# Middle class leaning Pub for economic interests -- even though data show that's wrong **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 16, 2015, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827 "2015-02-16T17:13:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/41 "2015-02-17T17:40:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I don’t know if you can say that any President IS a centrist, so much as they have to govern that way or else. If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, even if it really is a lamb or a lion, it’s pretty much a duck. A duck by any other name still quacks as sweet… ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/42 "2015-02-17T17:58:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, is it gluten free centrism? What programs do you advocate, what “centrist” positions should we adopt? What you are offering is the political equivalent of vaporware. Is Obama centrist? You mean the radical socialist Mooslim Obama, or the milquetoast Clintonista _menshevik_ Obama? > > The word “centrist” doesn’t mean anything, nor does “compromise” mean anything without defining what the hell it is! I might be willing to accept what’s in the bag, if you’ll just tell me what it is. Its reasonable, and involves compromise, and that’s a good thing. OK. Is that it, then? If I want to move forward and they want to move back, do we compromise on standing still? You’ll never get XT to admit to any specific policies, because as long as the Republicans keep dashing headlong to the right and as long as Washington Democrats keep following them at a distance in the name of “centrism” then the overall direction of US policy is to the right. And it would be disastrous for XT to cite specific policies, because the American voting public is well to the left of BOTH parties on economic issues. Generic “centrism” on the other hand, sounds so nice and wholesome and not right wing at all! ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/43 "2015-02-17T18:04:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What can the Dems do about that? Reduce the middle class’ tax burden, for one thing. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/44 "2015-02-17T18:05:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > You’ll never get XT to admit to any specific policies, because as long as the Republicans keep dashing headlong to the right and as long as Washington Democrats keep following them at a distance in the name of “centrism” then the overall direction of US policy is to the right. And it would be disastrous for XT to cite specific policies, because the American voting public is well to the left of BOTH parties on economic issues. Generic “centrism” on the other hand, sounds so nice and wholesome and not right wing at all! Every side thinks America is being pulled politically to the other side. Liberals are convinced America is being pulled to the right. Conservatives are convinced America is being pulled to the left. It all depends on one’s own perspective. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/45 "2015-02-17T18:14:48Z")
I actually think America is being pulled to the right, at least on economic issues. Maybe it’s because I’m an optimist. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/46 "2015-02-17T19:05:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I actually think America is being pulled to the right, at least on economic issues. Maybe it’s because I’m an optimist. Well, seeing as the right’s idea of economics is demonstrably wrong and based on wishful, magical thinking, it is to laffer. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/47 "2015-02-17T19:07:25Z")
Don’t have enough bullets. Drag him out, tie him up, and I’ll get around to it. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/48 "2015-02-17T19:09:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I actually think America is being pulled to the right, at least on economic issues. Maybe it’s because I’m an optimist. Could you define what you mean by the “right” economic issues? Are they: 1- No tax increase for anybody under any circumstance 2- Tax cuts for the wealthy 3- Shred the social safety net 4- Bust the unions 5- Undo environmental regulations 6- And of course end Obamacare Are these your issues or do you have others? What makes you think America is pulling toward these opinions? And why, when it would do no good, would a pull to the right make one optimistic? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/49 "2015-02-17T19:15:03Z")
Not that far right, but here are some realities of the current political situation: 1. You can’t raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000/yr 2. You can’t create any new entitlements without a huge backlash. 3. The public prioritizes jobs over environmental regulation. Keystone is splintering private unions from the Democratic Party. 4. While massive cuts are impossible, it’s very easy politically to just hold spending flat, which Republicans have done for four years now. In fact, Obama has gone out of his way to take credit for this fiscal retrenchment in public, while trying to increase spending in the future(which he won’t be able to do). ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/50 "2015-02-17T19:19:18Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Every side thinks America is being pulled politically to the other side. > > Liberals are convinced America is being pulled to the right. > > Conservatives are convinced America is being pulled to the left. > > It all depends on one’s own perspective. No, there’s a thing called “objective reality” out there. One’s perspective on things like climate change, evolution and trickle down economics does not matter … the facts are in. And the fact is, America has been drifting to the right for decades. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/51 "2015-02-17T19:27:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not that far right, but here are some realities of the current political situation: > > 1. You can’t raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000/yr > 2. You can’t create any new entitlements without a huge backlash. > 3. The public prioritizes jobs over environmental regulation. Keystone is splintering private unions from the Democratic Party. > 4. While massive cuts are impossible, it’s very easy politically to just hold spending flat, which Republicans have done for four years now. In fact, Obama has gone out of his way to take credit for this fiscal retrenchment in public, while trying to increase spending in the future(which he won’t be able to do). Thanks for the response. Let’s see if we can get somewhere. 1. I’m not sure there wouldn’t be consensus to raise taxes on incomes over $250K. I also don’t think resistance to tax increases to be a positive thing. 2. Exactly which proposed entitlements are Republicans saving us from? 3. If a few dozen jobs is the benefit, and the potential destruction of the Ogalalla Aquifer is the cost, the b/c ratio is quite low. We’ll see that the public’s reaction would be if the pipeline is built and a) no drop in gas prices b) no significant jobs and c) environmental disaster follows. 4. The slowing in spending has been at the expense of economic growth. If not for Republican determination to steer the ship into the reef to make the captain look bad, the recovery would have been faster and deeper. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/52 "2015-02-17T19:39:13Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I wonder . . . if you take a Marxist polemic out of context, and ask Americans to picture _worthless parasites who contribute nothing of value while making money off laborers,_ how many of them picture the rich and how many of them picture the poor? [Some will picture both.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Producerism) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/53 "2015-02-17T19:40:15Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > BG, the article you cited in your OP shows otherwise. That is why I said “hopes,” not “expects.” ☹ ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/54 "2015-02-17T20:38:06Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Thanks for the response. Let’s see if we can get somewhere. > > 1. I’m not sure there wouldn’t be consensus to raise taxes on incomes over $250K. I also don’t think resistance to tax increases to be a positive thing. I’m sure you could get consensus to do it at $250K, but Northeastern Democrats really wanted $1 million to be the threshold. $400K was the compromise on the Bush tax cuts. Is it a positive thing? I’d say absolutely yes. I don’t believe in “starve the beast”, but I do believe that you can’t just fork more money over to the government every time they cry wolf. They can always be more efficient and forcing them to live within current means forces efficiency. > [@](#): > > 1. Exactly which proposed entitlements are Republicans saving us from? I’m not exactly going to say “saving us” from anything, but the President’s community college plan is going nowhere due to lack of funding. Democrats haven’t really had any big ideas other than ACA, and that did enough damage that it’ll be impossible in the future to get red state Democrats to stick their necks out. > [@](#): > > 1. If a few dozen jobs is the benefit, and the potential destruction of the Ogalalla Aquifer is the cost, the b/c ratio is quite low. We’ll see that the public’s reaction would be if the pipeline is built and a) no drop in gas prices b) no significant jobs and c) environmental disaster follows. > > 2. The slowing in spending has been at the expense of economic growth. If not for Republican determination to steer the ship into the reef to make the captain look bad, the recovery would have been faster and deeper. These aren’t terrible arguments, but we’re not really arguing the merits of these issues so much as demonstrating that liberals can’t really get much done given the current center right nature of the electorate when it comes to economic issues. You can’t raise taxes, which means you can’t raise spending. Democrats have no choice but to play defense, defend what’s already been done, rather than do new things. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/55 "2015-02-17T21:27:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What can Democrats do? Pursue Clintonian economic policies, which have been proven to work: balanced budgets, free trade, cutting the size of the government workforce, reducing the regulatory burden, welfare reform… > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “Welfare reform” has been done, under Clinton; why is any more needed? And [the government workforce proportional to the population has been reduced under Obama](http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Per-Capita-Employees-of-U.S.-Government.png). And there has not been a time since 2008 when balancing the budget would have been a good idea. The “regulatory burden” as it is apparently is not enough to ensure fracking will be done safely (if it even can be). As for “free trade,” less said the better, [but getting it we are,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership) good and hard. > [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > I’ll take those numbers with a pinch off salt. For instance it will not measure the number of workers benefitting from gov’t subsidies or preferential gov’t treatment of one sort or another. 😕 The only link I provided with “numbers” shows declining per capita numbers of **government employees,** it has nothing to do with what you are talking about. However, since you brought it up, see [post #14](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18139193&postcount=14). And neither party is going to touch all of **that,** it would be electoral suicide. > [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > edit: that’s the problem with Keynesianism; there never is a good time to balance the budget. There is according to Keynes; you balance the budget when the recession/depression has passed. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/56 "2015-02-17T21:38:40Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > You’ll never get XT to admit to any specific policies, because as long as the Republicans keep dashing headlong to the right and as long as Washington Democrats keep following them at a distance in the name of “centrism” then the overall direction of US policy is to the right. And it would be disastrous for XT to cite specific policies, because the American voting public is well to the left of BOTH parties on economic issues. Generic “centrism” on the other hand, sounds so nice and wholesome and not right wing at all! Naw, I’m willing to talk specific policies, though asking me ‘lay out all of your policies’ in a thread like this is a bit ridiculous. I HAVE talked specifics though in multiple threads in GD, and I’m fairly sure you know where I stand, as I know where YOU (and 'luci) generally stand on things too. 'Luci also knows, generally, where I stand, so that was kind of a throw away line for him as I’m sure he didn’t think I’d be going into great detail in this thread on such a general throw away question. As for me being right wing, well, I know from your perspective that is certainly the case. Obama is a right winger to you, and I’m pretty good with where he’s at, generally speaking, so I think I’m in good company. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/57 "2015-02-17T22:17:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Funny thing, though – if the middle class votes Pub because of economic self-interest, that means [they are misperceiving their economic self-interest, as economic data show](http://www.salon.com/2015/02/16/dems_scary_electoral_future_why_the_progressive_sales_pitch_is_getting_harder/). Not necessarily because, aside from adjusting for inflation in computing real income, the discussion largely ignores the effects of inflation for the middle class. The Bartels paper referenced has a quote: > [@](#): > > Previous work by Hibbs (1977; 1987), Keech (1980), Beck (1982), Alesina and Sachs (1988), and others has documented consistent partisan differences in economic policy, with Democrats striving to reduce unemployment **and Republicans focusing primarily on controlling inflation.** None of the numbers looked at really gets after net worth of the middle class; income data is far easier to come by. For lower class voters savings is a small part of net worth (inflation can actually make those with negative net worth better off if the declining real value of their debts offsets declining real valued wages.) By the time you get in to the middle class savings matter. As net worth becomes larger inflation matters more. If you ignore that by just looking at income you lose a key driver in an individual making decisions to optimize their own well being. Bartels analysis for inflation is across a longer period than the work of Hibbs he referenced. Bartels shows no real partisan difference between Presidents. Neither does Hibbs. Seems like a non-issue on the surface which is as far as the Salon article and Bartels go. Hibbs goes more in depth and shows some interesting effects above and beyond simple average rates though. Hibbs builds on the work Bartels refrenced (1977, and 1987) and published this in [1994 (.pdf download)](http://douglas-hibbs.com/HibbsArticles/EconomicsAndPolitics1994.pdf). His look at the effects with my bolding added. > [@](#): > > **Cumulative inflation** during each four year presidential term (measured here by changes in the GNP deflator) **has typically been about the same** under Democrats and Republicans, \*\*but the time trajectories are noticeably different. \*\*Under the Democrats, who in the two runs that postwar history thus far gives us inherited low or falling inflation from the Republicans, **the inflation rate generally rose over most of each presidential term, often more rapidly at the beginning than the end**. The opposite was true under the Republicans, who usually inherited high and rising inflation from the Democrats. The inflation rate tended to fall during Republican presidencies, more noticeably during first than second terms. Republicans didn’t just sell themselves with messaging about inflation but showed real effects clamping down on inflationary trends. Hibbs (1994) on growth: > [@](#): > > Real output growth **has been substantially higher under the Democrats than the Republicans. And, as in the case of inflation, the time paths are distinctive.** Output growth rates typically rose during Democratic Administrations until the second part of the term; then slow-downs tended to occur. **The reverse pattern has been typical of Republican Administrations. Output growth declines from inherited rates early in the term, and rises afterward.** Both seem to be consistent with different preferences in applying the Phillips Curve and Okun’s Law. Trading more inflation for higher employment (Phillips Curve) and that higher employment leading to higher growth (Okun’s Law). The problems is both of those concepts are only applicable in the short term and are generally discredited with respect to providing insight in to long term macroeconomic effects. From Hibbs’ conlusions: > [@](#): > > First, the results show that Democratic Administrations have typically pursued more expansionary aggregate demand policies than Republican Administrations which, as much previous research also has concluded, yield better (especially early term) real output performance and worse (especially late term) inflation performance. There really does seem to be a trade off between growth and inflation when making decisions at the polling booth. Maybe those Republican leaning middle class voters actually are voting in their best interest because the inflation effect matters more to them thanthe short term income growth. Maybe it’s not as simple as saying they are voting against themselves and “if only they understood …” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/58 "2015-02-17T22:49:58Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > Not necessarily because, aside from adjusting for inflation in computing real income, the discussion largely ignores the effects of inflation for the middle class. But, inflation in the U.S. has been so low since the 1970s that only cranks seem to worry about it any more, and level-head economists will always point out that deflation is a sign of recession/depression. Granted, if inflation comes back, it will regain salience with the voters, and middle-class voters in particular . . . but, will it have the salience you think? Middle-class Americans are mostly **debtors** nowadays. Debtors **like** inflation. (That was the whole point of the Free Silver movement back in the day; farmers were debtors, farmers wanted inflation.) They are also homeowners, and homeowners like inflation even better; even if it drives up their property taxes, they come out ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/59 "2015-02-17T22:57:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m sure you could get consensus to do it at $250K, but Northeastern Democrats really wanted $1 million to be the threshold. $400K was the compromise on the Bush tax cuts. Is it a positive thing? I’d say absolutely yes. I don’t believe in “starve the beast”, but I do believe that you can’t just fork more money over to the government every time they cry wolf. They can always be more efficient and forcing them to live within current means forces efficiency. In many areas government isn’t spending enough in general. I agree about efficiency, although much waste is attributable to private contracting and the like. > [@](#): > > I’m not exactly going to say “saving us” from anything, but the President’s community college plan is going nowhere due to lack of funding. Democrats haven’t really had any big ideas other than ACA, and that did enough damage that it’ll be impossible in the future to get red state Democrats to stick their necks out. That represents a failure of political messaging-Obama should have come into office advocating a programme of national reform along the lines of the New Deal rather than trying to be post-partisan. Similarly with the lack of popularity on the part of the ACA-there was not enough campaigning to counter right-wing propaganda. Additionally one of the reasons why Blue Dog Democrats have been decimated is that they remain economically right-wing without any compensating social conservatism, so voters might as well vote for the Real Thing ™ rather than Republican Lite. > [@](#): > > These aren’t terrible arguments, but we’re not really arguing the merits of these issues so much as demonstrating that liberals can’t really get much done given the current center right nature of the electorate when it comes to economic issues. You can’t raise taxes, which means you can’t raise spending. Democrats have no choice but to play defense, defend what’s already been done, rather than do new things. An electorate that remains strongly supportive of the individual provisions of the ACA, raising taxes on the wealthy, and maintaining Social Security/Medicare is hardly “centre-right”. The fact that very little of Obama’s agenda being accomplished owes much more to the deadlock in Congress than lack of popular support-if we had national referendums to raise the minimum wage, expand community college, and so forth those would be winning handily. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2015, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827/60 "2015-02-17T23:54:46Z")
Minimum wage, yes. Community college, unlikely, unless you don’t tell people how the money will be raised. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-class-leaning-pub-for-economic-interests-even-though-data-show-thats-wrong/712827.md?page=4)