Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 A lame duck president being abandoned? No! Can't believe that. I forget how bad you guys are at history Your second point sounds like something a drunk would say. What is your point? When MSNBC abandons their darlling you've got issues. It's hilarious you clinging to this. To your second point I have a question. Is the middle class shrinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 When MSNBC abandons their darlling you've got issues. It's hilarious you clinging to this. To your second point I have a question. Is the middle class shrinking? What makes you say he is abandoned? Is the middle class shrinking? Well, if you are just asking my opinion I'd have to say it seems so. But there are so many variables. Yes, I think this generation of young people are having a harder time cracking the job market and they have a lot of student debt. Its my feeling that we are seeing significant job reduction because of technology and the new training/educational requirements have not been met to fill a lot new jobs. But overall, more jobs are lost than being created from technology. But, on the other hand, I also think that there are so many goods and services that are so much cheaper now because of that same technology that the old "middle class" in wages isn't as important. My daughter wants to be a teacher and I'm telling her to get into health care instead, because their will be a need there but education I think can be automated as much as anything. Just my two cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 You make a list like that and say I'm not dealing in reality? What? You in a race to the bottom with Chef for stupid champion? You list is completely idiotic. I'm gonna rationalize your response on your long term use of heavy medication. What makes you say he is abandoned? Is the middle class shrinking? Well, if you are just asking my opinion I'd have to say it seems so. But there are so many variables. Yes, I think this generation of young people are having a harder time cracking the job market and they have a lot of student debt. Its my feeling that we are seeing significant job reduction because of technology and the new training/educational requirements have not been met to fill a lot new jobs. But overall, more jobs are lost than being created from technology. But, on the other hand, I also think that there are so many goods and services that are so much cheaper now because of that same technology that the old "middle class" in wages isn't as important. My daughter wants to be a teacher and I'm telling her to get into health care instead, because their will be a need there but education I think can be automated as much as anything. Just my two cents Tell her to become a hair dresser. You actually have to touch the person to perform the service. Hard to automate that or make it in China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I'm gonna rationalize your response on your long term use of heavy medication. Oh, I would have thought you already were heavily medicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) Man, I'm just wrong all the time. The middle class is not getting !@#$ed, just the upper class. My apologies. The "middle class" as defined when the term was coined represented a group of individuals earning between the equivelant of 250k-500k/year. Folks with higher earning power than the working class (the working class being those who expected to reap the benefits of social security as a large portion of their retirement plan, and largely lived paycheck to paycheck with little real retirement savings), but who also could not afford to stop working, and live off of their existing assets; meaning that they were not "wealthy" either. Hence the word "middle". Over time politicians, seeking returns at the ballot box; and advertisers, seeking profits from a consumption culture driven by "keeping up with the Jones'"; have muddied the meaning of the word to their own ends. The working class wants to believe that they are middle class, and the middle class is now treated as "wealthy" which serves, in policy, to shrink the middle class, as more of their earnings are attached via taxes. The result being that the truely wealthy are insulated, as they live off their assets and the growth of their assets; while the true middle class is attacked in their stead. This means many who used to be middle class, are now relegated to working class, while the working class, no longer reaping the benefits of a growing middle class, are more likely to become poor in a stagnant or shrinking economy. We've created an economy rife with downward mobility. Edited June 4, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Man, I'm just wrong all the time. The middle class is not getting !@#$ed, just the upper class. My apologies. I don't agree with Chef. The very wealthy can avoid the higher taxes and the burden when the deficit grows falls on the new middle class/upper middle class. At least that's how it is here right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumby Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 The "middle class" as defined when the term was coined represented a group of individuals earning between the equivelant of 250k-500k/year. Folks with higher earning power than the working class (the working class being those who expected to reap the benefits of social security as a large portion of their retirement plan, and largely lived paycheck to paycheck with little real retirement savings), but who also could not afford to stop working, and live off of their existing assets; meaning that they were not "wealthy" either. Hence the word "middle". Over time politicians, seeking returns at the ballot box; and advertisers, seeking profits from a consumption culture driven by "keeping up with the Jones'"; have muddied the meaning of the word to their own ends. The working class wants to believe that they are middle class, and the middle class is now treated as "wealthy" which serves, in policy, to shrink the middle class, as more of their earningsare attached via taxes. The result being that the truely wealthy are insulated, as they live off their assets and the growth of their assets; while the true middle class is attacked in their stead. This means many who used to be middle class, are now relegated to working class, while the working class, no longer reaping the benefits of a growing middle class, are more likely to become poor in a stagnant or shrinking economy. We've created an economy rife with downward mobility. The reasons for income inequality succinctly stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I don't. I hear this all the time that the middle class is getting !@#$ed. Well the middle class sure does drive a lot of nice cars, have a ton of toys/electronics and is generally comfortable. How are they getting !@#$ed exactly? I think it's the "rich" that are getting !@#$ed (thank you ACA). And before you go all "the rich can afford it" on me notice I put rich in parentheses. The ACA doesn't !@#$ the rich, they can absorb the price increase, no problem. It's the middle class who gets screwed, because most middle to upper middle class folks don't qualify for a subsidy, and the vast majority of those that don't qualify for a subsidy through the exchanges pay considerably higher premiums than pre ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 The ACA doesn't !@#$ the rich, they can absorb the price increase, no problem. It's the middle class who gets screwed, because most middle to upper middle class folks don't qualify for a subsidy, and the vast majority of those that don't qualify for a subsidy through the exchanges pay considerably higher premiums than pre ACA. But... Those premiums pre ACA were constantly going up, and even without the ACA would have continued to skyrocket. My premiums prior to ACA increased close to 25% per quarter during the last three years of it. Of course, they did that because I have a pre-existing condition and they were trying to price me out of coverage all together. And forget about it when it comes to actually paying claims during those three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 The ACA doesn't !@#$ the rich, they can absorb the price increase, no problem. It's the middle class who gets screwed, because most middle to upper middle class folks don't qualify for a subsidy, and the vast majority of those that don't qualify for a subsidy through the exchanges pay considerably higher premiums than pre ACA. I'm not talking about the cost of insurance coverage. I'm talking about the additional taxes to pay for it. And glad you read my part about putting the rich in quotes (I said parenthesis... ) It doesn't take a lot of income to have to pay the higher taxes to help fund it. I don't agree with Chef. The very wealthy can avoid the higher taxes and the burden when the deficit grows falls on the new middle class/upper middle class. At least that's how it is here right now. Once again it's the "rich" (those making $200/$250k) that in many parts of the country are far from rich that are paying a higher tax to fund ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) But... Those premiums pre ACA were constantly going up, and even without the ACA would have continued to skyrocket. My premiums prior to ACA increased close to 25% per quarter during the last three years of it. Of course, they did that because I have a pre-existing condition and they were trying to price me out of coverage all together. And forget about it when it comes to actually paying claims during those three years. Yes, they were going up, but not nearly at the rate we saw with the ACA. So there goes that point. If you are a lower income family or someone with pre existings, the law benefits you, if you are middle class with out any serious pre existings, in most cases it doesn't. That's a fact Edited June 4, 2014 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Yes, they were going up, but not nearly at the rate we saw with the ACA. So there goes that point. If you are a lower income family or someone with pre existings, the law benefits you, if you are middle class with out any serious pre existings, in most cases it doesn't. That's a fact They're going up faster than 25% per quarter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 They're going up faster than 25% per quarter? No ya nitwit, that's not what I said... Why don't you re read what I wrote and then get back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 But... Those premiums pre ACA were constantly going up, and even without the ACA would have continued to skyrocket. My premiums prior to ACA increased close to 25% per quarter during the last three years of it. Of course, they did that because I have a pre-existing condition and they were trying to price me out of coverage all together. And forget about it when it comes to actually paying claims during those three years. The ACA gets blamed now for all of the increases which isn't entirely fair criticism, but given all the other untruths that were told about the bill, it's just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Yes, they were going up, but not nearly at the rate we saw with the ACA. So there goes that point. They're going up faster than 25% per quarter? No ya nitwit, that's not what I said... Why don't you re read what I wrote and then get back to me. Okay, that's not what you said.... I'm not even defending the ACA because it sold out to the insurance lobby. Same problem, different day. But the rates, despite increasing, have not increased at nearly the rate they were prior to the ACA -- at least in terms of my payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Okay, that's not what you said.... I'm not even defending the ACA because it sold out to the insurance lobby. Same problem, different day. But the rates, despite increasing, have not increased at nearly the rate they were prior to the ACA -- at least in terms of my payments. Anecdotal, my friend. All insurance is based on the "Law of Large Numbers". Learn that and you'll know why it is important to repeal or fundamentally alter the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Anecdotal, my friend. All insurance is based on the "Law of Large Numbers". Learn that and you'll know why it is important to repeal or fundamentally alter the ACA. My entire statement, and honest question to Mag, was anecdotal. I'm not a defender of the ACA. My thoughts on the matter are pretty well documented on this forum, and they are all pretty much from a personal perspective as I've had to deal with insurance companies and their shenagagains for far too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I'm not talking about the cost of insurance coverage. I'm talking about the additional taxes to pay for it. And glad you read my part about putting the rich in quotes (I said parenthesis... ) It doesn't take a lot of income to have to pay the higher taxes to help fund it. Once again it's the "rich" (those making $200/$250k) that in many parts of the country are far from rich that are paying a higher tax to fund ACA. What I refer to as the upper middle class. The rich to me (and obviously to you) are people who most likely don't even get their income from wages but from dividends/etc on their businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 What I refer to as the upper middle class. The rich to me (and obviously to you) are people who most likely don't even get their income from wages but from dividends/etc on their businesses. Yes and thanks to ACA for "wealthy" people the tax on qualified dividends has gone up nearly 60%. Nah, they're not getting !@#$ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Yes and thanks to ACA for "wealthy" people the tax on qualified dividends has gone up nearly 60%. Nah, they're not getting !@#$ed. You got a link for that? I'd be interested to read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts