"Between 2001 and 2004, the median income of Americans with college degrees barely budged, rising from $72,300 to $73,000 (after adjusting for inflation), according to a Federal Reserve survey of consumer finances."
Ah, I was wondering when boy-blunder was going to trot this out. He posted it at his own blog to see if anyone could give him talking points on it. Nada. So, of course he brings it up without clue f-one as to what it means.
But he linked to something - something he doesn't understand, and can't be sure actually supports his point - so that proves (in his mind) that his point is proven.
I'm not sure, is this already codified or do we have a new phenomenon on display?
So, because the median barely moves, the economic class that owns the median has disappeared?
You can claim all sorts of things about the relative wealth of the groups, but if you don't manage to show me an income-chart that is bi-modal, you're calling something that isn't a disappearing middle-class the problem of the disappearing middle-class.
Well, Paulson himself says it as much in the article so I suppose I got it from him. I also recall an interview with President Clinton in which he said that the middle class is what drives our economy and, right now, we don't have a middle class. So, I'm sure it was a combination of both of them.
What Moore said in the film was nothing new. He was simply repeating what many have been saying for years.
Really? I checkedthe article. The words "middle" and "class" are nowhere to be found. Keep spinning, Tinkerballs. The fact of the matter is, that phrase never appeared in your writing here until after you saw the film, and it's an amazingly common expression in reviews of that film.
Which, by your own rules indicates that you're quoting someone "verbatim" like a mindless puppet.
Unless, of course, you're not - you're just agreeing with someone else's assessment in which case using their word(s) without attribution is OK.
Well, of course there is no middle class that Michael Moore can see. Why? He's a limosuine liberal, so all he sees are the wealthy peers of his and those people who work for him whom he pays poor wages for. He doesn't see the middle class because he doesn't live and work amongst the middle class anymore. But he got in his one day working on the GM assembly line, so he knows ALL the struggles of the workingman......right.
Since I've neither seized more money than this world has ever seen, nor am I one illness away from losing my home, nor am I living in Third World poverty, I have to wonder to which class I actually belong. Looks very "middle" to me, but what do I know.
Good call, dfwmtx. NYC probably does resemble Moore's description. How many blocks is it from the Upper West Side to Harlem, anyway?
My initial idea of "no middle class" did not come from Moore. Moore himself was not the originator of the idea and I still think it was Bill Clinton about 2-3 years ago that said it but I don't recall which interview...maybe 60 minutes? If you watch the film, it's clear that he is riffing off of others with the middle class thing. It was that combined with Paulson's assessment of the "increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy prices and rising healthcare costs, among others" that leads to the obvious conclusion that there really is no middle class anymore.
Moore did, however, talk about plenty of information in his film that was new to me...the Citigroup Doc for example. I have repeated lines from that document verbatim but that was prepared by a private corporation so does that make me a mindless corporate puppet? I believe it does:)
that leads to the obvious conclusion that there really is no middle class anymore.
So you're rich, Ralph?
Moore did, however, talk about plenty of information in his film that was new to me...the Citigroup Doc for example. I have repeated lines from that document verbatim
Yes, you have.
Repeated. Without any analysis. Or understanding or context.
But, yes, you have repeated and repeated and repeated.
but that was prepared by a private corporation so does that make me a mindless corporate puppet?
No, just clueless and ignorant. I could learn the Illiad in Greek, phonetically - just the words, and repeat it. But it would be meaningless to use that as proof that I _understood_ it. Unless I understood Greek.
Much as your "There is no middle class" indicates you don't understand what you're repeating.
Guys and gals, it is, yet again, nothing more than his Standard Response #3, the "I'm not alone" response. He states his opinion, and then he points to the writings of other people who share his opinion, as if it were all about votes instead of verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.
And if it's the opinion of Fat Mikey from Hollywood, why, how dare you question it!
DJ, I think this deserves to be "3a" - points to an article that doesn't really support his point, but since he linked to "evidence" it is his, ALL HIS, mwuhahahaha.
There was nothing in the article he originally linked to that supports his contention that the middle class has disappeared. Nothing. I didn't think this quite fit the current coda.
"Well, Paulson himself says it as much in the article so I suppose I got it from him. I also recall an interview with President Clinton in which he said that the middle class is what drives our economy and, right now, we don't have a middle class. So, I'm sure it was a combination of both of them.
"What Moore said in the film was nothing new. He was simply repeating what many have been saying for years."
Never mind the hilarity of Bill Clinton being used for economic insights.
Or, you know, the truth.
You know, the one good thing about the impending trials of Bush admin officials for policy differences is that a Republican might charge Reno and Clinton for Waco. Now there is a pleasant thought.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/11/verbatim.html (22 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Actually, I got the idea from this article...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0803/p03s03-usec.html
"Between 2001 and 2004, the median income of Americans with college degrees barely budged, rising from $72,300 to $73,000 (after adjusting for inflation), according to a Federal Reserve survey of consumer finances."
This was three years ago.
Ah, I was wondering when boy-blunder was going to trot this out. He posted it at his own blog to see if anyone could give him talking points on it. Nada. So, of course he brings it up without clue f-one as to what it means.
But he linked to something - something he doesn't understand, and can't be sure actually supports his point - so that proves (in his mind) that his point is proven.
I'm not sure, is this already codified or do we have a new phenomenon on display?
But where'd you get the phrase "no middle class," Tinkerballs? We know you went to see Capitalism: A Love Story. You GUSHED about it.
Sorry, but your credibility around here sucks, and for good reason.
But Kevin, if Michael Moore says it, then it has to be true, doesn't it? I mean, isn't he totally all like, right, and stuff?
Sheesh. And to think that we are accused of getting our marching orders from Karl Rove ...
I mean, isn't he totally all like, right, and stuff?
Well, even if you can point out where Moore is factually wrong (even where the exact opposite is true), he means well, and that's what matters!
Well, even if you can point out where Moore is factually wrong...
Isn't that the essence of Colbert's "truthiness" lampoon?
Sorry! Even WHEN, not "even IF."
So, because the median barely moves, the economic class that owns the median has disappeared?
You can claim all sorts of things about the relative wealth of the groups, but if you don't manage to show me an income-chart that is bi-modal, you're calling something that isn't a disappearing middle-class the problem of the disappearing middle-class.
It involves numbers and stuff, karrde. You expect too much of him.
Well, Paulson himself says it as much in the article so I suppose I got it from him. I also recall an interview with President Clinton in which he said that the middle class is what drives our economy and, right now, we don't have a middle class. So, I'm sure it was a combination of both of them.
What Moore said in the film was nothing new. He was simply repeating what many have been saying for years.
Really? I checked the article. The words "middle" and "class" are nowhere to be found. Keep spinning, Tinkerballs. The fact of the matter is, that phrase never appeared in your writing here until after you saw the film, and it's an amazingly common expression in reviews of that film.
Which, by your own rules indicates that you're quoting someone "verbatim" like a mindless puppet.
Unless, of course, you're not - you're just agreeing with someone else's assessment in which case using their word(s) without attribution is OK.
Right?
Well, of course there is no middle class that Michael Moore can see. Why? He's a limosuine liberal, so all he sees are the wealthy peers of his and those people who work for him whom he pays poor wages for. He doesn't see the middle class because he doesn't live and work amongst the middle class anymore. But he got in his one day working on the GM assembly line, so he knows ALL the struggles of the workingman......right.
Since I've neither seized more money than this world has ever seen, nor am I one illness away from losing my home, nor am I living in Third World poverty, I have to wonder to which class I actually belong. Looks very "middle" to me, but what do I know.
Good call, dfwmtx. NYC probably does resemble Moore's description. How many blocks is it from the Upper West Side to Harlem, anyway?
"Right?"
My initial idea of "no middle class" did not come from Moore. Moore himself was not the originator of the idea and I still think it was Bill Clinton about 2-3 years ago that said it but I don't recall which interview...maybe 60 minutes? If you watch the film, it's clear that he is riffing off of others with the middle class thing. It was that combined with Paulson's assessment of the "increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy prices and rising healthcare costs, among others" that leads to the obvious conclusion that there really is no middle class anymore.
Moore did, however, talk about plenty of information in his film that was new to me...the Citigroup Doc for example. I have repeated lines from that document verbatim but that was prepared by a private corporation so does that make me a mindless corporate puppet? I believe it does:)
...so does that make me a mindless corporate puppet?
I must admit, cut or tangled strings would explain a lot.
that leads to the obvious conclusion that there really is no middle class anymore.
So you're rich, Ralph?
Moore did, however, talk about plenty of information in his film that was new to me...the Citigroup Doc for example. I have repeated lines from that document verbatim
Yes, you have.
Repeated. Without any analysis. Or understanding or context.
But, yes, you have repeated and repeated and repeated.
but that was prepared by a private corporation so does that make me a mindless corporate puppet?
No, just clueless and ignorant. I could learn the Illiad in Greek, phonetically - just the words, and repeat it. But it would be meaningless to use that as proof that I _understood_ it. Unless I understood Greek.
Much as your "There is no middle class" indicates you don't understand what you're repeating.
Guys and gals, it is, yet again, nothing more than his Standard Response #3, the "I'm not alone" response. He states his opinion, and then he points to the writings of other people who share his opinion, as if it were all about votes instead of verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.
And if it's the opinion of Fat Mikey from Hollywood, why, how dare you question it!
DJ, I think this deserves to be "3a" - points to an article that doesn't really support his point, but since he linked to "evidence" it is his, ALL HIS, mwuhahahaha.
There was nothing in the article he originally linked to that supports his contention that the middle class has disappeared. Nothing. I didn't think this quite fit the current coda.
We could call it the "Apes don't read philosophy" argument.
There was nothing in the article he originally linked to that supports his contention that the middle class has disappeared. Nothing.
That's twice he's done that. The previous time it was that HuffPo piece.
juris, note this comment above by troll boy:
"Well, Paulson himself says it as much in the article so I suppose I got it from him. I also recall an interview with President Clinton in which he said that the middle class is what drives our economy and, right now, we don't have a middle class. So, I'm sure it was a combination of both of them.
"What Moore said in the film was nothing new. He was simply repeating what many have been saying for years."
This is Standard Response #3.
Never mind the hilarity of Bill Clinton being used for economic insights.
Or, you know, the truth.
You know, the one good thing about the impending trials of Bush admin officials for policy differences is that a Republican might charge Reno and Clinton for Waco. Now there is a pleasant thought.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>