McFly Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: nock nock McFly Posted by: wolfgangmo75
Changing Paradigms
Posted by: Urstrly on May 20, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the sixties when I was in college, the government itself loaned you money for your education at low interest rates. Unfortunately, under our "ownership society," the government turned them over to banks. And they gave the banks free reign over interest rates and terms. Rather than seeing student loans as an investment in citizens who will be productive, banks see students as consumers.

Anyone who gets a Ph.D. in psychology is a good student and an asset to her community, IMO. Two educated people should be able to manage an 800 square foot house; it's not extravagant (Have you seen a Toll Bros. house lately?)But the rush to the suburbs after World War II and the ensuing white flight of the sixties has left us with communities that are untenable in our energy-challenged environment. This couple is caught up in that, and the solution is not just to pay them more but to address some of the root causes of their financial woes: lack of affordable child care, lack of viable public transportation, expensive student loans that do not take into account that people in helping professions make less.

To those people who wondered why this woman didn't seek an abortion, I would just say that Cincinnati is a VERY conservative town, and even if the woman isn't Catholic, getting one could be very sticky. We forget how much the religious right has polluted public consciousness about both birth control and abortion over the last decade or so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cvtemptor
Posted by: cvtemptor on May 20, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have to be as careful with your life as you should be when posting here. Know....not konw.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Climbing Down the Ladder
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on May 20, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't any wonder, after reading this article, that many Americans feel trapped by economic uncertainty? A dual income means we're all caught in a trap by forces held hostage to a changing market. A hundred thousand dollar salary doesn't buy what it once did an era ago. That's not enough to live on in Los Angeles, believe it or not.
The "fabulous" fifties is used by some who base the rise of a middle class lifestyle when it was possible for people sans a college degree to buy a home and put children through college.
Now it seems today's families are finding out how cruel of a game life is, with so much pressure, faced with having children and living with only the basics. A two-car family looks like it's ancient history. Want to live in Los Angeles, where the average home costs $500,000 and up? Better start playing the lottery. Forget about winning money on "Wheel of Fortune."
I wonder what the future holds for children and college grads who will earn their diplomas this week. We know that having a degree is no guarantee of instant wealth.
Why do we think collegiate athletes are eager to become professionals? You do the math. We're climbing down the ladder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Diliemma of What Was Better Or Worse...
Posted by: dbatterman on May 20, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On one hand...
My grandfather worked for the city of Los Angeles in the Animal Control department. He also fixed TV's in his spare time. I remember the brick wall that ran alongside their house in Montebello, and my dad telling me that Grandpa bought just a few bricks at a time when he could afford it, to build that wall to completion. They didn't have luxury, but they were able to go on vacations, albeit to places where they knew people to stay with. My grandfather got a good pension from the city after he retired, and had no problems financially in his old age because of that.
On the other hand....
I am single, have no kids and have ten years professional experience. After some corporate "restructuring" I'm looking for jobs and see a lot of positions that require 5 to 10 year experience, but have starting salaries in the low to mid 20K. And these jobs keep getting posted again and again and again, because they're just hoping someone will come along who's desperate enough to take a salary that barely covers rent here in Atlanta.
Unfortunately, I think what we're seeing here is capitalism, like all economic systems, showing it's penultimate goal: To pay employees as little as possible for the most amount of productivity to increase the company's bottom line. I'm not saying that our system is any better or worse than anyone elses, but I think it is the nature of the beast, and unfortunately, we're seeing the bad side of that nature, as opposed to earlier generations, which caught more of a benevolent face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two reasons: women and immigration
Posted by: Bobsays on May 20, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bringing women into the workplace basically took the middle class income down by half. Suddenly, the nation's work could be done by twice as many people. The other factor pushing wages down is immigration. By allowing millions of illegal immigrants into the labour market places a downward pressure on salaries.

In order to get back to a situation where a single income could support a stay-at-home mum and kids, there would have to be a massive increase in American productivity and wealth. Right now, America is broke and owes more to other nations, than the other way around. Save more, and stop borrowing so much money, and you would see the country's wealth go back up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two reasons: women and immigration Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» employers set the salaries Posted by: e rice
» RE: employers set the salaries Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» Some Logic Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Some Logic Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» One of the 50,000 or 70,000? Posted by: pdxstudent
I thought we had problems
Posted by: zorba1 on May 20, 2008 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am 62, we live in a 3,100 sq foot home on 2 1/2 acres in Southern Calif.
We have two vehicles paid in full, a 1,000 sq ft garage i do odd jobs in and generaly try to stay away from the wife when possible(hide).
I do all the repairs including carpentry, masonary, painting, roofing, landscaping, appliances etc as we cannot afford the $85 an hour service charges and i can do the work.
We bought this place in foreclosure ten years ago during the last reccession for 180k with 50k down from the sale of our second home.
It reached an astounding 960k two years ago but has since dropped to 650k.
Guess what, We are both disabled and have lived on disability the last 21 years, our current income is $1,700 a month. Thats it, total.
We are making it, but i admit things are a bit tight.
Our late Mothers and Fathers taught us responsibility, waste not, want not was driven home repeatedly.
Do not count your chickens untill they hatch, a bird in hand is better than two in the tree.
We did not "get" allowances we earned money cutting the lawn, shoveling snow, plowing, discing, harrowing, castrating, butchering pigs, a steer or two for the freezer etc.
We knew outhouses, kerosine lamps, galvinized wash tubs for bathing, no electricity, wood burning kitchen stoves, making our own soap, butter, ice cream, growing our food, putting up for winter cutting cordwood.
We never asked what can we do.
The frugality we learned as kids serve us well now.
Our first home was in a lousy nieghborhood, we fixed it up and made 15k on it after 5 yrs.
Our next home was in a blue collar nieghborhood, we bought the worst home and fixed it up selling it for a 50k profit after 15 yrs.
My wife has been totally blind since eight yrs of age. She has never worked.
I worked as a mechanic in the oil industry then the city and am a journeymen Carpenter.
I have a college degree in cultural anthropology but happily never got a job in that low paying field, the interviewers looked down on me when i told them my past jobs were farmer, carpenter and mechanic. I worked while going to school and paid for the education. Those were seventeen hour days school and work.
I made $28 an hour in carpentry and $25 an hour as a master ase mechanic.
I had worried becuase we ran up 3k in debts.
We still pay the mortgage, but after reading this article we feel real good.
These people are not living within thier means, they did not sacifice when going to school. God! if i could make 75k a year we would be in fat city.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» dear sir Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
Page missing?
Posted by: Badger1492 on May 20, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, not really, but it feels like it. Don't we already know all of this? I mean we adults of a certain age? My 19-y-o might not know this, but it is obvious to me.

What is missing in this and similar gripe sessions is...what we should do about it. I can complain all day about the situation and who's to blame, but that is history. What needs to be discussed is what to do about it. That would be a much more difficult article to write and that is why you don't see it here.

Think about it: this article would not be out of place in Time Magazine (with the appropriate "human interest" photos) or in USA Today (with the appropriate pie charts and graphs).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Middle Class Aren't Responsible For Their Lifestyle
Posted by: pdxstudent on May 20, 2008 11:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the whole problem with it. Whether 50-60 years ago or anytime since then, middle-class comfort has never been due to the hard work or fiscal know-how of the middle-class. It has rested upon its own exploitation and exploitation of the working-class from which it fancies itself a cut above. The middle-class, except for the most upper echelons involved in professional investment, has always been working-class.

In this respect, middle-class comfort has been a tranquilizer more than a well earned privilege. The notion of free-time, in general and in its institutionalized forms of the weekend and the vacation, is really a deplorable one. It is freedom alienated from itself as the reflection and supplement to alienated labor. To earn your freedom, to live in a contract that promises freedom as something apart from duty, is a contradiction in terms. If you are only free in your free-time you live a deluded and painful double-existence.

The problem is not strictly whether we live a life of so-called middle-class comfort. It's precisely that this seems to be our economic problem. Whoever says that the alternative to middle-class comfort as it's variously defined is some sort of gulag or work-camp is a fucking ideologue. There is no reason to believe that we need to work all the time to have a comfortable material existence. Don't we want more though? The lower-classes work more than they should, and the upper-classes don't work enough or not at all. Who is going to argue with this? These, however, are the basic conditions upon which middle-class comfort rests; it isn't freedom at all, because it is determined by a world of unfree conditions. Middle-class comfort rests here, though, because that is all for which it lives. It lives to use and be used, and not even for the benefit of the upper-classes, who are as spiritually bankrupt.

Losing middle-class comfort is no big-deal, because no one ever had it to begin with, least of all the so-called middle-class. The middle-class did not make their lives on their own, but with the time and energy of every last participant in the economy. Who are they to lament the situation described in this article as their loss? It's the gain of the working-class, including the once middle-class, that this ideological obfuscation finally dies, so the real work at hand of taking over our collective lives can perhaps begin. Maybe then we'll discover a freedom beyond work and leisure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jobs Oh Yeah It’s a Non Recession Recession
Posted by: Pennyhead on May 20, 2008 1:04 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jobs Oh Yeah It’s a Non Recession Recession
May 20, 2008, 11:42 am
Rating: : 1
Posted by Bruce Caulder in Economy

on YourThreeCents.com

Maybe if people would take the time to read something sometime they know for graduates of 2008 salary offers up 4% for 2008. Up 4 percent in a recession what some people would call it. No can’t be. Number one there is no recession, but a slow down in the economy. Salaries increases ranges from less than 1 percent to as high 9 percent for some disciplines. WOW! You can get a job in a recession and wages increasing that never could happen according to most people who are misinformed. Computer Science majors saw their average offers rise 7.9% to 56,921, I would say that pretty damn good for a non-recession recession people have been talking about. Marketing graduates saw a 5.2 percent increase offers to 43,459. Accounting and Finance up 1.9 percent graduates getting 48,795 and 47,413 respectively. Collectively, engineering graduates enjoyed a 5.7 percent boost, with average offers of $56,336. Lady’s and Gentleman there is no need to worry about if there will be any jobs, don’t let people fool you. Stop this doom and gloom talk. Get your suit on prep your resume and get some interviewing skills and yes you land a JOB in slow growth economy right now.

Here are five other starting salaries for 2008 graduates.
1. Nursing 52,129
2. Chemistry 52,125
3. Human Resource 40,250
4. History 39,956
5. Psychology 30,877

This is the beauty of America you can still get a job in slow or flat economy. Let’s quit the thought that there aren’t any jobs because it is all nonsense. Let’s get this recession thoughts out your head because there is no recession. I hope my blog and the web site I will provide will change people’s tone on this non recession recession. No these job aren’t just for Ivy league student’s either. These jobs are for anyone who has a degree or the skills to perform the task and for people who want to be successful. Stay optimists growth is coming and I’m excited for 2009 baby another 4 percent maybe so!

Since people on here like to think government creates jobs, I guess we thank George Bush for helping all the new graduates with 4 percent job growth for new employees. I mean it is only fair because bash him when losing jobs right. Again, proves my point again that government doesn’t create jobs businesses do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Give me a break Posted by: blogbooks
» bold face lies Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: bold face lies Posted by: wolfgangmo75
Momentum
Posted by: willymack on May 20, 2008 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Present day events had their origins at different times in the past. Ideas of nationalism, regional and ethnic pride, morality, and community spirit are but a few concepts whose exact origins are a matter of debate, but which tend to roll along whether or not the reason for their existence still exist or are valid. Thus, events seem to overtake us and leave us ill-prepared for their consequences. It may well be that ideas such as soverign nations, seperate monetary systems, or even different languages may someday be relegated to the past, as a world society replaces the patchwork mess we live in today. The fact that it takes both parents working full-time to maintain a certain lifestyle may be illusury for several reasons, lost in the larger reality of an emerging global society and homogenization of cultures, mores, and languages in a rapidly shrinking world. As usual, some people will welcome changes in the ways the human family conducts its noisy business, while still others will oppose any change, and because of the contentious and quarrelsome nature of people, conflicts will arise. It's our responsibility to affect change in as peaceful and beneficial a manner as possible for the greatest number of the world's people. Get ready for interesting times ahead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spiritgirl2
Posted by: Spiritgirl on May 20, 2008 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now maybe people will wake-up. Stop putting
people into office because they have passed your
litmus tests (be it religion, color, gender), it
really is about the issues. Reagan started with
those trickle down economics-the trickle went
nowhere, Clinton continued with NAFTA and how
the new world order would help lift everyone-it
didn't , Bush with his tax cuts for the very
wealthy-the "middle class" has been continuously
paying. Along with flashy advertising about what
"new things" we have to have in order to "be
happy". How's that working for most people, not
to well. I don't envy the rich, I'm just pissed
off about paying so that they can afford another
fur, or because Haliburton is ripping off my
tax $$'s. I'm pissed because agri-business is
getting tax breaks that they shouldn't. I'm
pissed because our kids are dying in an
unnecessary war because of oil. I'm pissed
because too many politicians are lining their
pockets and putting the squeeze to the rest of
us. I'm mad as hell at the B.S. that is going on
and the media won't report it because they are
bought and paid, the real criminals are still
in power, and the religious right are so busy
waiting for the rapture - that the only thing
they care to talk about are the gay lifestyle
and abortion - your bedroom and your doctors
office neither of which is any of their
business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» When Liberals Want it All Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: You sound like Kevin James Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» When Conservatives Rant On Posted by: sofla100
» RE: When Conservatives Rant On Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: When Conservatives Rant On Posted by: sofla100
» RE: When Conservatives Rant On Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: When Conservatives Rant On Posted by: wolfgangmo75
Getting Ahead or Chopping Heads?
Posted by: HoboHomo on May 20, 2008 1:36 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The middle class has become filthy with arrogance. "Getting ahead" came to mean sucking up as much lavish material assest to show off as possible: gas-guzzling SUV's, snowmobiles, motor boats, monster size homes, massive waste (no recycling, that's for the poor masses), gated comunities, a 2nd condo (for vaction), ad nauseum.

These neo-bourgeoisie would then turn around and (figuratively, but no less wickedly) SPIT on the faces of anyone who had less than them, even if it were simply their own monster house in lack of a 5th bathroom!

The rise of the yuppie scum in the mid-eighties brought this to hysterical new heights.

Then a collapse. Then the re-emergence of these same, arrogant wolves (clothed in the sheepskin of a younger generation), as manifest in the Dot Com Boom. We all know the rest of THAT story!

All this while, I was homeless for a year, then living in humble SRO's ever since, suffering mental disabilities that erupted in my early twenties. (Though at least I've never had to pay utilities, nor had difficulty warming my room on a frigid night with very little energy.) Struggling through it all, using my vast free time to become a dedicated and eloquent activist for gay rights and the homeless.

But like any other minority, large numbers of gays played the yuppie game too (remember "guppies"?). Thus, I became further marginalized, despised, and rejected from MOST if not ALL social circles that did not require a monetery outlay in order to join (or turn Republican/Libertarian). Laptops of course turned gregarious coffeehouses (where untethered individuals not caught up in the money game, came to meet others of like mind: also coincidentally low income and/or handicapped) into study halls where you could hear a pin drop. These coffeehouses, these former oases of friendly gatherings where good folks schmoozed and made new friends, had been turned into mausoleums where zombies sit frozen over their lattes, staring into screens of glaring capitalist pornography.

Social isolation, harassment, threats and terrorism by MY OWN GAY BROTHERS, as well as by society's materialist arrogance at large, have been my lot in life these past 23 years...derned dropout left-wing liberal faggot that I am, and remain now, at 57, and (I promise) unto my death. But through it all, I've done much good work for my gay homeless brothers, and in speaking out via letters to the editor, BBS forums...and finally, Usenet. WithOUT recognition from any source, but with continued miserable vultures feasting on the richness of my soul. PSYCHIC VAMPIRES.

The wisdom I've gained, and its consequent philosophy that evolved over these difficult years, is freely available to any and all, now international in scope (thanks to this newly-born noosphere a.k.a. "The Internet"). That would be gay-bible.org. But my ZekeBlog (which you can access near the top of my home page) is where you'll discover/enjoy my LATEST missives to God and the world. Alternet being one of the RARE web-based forums in which I occassionally (and passionately) participate.

Filled with much HUMOR, as I firmly believe that laughter IS the best medicine, and thus how important to include such in ALL our endeavors to turn planet earth into utopia. I laugh at the ABSURDITY of such arrogance that continues to decimate our souls and our world. MY faith rests only in Gaia, God, Goddess, Goodness or whatever you choose to name this Greater Consciousness that watches over, guides, and loves us all. For I...and others of my ilk...have been NURTURED and TESTED in this life to be the vanguard to a better age. Or, as some such or other wise person once said:

"The queer shall inherit Washington."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When The Top 1% Own 50% of a Countries Wealth
Posted by: sofla100 on May 20, 2008 1:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In America today, the top 1% owns a staggering 50% of her wealth. And while this ubber elite circulate fake Horatio Alger stories of so-called upper mobility (which will never happen), they keep the foolish masses enchanted with fantastic tales of endless hard work and savings leading to success. Never mind, it will never happen. 100 million Americans stand one sickness away from the homeless shelter. While the ubber elite "blames them," for "spending lavishly" for a night out at McDonalds, this same ubber elite continues to manipulate the stock market and American policies on trade and taxes in order to further line their own pocket books. The solution, the masses must rise up, they must take over and handle the reigns of power. At the very least, America must dissolve her military empire and stop her foolish and endless wars and start spending her wealth on the needs of her own people. The foreign legions of America must return home. Time to start taking care of our own people. Time to stop blaming them for not wanting to eat Peanut Butter and Jelly anymore!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about Articles on How to Make Your Dollars Go Farther?
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on May 20, 2008 1:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone likes to bitch about problems but what about solutions?

It's easy to say its the Republicans, it's the Federal Reserve, it's the President, and all of those things might be true, but how does that help you and I?

How about more proactive articles that help readers spend their money more wisely and stretch their dollars farther?

We can only vote the bums out every 2, 4, and 6 years, in the meantime while people are hurting what should they do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thats just too simple Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» Hang it up, J Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Hang it up, J Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: Thats just too simple Posted by: wolfgangmo75
» We Already Have Those! Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: We Already Have Those! Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: We Already Have Those! Posted by: pdxstudent
Just one question...
Posted by: Ayla87 on May 20, 2008 2:51 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should I even want to be middle class? I've lived in an upper middle class neighborhood all my life. This town is filled with pretentious snobs of all ages, who dispite thier advanced educations, are no smarter than the working class shmucks 20 miles away in the city. The only difference between the two is that the former knows how to act smart (read: they know when to keep thier mouths shut, and they don't look like they just rolled around in trash).

People in the middle class proverbally sell thier souls for the wealth they possess. The vast majority of them work jobs they hate, just so they can buy crap they don't need. They're miserable sons of bitches whose only gratitude in life is the fleeting elation when they buy something new. Because buying something new is the only thing that ever happens in these communities. The middle class is socially dead, theres no excitement. The atmosphere here is stifiling.

And don't get me started on how people here push they're lifestyles down thier childrens throats. It's a mortal sin in this world to willfully drop down a class, or do something that may very well result in that. Its bred into us both at home and at school. You have no idea how much crap my guidence counselor gave me during highschool. All because I wouldn't conform and raise my grades for colleges to approve of. I still remember the bullshit they tried to feed me in SPED (Which I was eventually kicked out of for not giving a shit)

So someone, anyone, please tell me why I should want to be a middle class sheep like the rest of my town and family. Because I'm one lecture away from going postal on everyone around me. I've now got my mother and father pushing me to not only stay in the Coast Guard for the full 20 years, but to take a job that I don't want, just so I can get the retirement and health benefits, and a skilled trade when I get out.

Fuck that! I wanna jump outta planes, and thats what I'm gunna do. Middle class be damned!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To the $800 a month guy--you don't explain because you can't
Posted by: sharonsylvie on May 20, 2008 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe for a minute that you can live on $800 a month in a high-class location unless you own your own home free and clear and heat it with a wood stove supplied by your own forest. I have no mortgage and get $900 in Social Security, but I still can't pay my bills. In the winter, it costs me over $600 for heat and electricity because I'm too disabled to chop wood. In the summer I have to keep the air conditioner going for health reasons. As for food, I spent about $20 a week, all my clothes come from thrift shops, my appliances are second hand, I have only one TV, and I shop once a week, in my 12-yr-old car with 150,000 miles on it, to save gas. There's not much fat left to cut out. My college degree is useless in the hinterlands and, even if I could hold a job, there are none except working in the local Dandy Mart for minimum wage. Yes, politicians and corporations have turned shopaholic America into a third-world country and the middle class is spending itself into oblivion, but it's that or starve and freeze.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To the $800 a month guy--you don't explain because you can't
Posted by: sharonsylvie on May 20, 2008 3:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe for a minute that you can live on $800 a month in a high-class location unless you own your own home free and clear and heat it with a wood stove supplied by your own forest. I have no mortgage and get $900 in Social Security, but I still can't pay my bills. In the winter, it costs me over $600 for heat and electricity because I'm too disabled to chop wood. In the summer I have to keep the air conditioner going for health reasons. As for food, I spent about $20 a week, all my clothes come from thrift shops, my appliances are second hand, I have only one TV, and I shop once a week, in my 12-yr-old car with 150,000 miles on it, to save gas. There's not much fat left to cut out. My college degree is useless in the hinterlands and, even if I could hold a job, there are none except working in the local Dandy Mart for minimum wage. Yes, politicians and corporations have turned shopaholic America into a third-world country and the middle class is spending itself into oblivion, but it's that or starve and freeze.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Economic Priorities Now
Posted by: johnofphilly on May 20, 2008 3:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nan Mooney's comprehensive article deserves mass attention, not just that of those of us subscribed to alternet. Alternet is highly praiseworthy as a starting base to bring these ideas to mass attention. Reading most of these excellent responses shows that a substantial, potentially effective (not yet realized) portion of us have comprehensive overview of the problems at hand. The needed step now is a simple plan of a few objectives secured by mass action.

Make no mistake about it. There has been a conspiracy going on while we have been sleeping. Cheney has been undermining the constitution for several administrations prior to this one. NAFTA under Clinton as well has been a part of this scheme that has sold us out. Sam Walton, the Bushes, etc. have been stacking the deck in their favor.

What can we do?

One poster here, whom I know personally, lives in one of our few cities that offers adequate public transit. I used to live there and walk to work, or take one of the efficient affordable lines.

Everybody in a car apiece is unrealistic and only profitable to guys like the spoiled, draft dodging son of Reagen's vice president. Taking care of elders in need forced me to move from S.F. to Phila. a dozen years ago. The public transit here is costly and inefficient. Prior politicians did - I don't know what - with subsidies from state and federal levels, and a once good system has fallen apart.

Public transit should be an affordable right, not just an option at the whim of local government.

The other thing is, how to get the masses to boycott businesses like Walmart, who outsource our jobs. Young unsophisticated people are hard to reach to impress upon with this need. Therefore those companies that outsource our jobs should be heavily tariffed and taxed, in order to bring those jobs home. I'm sorry Nan; they won't pay much, but it's a start.

Those upper middle class (what few remain) living the high life are in effect selling their children down the river by patronizing businesses that seek to divide us, making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

One last thing. Housing is an important issue. My heart cries for the families in tent city who have been foreclosed upon; however, as a single individual, there should be single room occupant and efficiency apartment alternatives for the many individuals who don't have families. They include many whose relatives have passed away, or are simply widowed or single for any of a number of reasons.

This corrupt free enterprise system doesn't care about single individuals because their plan is to exploit families over a barrel. This cuts into the constitutional right to individual privacy and promotes keeping up with the jonesism.

To sum up:

public transit alternatives
tariff corporations to bring jobs home
housing including the single occupant level

Whomever is elected should be forced to address these issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fake advertising signs that con...
Posted by: BlueGorilla on May 20, 2008 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pdx Student,I totally agree with you.A great con-trick has been played on many of the so-called middle classes.Many of those who refer to themselves as middle class aren't..they are working class.
Unlike the UK,there seems a rush to label oneself middle class.The US middle class seems to include,the upper echelons of the blue collar workers,and also many in routine/alienated/compartmentalized white collar jobs.
House ownership,does not make a person middle class..how many of those people are struggling well beyond their means?I come from a skilled/upper working class family,who stretched their finances,to a ridiculous tautness..but still acheived,what little they did,by solidarity in the working class,as many skilled workers did.
The whole sociological idea (see Goldthorpe and Lockwood "the affluent Worker"),that the postwar workers, were now middle class,was exploded,as social studies showed that these better-off worker's in 1960s Britain,identified themselves,wholly with the working class.These carworkers who were studied,saw that their increased standard of living depended on traditionally collectivist means (trade unions,labour voting),and not the more traditionally middle class,ethos of indivuidualism and self help.
In terms of my families culture, (no books in the house,football,television etc),in terms of identity ("working class and bloody proud of it",labour voting,always mistrustful of /opposed to, the business class),we were working class..despite an almost middle class living standard.
What improvements in lifestyle we had,were gained by the growth of socialised health care,a decent welfare state,and strong trade unions...wherein many British worker's gained massively in the postwar period.
If someone identifies themselves,as middle class,it can tend to change their political perspective,possibly their voting behaviour.Also it may make,them fearful of losing ,what they think they have. Often this manifests as becoming fearful,of falling into the "rabble".We weren't bothered,we were usually on, the same side as this rabble.
Mainly though,aspiring to the middle class dream,makes people beleive that the ambitions they have, are tied to to the wealth creators,and not with class solidarity .
Now,im sure that,some better off truckers,or car workers in the US,may call themselves working class.Overall though,there does seem to be a, qualitative ,class identification difference, between US and UK.This appears to be,based around the class con trick, that is the statistically unsubstantiated "American Dream".
We are the worker's, and we are the masses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So What?
Posted by: Chris Herz on May 20, 2008 9:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the world lives on what US citizens would regard as peanuts. Furthermore almost all US voters will unite in November around politicians who advocate the use of military power to maintain their privileged status.

Mere survival for self and family is the rule in most of human society and this has always been so. Husband and wife must work together for this goal.

We should look to the example of Germany and Japan who lost their chances in two world wars to loot the rest of humanity. These two countries have learnt how to live within their means without inflicting massive violence on others.

Like they say in Russia (another loser): Toughski shitski.

From the imperial captial
Chris Herz
cdherz44@yahoo.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

democracy + monetary reform = Green Island
Posted by: siamdave on May 21, 2008 2:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's going to keep getting worse (think a rerun of the 1930s) before it gets better, unless a lot more people start to understand Banketeering: The Money Supply and Related Scams . For a look at how things could be, if we get the money sorted out, and another small thing called Democracy, try Green Island

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are going by way of Russia.
Posted by: yale on May 21, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Russia right now has the worlds highest concentration of billionares, in and around Moscow. Its not because they are on the right track of world economics, its because they have one of the most politically, and socially, corrupt systems in the world. They have a lot of industry but most of the people are dirt poor. The Russian mafia works close with the government keeping things in line to their advantage. The mafia in this country is limited to a point, but Blackwater is climbing the ranks to be the lead pitbull and gaurd the new world order. There is plenty of wealth in our country for all of us to live just fine, getting it distributed evenly and fairly is the key to a sound economy, and a strong democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

never the rose with out the prick
Posted by: wittler youth on May 21, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CREDIT!...CARD never had one all my life..all my life i knew money didnt grow on trees..even corneyer is i belived what ben franklin said hundreds of years ago...THOSE WHO GO A BORROWING, GO A SORROWING...if you aint got it...lets you know the trueness of what you can afford..if you want more..go make more..what im hearing is the dieing gasps of the me gen./tom wolfs book. l.o.l.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Welcome Back
Posted by: Traven on May 21, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to the 19th century pretending it is the 21st...Take away the cell phones and PCs and credit cards and the real world reveals it true face.

The 3000 American owned factories in China are proof capitalism could give a rat's as for Democracy or worker rights or you the 'average American'and whether you can survive at all.

One COULD conclude all those radicals in 1909, or 1929, or 1935 trying to realize the dreams of their fathers and grandmothers to not live in fear of crushing poverty as wage slaves had it right when they said:

'Which side are you on'...

Pretty soon this country is going to have to make some really hard choices about it's future as global warming and energy needs of the 5/8s of the rest of the world drive gas to 15 dollars a gallon and beyond.

If you think a hybrid car is the anwser or biomass or coal into gas and all those hairbrain get rich quick solutions.(There isn't enough water resources left in the USA to run coal into gas plants - unless we import 100% of all our food).

Think again- try -really try - thinking in terms of social cost for the greatest good.

Then imagine the USA not spending a trillion every few years on weapons and putting that public money into a first class 21st century rail and light rail system where one could walk out your house anywhere in the USA and get on a tram or train and transfer a few times and be 600 miles away in any direction and be able to that for day to day commute or even go shoppig.

Anything short of that and you do not even know which side you are on and are destined to live in a Blackwater driven dictatorship and your price of admimission is your own willfull ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's really going on here?
Posted by: Callibrarian on May 21, 2008 10:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From this article I have learned:

---They make $75,000 a year
---She made $38,000 for 80 hours of work at her past job.
---They spent $1200 a month for childcare despite the husband working from home.
---They live in a cheap area---their 15-year condo mortgage and fees amount to $750 a month. Their home is $1150 a month. My rent in California is $1150 a month.
---They have considerable debts and no "room for raises or promotion." They knew their first child was sick, they already had one surprise child they couldn't afford, knew she can't work while pregnant, yet they're having another child.

Through BLS I learned:
--- Her job (Psychologist) has a median income of $59,440.
---If makes $35,000 placing school counselors and renting out the condo. The median income for a school psychologist is $61,290.
---The average STARTING salary for engineers with BAs starts around $47,000. If he is as old as her (late 30s) there's little reason for him not to make $55,000, or $15,000 more.

Do I blame the couple for taking student loans? No. Do I blame them for the real estate debacle? No. Do I blame them for low non-profit work? No. But I do blame them for not taking everything in consideration. If they want to get ahead they should consider:

---Her getting a job with a school. Even if one in Ohio only pays $40,000, she still has income from 2 offices, and rent out her old office for more income. Plus she gets summers and holiday vactions off, meaning she can watch the kids full time.
---Getting something tied or snipped.
---Seeing if they can rent out their home and rent something else for cheaper.
---Having him work for other people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

getting rid of our kids
Posted by: zxmzc14 on May 21, 2008 11:37 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
after reading all these posts, it seems like so many people are either take this stance of I am responsible and have everything together. . why can't they manage their money better! problem-- but at same time these people appear to have no children, or these anarchist who are drop out of society types, , while both are admirable in some ways- both groups do not have children. I agree with the author on this point that the middle class is a disappearing option and with that have normal children- as well -having no having children-. I have two children myself and somehow feel a decision which made at 30 which has destroyed my life normal life. I guess only the upper classes can afford children..and only at 40. . This a part of a larger social decay which like 'old age poverty' I hope can be confronted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As before
Posted by: talkville on May 22, 2008 5:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is the needs, desires and wishes of Property (Capital and Capitalists) which will determine just what does or does not constitute what is termed 'middle-class' status and just what is required for human beings to achieve or obtain such a status. Property is more precious than humans; this proposition rests undisturbed since articulation and exposition in the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries before us. The "middle-classes" will expand and contract according to that proposition. This is why a household now requires two, three or more incomes to maintain the returns to capital that once might have required only one. This is why there are more and more poor, fewer and fewer rich and previous 'middle-classes' mostly sliding down-ward to join the numbers which those fewer and fewer rich require to maintain their own luxurious, lavish, needs, wants, and unlimited desires. Before, the labor on one yielded them acceptable Profit; today not so, the exploitation of many is needed to feed their Growing Coffers. "Diminishing Returns" and all that. Add to this the substitution of Machines and Technology and Outsourcing. The only need for any "middle-class" status is to maintain a buffer; maintain enough people hoping and wishing and seeing success 'right around the corner' to keep social stability just enough to keep the process going. To the capitalist, the diminishing 'middle-class' is merely trimming the fat from the system accompanied by externalizing the growing numbers of poor to the Corporate-State to keep in line.

Property is more precious than human beings. It is the needs of capital not of the human that must be fed. If you don't believe this, just ask the Police, the Warden, the Homeland Security Department or your representative in Congress. In one way or another, they will make sure you do believe it, 'middle-class' or not. Those who Own will do as they can; those who don't will do as they must (or perhaps die off or go elsewhere so they stop pestering those busy-ness folks so much).

We owe, We owe, so off to Work We go... . Maybe, after paying off all these bills, We too might Own something, maybe a toaster, even a car or, with luck and good fortune on our side, a house perhaps. Maybe. Or maybe it's just the Image and the Life-Style that makes one "middle-class"?

P.S. With regard to all those bills: don't forget to add-in that per capita distribution each of us must Pay Off incurred courtesy of the Corporate-State in 'full faith and credit' and in our name. What's Under, Middle or Upper? Who defines? With most of us always working, who has time to ponder all these questions? Don't think, just believe. Who?

With "globalization" middle classes shrink in some countries and rise in others in terms of numbers. But proportionally, what is Upper, Middle or Under with respect to status remains curiously and relatively constant: a few at the Upper, a few more in the Middle and Most in the Under. Just as those Monarchs, Dukes, Duchesses, Priests, Earls, and assorted Landed-Gentries envisioned long, long ago. So, to be acknowledged as 'middle-class', get to work men, women and children all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Times they are a'Changing......
Posted by: cgandpg on May 24, 2008 6:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America is past her prime. Instead of growth, there is nothing but decline. The global economy has shifted the high-paying jobs to Asia at a fraction of the cost, giving rise to a massive new Asian middle-class. A shifting of the slices of PIE has occurred during this global economy expansion. Less for us (developed old countries), more for them (the emerging new economies.

The Financial Economy has bankrupted itself. The VENDOR-FINANCE SCHEME whereby CHINA Builds, and AMERICA Buys, is ending from sheer exhaustion. People addicted to Credit (i.e. DEBT in sheep's clothing) have to break the habit and come clean, or wait till the unfolding Depression causes cascading crashes in all asset classes, and then prepare for Liquidations of DEBT. When the twin bubbles of Credit and Housing burst, the jig was up. Even those who can pay their monthly mortgage payments will be walking away from a depreciating asset for more affordable housing. There are already 18 and 1/2 Million vacant houses in U.S., 650,000 of which are already in foreclosure. It was all a giant PONZI house-of-cards scheme where everybody was caught up in the Consensus Trance Reality myth that Real Estate only when UP! The price never mattered as long as the BEDROOM ATMs were dispensing "free money" to pay for vacations, new cars, and plasma television sets. The dumb money is now gone, my friends. It's time for belt-tightening, and considering the alarming diabetes epidemic due to gross obesity, perhaps that's even a good thing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

compassionless liberal leftists bloggers
Posted by: whealeydj on May 25, 2008 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are not so different from compassionless conservatives. In DC the Republics were willing to bail out Bear Stearns but not subprime mortgage holdes. In these comments I see criticism of the choices of the couple cited:"why cant they be like we are, perfect in every way". instead I think we should take the opportunity of the Obama campaign to change the bankrupcy laws back to favor the people rather than the banks. The Obama know better thatn the super wealthy McCains and Clintons the stuggle of being young adults with student loans and working class backgrounds, relatively low paying jobs. They and similar Democrats might make 2008 a watershed election that turns back the Reagan Revolution and brings a peace dividend by ending the War in Iraq and forswearing stupid and extremely expensive foreign interventions in the future. But being hypercritical of our neighbors and fellow Americans only plays into perception that we are compassionless ideologues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement