The “middle class” has changed in terms of its interest in owning a home. The middle class is by and large an invention of the political class and the news media. The truth is there is no such thing. Even President Obama’s definition of the middle class tends to shift depending on which speech he is giving, or which ideological agenda he is pushing on a given day. The “middle class” is really little more than a convenient benchmark that politicians and reporters use to suit their needs. There is no definable group of people that always stays within this mythical group we’ve come to refer to as the middle class. It was the idea that a family with a little money, but far from wealthy, could be reasonably happy and stable if they lived within their needs. In your typical “middle class” neighborhood you could have one family that has a lot of money saved, but is perfectly happy to live a modest lifestyle, right next to a family whose mortgage is underwater and is desperately hanging on. They might have exactly the same income and comparable homes, but there is no way you can reasonably say they’re in the same situation or have the same needs. But if you’re a politician trying to pander to a wide swath of the electorate, you lump everyone into this vaunted “middle class” and tell them all that you’re looking out for them. It’s all a con. There is no monolithic them. To the extent that you recognize classes at all, people move between different classes all the time.
No one can define success for anyone else, just as no one can tell anyone else what their American Dream should be. People who have an upper class mindset want freedom above all else, because they know what they’ve got in themselves. The NYT Hillary is “very impressive;” she’s a “formidable politician;” blah blah blah), where you don’t get let in to the big dance if you don’t kiss that ring. If these people are “very impressed” by Hillary, I’d like to know what exactly it is that passes as impressive in their minds. It can’t be a disaster of a health care gambit. It can’t be finding your legal billing records under the couch cushions. It can’t be a carpetbagging Senate career in which you sponsor no significant legislation. It can’t be losing to Obama in a run for president that was supposed to be a coronation. It can’t be the big “re-set” with the Russkies. All the airline miles? Standing by her man like Tammy Wynette? Trying to deny legal counsel to Nixon? Making a killing on cattle futures? Bringing that dastardly video maker to justice?
I can’t think of a single thing she’s ever accomplished that would impress anyone.
‘The economy is growing’
the pace of growth under Obama has crept along at a mere 2.0 percent on an annualized basis. Typical growth in a recovery that follows a recession would be twice that.In the first two quarters of this year, we’ve seen growth of only 1.2 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively. .” It’s what you need to really bring down unemployment and elevate the creation of wealth. To do that on a healthy, robust basis, you would need consistent growth of at least 4.0 percent. That would not only create jobs, it would also increase that tax base so you could raise more revenue and reduce the deficit. 2.0 percent, it’s not restoring the prosperity and employment opportunities we enjoyed before the recession.
One of the reasons we do not solve this nation’s problems is that everyone is so busy trying to gain partisan advantage from them. Just recognize something.Democrats are causing the ship of state to sink. They are using food stamps and Social Security funds to buy votes, by encouraging people to depend on food stamps and disability benefits rather than encouraging them to work. Democrats benefit politically when more people are dependent on government to survive. They’re doing a good job using public funds to buy votes. They’re encouraging people to count on promises made way into the future for which there is no money, and they refuse to be honest about the fact that the promises will not and cannot be kept.Clapping your hands, Republicans? Sorry, but it’s your turn now. Republicans are causing the ship of state to sink by doing what they always do – cowardly positioning themselves to lose. Republicans have leverage by virtue of the fact that they control the House. They have the power of the purse. But they do not use it. They could defund ObamaCare. They could refuse to authorize the big spending that Obama, Reid and Pelosi want to perpetrate. Using power they have. No spending is possible unless it passes the House. So why do Republicans keep authorizing it? Because they are scared of political consequences. They are scared of criticism. They are scared of the media. And they are not united! Republicans don’t like Tea Party Republicans because they want to keep doing what they’ve always done – get along by going along, and lose. And Tea Party groups aren’t united either! They bicker with each other.
State and local governments borrow too, baby! the true nature of public debt in this country. While you’re focused on the borrowing that goes on in Washington D.C., a lot of it is happening in your state capital or right down the street at your city hall. How much? Try in excess of $6 trillion, state constitutions and city charters say all debt is supposed to be approved by voters.Ha. Suckers!Today, states and localities engineer most of their borrowing through what Briffault calls “non-debt debt,” a term for bonds designed to avoid legal restrictions on borrowing. For example, courts in some states have decided that when a state’s independent authorities issue bonds, that borrowing isn’t restricted by constitutional debt limits—even if taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for it. Such evasions are responsible for three-quarters of state debt and two-thirds of municipal obligations incurred through bond offerings. The growth of this kind of borrowing helps explain why state and local debt outstanding, from $2 trillion (in today’s dollars) in 2000 to nearly $3 trillion today, retiree health care and pensions are an especially big problem because it’s not unusual that states and cities have only set aside as little as 6 percent of what they’ve promised. Detroit started issuing bonds in 2005 just to pay for day-to-day operations, and that’s how its own debt swelled to an incredible $18 billion. Every time they refinance, the cost of borrowing goes up, and the size of the debt goes up, but in the short term they’re using this gimmick to make residents think they’re getting a better deal than they really are. They see things like “general obligation bonds” or pension funds and they don’t really understand what that means. If they start asking questions about whether it’s right to put taxpayers on the hook for such debts, public officials and media counterparts roll their eyes and look at them as if to say, “Don’t be a Tea Party wacko!”That’s if the question even occurs to them. This is standard practice in municipal government so why question it? They are borrowing, often without you knowing about it, and often without getting your authorization as the law says they are supposed to do. Judges have proved especially eager to approve evasions of debt limits when they’re the ones demanding that states or localities spend money. Back in 2001, New Jersey’s activist supreme court mandated that the legislature embark on a project of building and refurbishing schools (see “The Court That Broke Jersey,” Winter 2012). To comply, Trenton lawmakers announced a plan to borrow $8.6 billion through a bond offering—a shockingly high sum. Officials knew that voters would never endorse the move. So the legislature decided to channel the borrowing through an independent authority. The taxpayer groups sued, but the state supreme court brushed their objections aside, arguing that a clear precedent existed for such borrowing. The political class wants to spend, period, with no restraints. When restraints are placed on their ability to spend, they find clever ways around them – often with the complicity of the judiciary – and the media do not call them on it because they are either a) too dumb to recognize what’s going on; or b) ideologically in support of what’s happening and thus disinclined to blow the whistle.
I am honestly not sure the American system of government will survive.
Sources—herman cain, dan calabrese,