Trump train derails PC train

[GoodTidings]

You're talking about the upper middle class. Here is a definition:
Upper middle class - Wikipedia

In academic models, the term "upper middle class" applies to highly-educated, salaried professionals whose work is largely self-directed. Many have postgraduate degrees, with educational attainment serving as the main distinguishing feature of this class. Household incomes commonly may exceed $100,000, with some smaller one-income earners earning incomes in the high five figures.[5] Typical professions for this class include lawyers, physicians, physician assistants, military officers, psychologists, nurse practitioners, certified public accountants, pharmacists, optometrists, financial planners, editors, dentists, engineers, professors, architects, school principals, urban planners, civil service executives, and civilian contractors.[3][6]

Yes, they're doing OK but not relative to the top 1%. The upper middle class income is about $100,000 or so. That certainly puts them in the top 10% but most income gains have gone to the top 1% with an income of about $400,000.

The 1 pct Pocketed 85 pct of Post-Recession Income Growth
The 1% Pocketed 85% of Post-Recession Income Growth

What I always considered to be the middle class is the middle group lower than this group. In the 50's and 60's these were the union factory workers. They are rapidly drifting down towards poverty.


View attachment 2884
Their wages haven't grown at all in 40 years in real (inflation adjusted) terms.

Yes and in the last 40 years we have had three Democratic administrations and several Democratic controlled Houses and Senates and yet all this poverty, according to you is the fault of the Republicans.

Why does everyone have to be making the same as the top 1%? Or why is there this need to topple the top 1%? If they got there honestly, what is immoral about that?

Income inequality isn't a bad thing. If you choose not to go to school and work in lower paying jobs and you agree to the wages the employer offers, then why is that immoral?

In America anyone can go as far as they want to, if they choose to. You can choose to get a better job, or to get more training to be promoted in your current job. You can choose to go to school or you can choose to be entrepreneur.

No one is stopping anyone from improving. But there is no immorality in being richer than someone else as long as it is not ill-gotten gains.

I know, everyone complains about the loop-holes and perks that the 1% get that no one else does. But those are baked into our laws. If you don't like it, change the laws. But if they exploit legal loopholes, so be it. Punishing or begrudging someone for being rich and being able to enjoy fruit of their labors is unAmerican and is nothing more than jealousy.

I note that Obama was always against the 1%, until he needed their $$$ for his election and re-election. He demonized them to gin up his base, but then always went to their fancy fundraisers with his hand out for their money and no one complained about that. So I really don't buy the fake outrage on the Left about the 1% and their manufactured crocodile tears for the middle class. The Left only cares about making America a socialist, police-state.

 

[GoodTidings]

When will you learn to talk about individuals rather than sides? I've always considered my self to be a Southerner. My mother was a member of the UDC and won a poetry contest sponsored by them. But, growing up in KY, I had ancestors who fought and died on both sides. I always admired Gen. Robert E, Lee but I've come to realize that the South was really fighting for slavery and I don't support that. BTW, the SBC did not renounce their position on slavery until the 1990's. That seems a bit late to me.
I admire and support our founders.They were not all Christians. In fact Jefferson constructed his own "bible" by cutting out everything miraculous. He liked the moral creed but did not believe in the divinity of Christ. He was a deist meaning he believed in a hazy concept of god which was not the Christian God.

I am just making generalizations about your side which makes same lame, silly talking points that you do. People are known by the company they keep. You keep siding with the anti-America crowd and making their case for them.

 

[GoodTidings]

You're talking about the upper middle class. Here is a definition:


What I always considered to be the middle class is the middle group lower than this group. In the 50's and 60's these were the union factory workers. They are rapidly drifting down towards poverty.


View attachment 2884
Their wages haven't grown at all in 40 years in real (inflation adjusted) terms.

I would also point out that you also have to take into account how people live. People make choices about how to spend their money and often, people make self-destructive choices. It's not necessarily all about how much money you make, but how you spend it.

If you are undisciplined, if you rack up credit card debt, spend your money on expensive habits like cigarettes, alcohol, and have a high end taste when you go out to eat, you spend yourself into poverty. If you spend more than you take in, you spend yourself into poverty. If you live under a mountain of debt due to your own irresponsible living, you don't have money to save for the future.

Yeah, in those cases the trickle down doesn't work. And unfortunately, many, many people are living outside their means and it shows. The trickle down economics works, but you still have to be disciplined in how you manage your financial affairs. Many people are not disciplined. We live in a society where people are conned into buying $900 cell phones. I know people who complain about the economy and that they don't have any money, but have iPads, Bluetooth, Xbox, engage in online gambling, waste money on tobacco and alcohol and can't seem to figure why they struggle to make rent and other bills.

If you want to talk about a shrinking middle class, let's also talk about how people are spending their money.

 

[GoodTidings]

I always admired Gen. Robert E, Lee but I've come to realize that the South was really fighting for slavery and I don't support that.

Robert E. Lee and the South was not fighting for slavery. That is more junk history. The north had slaves, too. The Civil War was about states' rights/state sovereignty vs. the Constitution. The north had no moral objection to slavery.

Most of the soldiers that fought in the south were not slave owners. Only the most wealthy men were slave owners. Robert E. Lee was not a slaver owner. The Confederates recruited soldiers on the grounds that the federal government was coming to take their land. From the perspective of the average Confederate soldier, he was fighting for his state, his homeland against northern aggression.

 

[Wingman68]

Robert E. Lee and the South was not fighting for slavery. That is more junk history. The north had slaves, too. The Civil War was about states' rights/state sovereignty vs. the Constitution. The north had no moral objection to slavery.

Most of the soldiers that fought in the south were not slave owners. Only the most wealthy men were slave owners. Robert E. Lee was not a slaver owner. The Confederates recruited soldiers on the grounds that the federal government was coming to take their land. From the perspective of the average Confederate soldier, he was fighting for his state, his homeland against northern aggression.

I agree with this, however Lincoln made it about slavery about half way through the war, & used black men as recruits.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Robert E. Lee and the South was not fighting for slavery. That is more junk history. The north had slaves, too. The Civil War was about states' rights/state sovereignty vs. the Constitution. The north had no moral objection to slavery.

Most of the soldiers that fought in the south were not slave owners. Only the most wealthy men were slave owners. Robert E. Lee was not a slaver owner. The Confederates recruited soldiers on the grounds that the federal government was coming to take their land. From the perspective of the average Confederate soldier, he was fighting for his state, his homeland against northern aggression.

Myths & Misunderstandings: What Caused the Civil War | American Civil War Museum

In contrast to the post-war efforts to downplay the importance of slavery, it dominated the thinking and the rhetoric of southern statesmen in 1860-1861. Deep South states sent commissioners to the Upper South states to persuade them to leave the Union. Their arguments emphasized the mortal danger that the recent election of Republican Abraham Lincoln as president posed to slavery and to white people in the South. The formal explanations that several states issued to justify secession similarly emphasized slavery. (For these sources, please see the related links accompanying this entry.) Even Virginia, which seceded after war began, had formulated a list of demands that the U.S. government must meet if Virginia were to remain in the Union; all of them related to slavery and race.

 

[GoodTidings]

Myths & Misunderstandings: What Caused the Civil War | American Civil War Museum

In contrast to the post-war efforts to downplay the importance of slavery, it dominated the thinking and the rhetoric of southern statesmen in 1860-1861.

But not the thinking of the average southerner. Most southerners were not slave owners. Only the most wealthy who made up a very small number of southerners actually owned slaves. The average person, particularly the average soldier on the field did not have "slavery" on their minds. They were fighting for the homeland, not for the right to own slaves.

The fact is that slavery wasn't an issue until the late in the war. Abraham Lincoln originally had no intentions of liberating the slaves. The Civil War was about states rights. But slavery was not the cause of the war. And the North had slaves, too. Slavery wasn't just a southern thing. The Union Army was not on a righteous crusade to free slaves. Freeing slaves was merely incidental to their goal of putting down the rebellion of the South.

 

[Ziggy]

Let's not forget Lincoln's expressed support for the Corwin amendment that would have preserved slavery in the states that already had such. Had the southern states not been intent on leaving after Lincoln's election, the whole Civil War likely could have been avoided.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Let's not forget Lincoln's expressed support for the Corwin amendment that would have preserved slavery in the states that already had such. Had the southern states not been intent on leaving after Lincoln's election, the whole Civil War likely could have been avoided.

Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. He preferred arguing about issues including slavery in Congress rather than breaking up America and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. He preferred arguing about issues including slavery in Congress rather than breaking up America and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Then why would he never meet with Jefferson Davis who never wanted a war in the first place?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Then why would he never meet with Jefferson Davis who never wanted a war in the first place?

Jefferson Davis became a staunch states’ rights Democrat and champion of the unrestricted expansion of slavery into the territories. A slaveholder, Davis firmly believed in the importance of the institution of slavery for the South.

During the secession crisis, he resigned from the Senate and in 1861 was chosen by acclamation to be the Confederate president. Initially, Davis was a popular President with the Southern people. He had a dignified bearing, a distinguished military record, extensive experience in political affairs, and—most importantly—a dedication to the Confederate cause.

*****************************************************************************************************

Davis supported secession over the causes of slavery and states rights. I think you're referring to the story that he sent emissaries to Lincoln near the end of the war to discuss surrender terms but they were blocked by Union soldiers. I've heard this but can't seem to find justification for it. In any event, Lincoln wanted to get the Emancipation Proclamation ratified in the U.S. Congress before the war ended. That tends to support this view.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Jefferson Davis became a staunch states’ rights Democrat and champion of the unrestricted expansion of slavery into the territories. A slaveholder, Davis firmly believed in the importance of the institution of slavery for the South.

During the secession crisis, he resigned from the Senate and in 1861 was chosen by acclamation to be the Confederate president. Initially, Davis was a popular President with the Southern people. He had a dignified bearing, a distinguished military record, extensive experience in political affairs, and—most importantly—a dedication to the Confederate cause.

*****************************************************************************************************

Davis supported secession over the causes of slavery and states rights. I think you're referring to the story that he sent emissaries to Lincoln near the end of the war to discuss surrender terms but they were blocked by Union soldiers. I've heard this but can't seem to find justification for it. In any event, Lincoln wanted to get the Emancipation Proclamation ratified in the U.S. Congress before the war ended. That tends to support this view.

I heard, or read ( my memory is failing) that JD repeatedly requested a parlay before but Lincoln repeatedly ignored him.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I heard, or read ( my memory is failing) that JD repeatedly requested a parlay before but Lincoln repeatedly ignored him.

I think that's true as well. Perhaps this came from the movie "Lincoln." The idea was Lincoln wanted to free the slaves but didn't think he could do that if the Civil War had ended.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I heard, or read ( my memory is failing) that JD repeatedly requested a parlay before but Lincoln repeatedly ignored him.

Actually, this is what I found from The History channel:
Citation Information
Article Title
Hampton Roads Conference
Author
History.com Editors


On this day in 1865, President Abraham Lincoln meets with a delegation of Confederate officials at Hampton Roads, Virginia, to discuss a possible peace agreement. Lincoln refused to grant the delegation any concessions, however, and the meeting ended within hours.

New York Tribune editor and abolitionist Horace Greeley provided the impetus for the conference when he contacted Francis Blair, a Maryland aristocrat and presidential adviser. Greeley suggested that Blair was the “right man” to open discussions with the Confederates to end the war. Blair sought permission from Lincoln to meet with Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and did so twice in January 1865. Blair suggested to Davis that an armistice be forged and the two sides turn their attention to removing the French-supported regime of Maximilian in Mexico. This plan would help cool tensions between North and South by providing a common enemy, he believed.

Meanwhile, the situation was becoming progressively worse for the Confederates in the winter of 1864 and 1865. In January, Union troops captured Fort Fisher and effectively closed Wilmington, North Carolina, the last major port open to blockade runners. Davis conferred with his vice president, Alexander Stephens, who recommended that a peace commission be appointed to explore a possible armistice. Davis sent Stephens and two others to meet with Lincoln at Hampton Roads.

The meeting convened on February 3. Stephens asked if there was any way to stop the war and Lincoln replied that the only way was “for those who were resisting the laws of the Union to cease that resistance.” The delegation underestimated Lincoln’s resolve to make the end of slavery a necessary condition for any peace. The president also insisted on immediate reunification and the laying down of Confederate arms before anything else was discussed. In short, the Union was in such an advantageous position that Lincoln did not need to concede any issues to the Confederates. Robert M.T. Hunter, a member of the delegation, commented that Lincoln was offering little except the unconditional surrender of the South.

After less than five hours, the conference ended and the delegation left with no concessions. The war continued for more than two months.

 

[GoodTidings]

Actually, this is what I found from The History channel:

Except that this occurs at the end of the war. The Civil War was never about slavery. Slavery was not the reason it was fought. For a very long time, Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves and said so. He said if he could end the war without freeing a single slave, he would do so.

Even at the end of the war, it was not a righteous crusade against slavery. Freeing slaves was incidental to the real cause and purpose of the war and not the primary goal of the Union.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Except that this occurs at the end of the war. The Civil War was never about slavery. Slavery was not the reason it was fought. For a very long time, Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves and said so. He said if he could end the war without freeing a single slave, he would do so.

Even at the end of the war, it was not a righteous crusade against slavery. Freeing slaves was incidental to the real cause and purpose of the war and not the primary goal of the Union.

Lincoln on Slavery
Abraham Lincoln is often referred to as "The Great Emancipator" and yet, he did not publicly call for emancipation throughout his entire life. Lincoln began his public career by claiming that he was "antislavery" -- against slavery's expansion, but not calling for immediate emancipation. However, the man who began as "antislavery" eventually issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves in those states that were in rebellion. He vigorously supported the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery throughout the United States, and, in the last speech of his life, he recommended extending the vote to African Americans.

September 17, 1859: Fragment on Free Labor

We know, Southern men declare that their slaves are better off than hired laborers amongst us. How little they know, whereof they speak! There is no permanent class of hired laborers amongst us.

Free labor has the inspiration of hope; pure slavery has no hope. The power of hope upon human exertion, and happiness, is wonderful. The slave-master himself has a conception of it; and hence the system of tasks among slaves. The slave whom you can not drive with the lash to break seventy-five pounds of hemp in a day, if you will task him to break a hundred, and promise him pay for all he does over, he will break you a hundred and fifty. You have substituted hope, for the rod.

(III, 462-3)

February 1, 1861: Letter To William H. Seward

I say now, however, as I have all the while said, that on the territorial question -- that is, the question of extending slavery under the national auspices, -- I am inflexible. I am for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution on soil owned by the nation. And any trick by which the nation is to acquire territory, and then allow some local authority to spread slavery over it, is as obnoxious as any other.

(IV, 183)

 

[GoodTidings]

Lincoln on Slavery
Abraham Lincoln is often referred to as "The Great Emancipator" and yet, he did not publicly call for emancipation throughout his entire life. Lincoln began his public career by claiming that he was "antislavery" -- against slavery's expansion, but not calling for immediate emancipation. However, the man who began as "antislavery" eventually issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves in those states that were in rebellion. He vigorously supported the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery throughout the United States, and, in the last speech of his life, he recommended extending the vote to African Americans.

I think it is worth noting that Republicans, not Democrats freed the slaves.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I think it is worth noting that Republicans, not Democrats freed the slaves.

The parties have changed over the years. Lincoln's Republican Party was the liberal party. The Democrats were conservative. Do you think of today's Republican as the liberal party? I doubt it.

 

[GoodTidings]

The parties have changed over the years. Lincoln's Republican Party was the liberal party. The Democrats were conservative. Do you think of today's Republican as the liberal party? I doubt it.

The details may have changed, but the Democrats are still racist and still have a "Plantation" mentality when it comes to black people. Republicans have done far more blacks than Democrats, even when they had a black president. The Dems have done nothing for black people in the last 40 years until Trump did things to help lower black unemployment to historic lows. Not even Obama (the worst president in our history) in 8 years, ever did anything like that.

 

[FollowTheWay]

The details may have changed, but the Democrats are still racist and still have a "Plantation" mentality when it comes to black people. Republicans have done far more blacks than Democrats, even when they had a black president. The Dems have done nothing for black people in the last 40 years until Trump did things to help lower black unemployment to historic lows. Not even Obama (the worst president in our history) in 8 years, ever did anything like that.

I don't think changing from conservative to liberal is a "detail." The Republicans are trying to destroy the fragile safety net in the U.S. for the poor and needy. These people are statistically more black than white due to prolonged racism. What have the Republicans ever done for them?