Sarah Palin seems to speak for some of the lowest class.
Like Broomstick is saying, the poor are the old middle class. The stress on saving the middle class goes on as layoffs continue and jobs get shipped overseas. Many still identify with the middle class ,even though they have no money any more. It is too late for many. It is lip service for the rest. A tax cut is useless when wages drop and unemployment looms. I have friends still working for the big 3. They are waiting to lose their jobs. One has been at Chrysler for 36 years. Another is in IT at Fords.and has been there for 27 years. Both make more than 100 k. Soon they will face a new reality.
The Ford guy has health issues. He was in a bad vehicle fore years ago and has gotten more than 25 operations over the years . He is susceptible to skin cancers and gets anything removed as soon as it appears. So he will be without a job and facing the cost of health. Not a pretty future.
Amy Pohler did on SNL a few weeks back.
It can be more complicated than that. When I was growing up, my mother (a teacher in the Catholic school system and a single parent) made little enough money that we were officially eligible for food stamps. But when she applied for them, she was refused, because the welfare office refused to believe that someone with a college education and a Master’s degree could possibly be below the poverty line. Then again, we were living in a house that we owned free and clear (no morgage, no other debt), so maybe we weren’t poor after all?
For one year, we did actually manage to get food stamps, and Mom was ecstatic, because she would be able to use those to stock up imperishables for when we wouldn’t have the stamps any more. But then that turned out to be the year that we were hosting a family of Vietnamese refugees: If anyone could be said to be poor, it would be them, not us. Except that through hard work, those former refugees are now multimillionaires. So what class are they?
I speak for the poor, for the poor have no tongues. They have to make do with cheap hot dogs.
Myself, I want to know why McCain isn’t spending his limited time clearly stating and expounding on how he’s going to be helping the very rich and the heads of large companies. It seems to me that that’s a group that he could easy gather to himself if he told them why his campaign would be better for them.
Oh, wait. It’s blindingly obvious that the republican platform is better for the extremely rich than the democratic one, so unless a person has single-issue concerns or a level of prejudice against republicans that is unlikely to be swayed by any canidate, they are very likely to vote republican if they are very rich. So, it makes little sense for McCain to spend much time pursuing their votes. I get it now.
Quite possible.
Many food stamp programs have rules where possession of more than a certain amount of assets will disqualify you - in some cases, assets as low as $2,000. For such a program, the attitude would be “sell your house, live off the money, come back when it’s gone”
I’m not entirely happy with rules limiting people to a mere $2,000 in assets, but I’m not getting into that here because that would be a totally different thread.
What does it even mean to “speak for” a class? Who “speaks for” the upper class? And why does each class or the lower class need someone to speak for it?
If speaking for the lower class means favoring an increase in wealth redistribution, then Obama very much speaks for the lower class.
It means to champion policies that are the interest of members of that class.
Persons proposing cuts in the capital gains tax, which do not benefit persons without large investment income, for one. Persons who want to tax employer benefits to health care as income, for another.
The vast majority of my responses to this belong in the Pit.
I think you’ve said that before, and were soundly rebutted then. Linky: here.
Everyone benefits when those who can create wealth for society and jobs are not hindered from doing so.
No, everybody does NOT benefit. Cutting taxes on the rich usually results on them putting that extra money into…buying more stocks, or other companies, not investing in new infrastructure.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.
Investments don’t have to be in “new infrastructure” to create wealth and jobs.
Bald assertion = no good. Bring stats; Reagonomics has been in use long enough that they would exist.
Myself I’ve heard that stats have shown that while the rich have been getting richer, the middle class has been falling behind inflation. Which shows that trickle-down is a load of bantha poo-doo.
For the poor and time constrained, or otherwise shut-in, an absentee ballot is a good option. (Of Course, That is, if you have an address). If you are a registered voter, you need only request it through your local election board by mail, complete the mailed ballot, and mail at your leisure. My only complaint is that it isn’t postage paid government mail.
http://www.alternet.org/story/102992/5_pieces_of_advice_for_the_new_paupers/
Heres a story about a college graduate that had things go wrong. It can happen to anyone.
The last 8 years did not show you what a falsehood that theory is?
It’s not as bad as all that. The Postal Service is delivering returned ballots, even with insufficient postage. The stated policy is that they’ll settle up with the election officials on postage due later.
This is C&P’d from the USPS employee website. I’d link to it, but it’s restricted:
ETA: That said, don’t be a sponge. If you have the resources, and wish to vote absentee, please put the correct postage on the mailpiece.