General Discussion

hollowdweller

(4,229 posts)

41. Really, there's only a couple paychecks difference.

Reply to Warpy (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:52 PM

Nov 2014

One job loss or big expense and the middle class ARE poor.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Democrats speak for the "Middle Class" - who speaks for the "Poor"? [View all] kentuck Nov 2014 OP

many "poor" consider themselves to be "middle class" JI7 Nov 2014 #1

Most people haven't realized how far down the class ladder they've been shoved Warpy Nov 2014 #3

one poll from probably over 10 years ago that always stands out for me JI7 Nov 2014 #4

Can't disagree with anything you've said theHandpuppet Nov 2014 #7

maybe during Reagan administration where wealth is worshipped and people JI7 Nov 2014 #8

I think the floor on Inheritance Tax is now up to $5 million....for each sibling VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #27

Not for each sibling, but ... dawg Nov 2014 #42

NO it IS for each sibling...UNLESS YOU yourself are inheriting 5 million... VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #45

I'm a financial professional who does estate planning. dawg Nov 2014 #46

I think that's very true theHandpuppet Nov 2014 #6

I stopped blaming myself years ago. Brigid Nov 2014 #18

Can you imagine what will happen when it dawns on a critical mass of people Warpy Nov 2014 #21

That is exactly why thay are.... bvar22 Nov 2014 #25

They Will Lash Out Randomly at Anyone Who Appears to be a Little Less Poor AndyTiedye Nov 2014 #40

"Middle class" was always working class. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2014 #24

Not correct Warpy Nov 2014 #43

Really, there's only a couple paychecks difference. hollowdweller Nov 2014 #41

And yet still nobody speaks for them, only the comfortable, so at least YOU are considered Dragonfli Nov 2014 #14

Pretty much Johonny Nov 2014 #32

"Middle Class" now says lower... jtuck004 Nov 2014 #36

Word. daredtowork Nov 2014 #2

No one since RFK and LBJ hifiguy Nov 2014 #5

John Edwards, warts an all, campaigned on helping "The Poor" in 2008. bvar22 Nov 2014 #26

You are right and I am wrong. hifiguy Nov 2014 #28

You're right. bvar22 Nov 2014 #31

That so many Dems absolutely loved hifiguy Nov 2014 #47

I think Pope Francis is about it. 99th_Monkey Nov 2014 #9

If he keeps that up hifiguy Nov 2014 #29

maybe the poor UglyGreed Nov 2014 #10

5.8% unemployment, and 48 months of positive job growth. NM_Birder Nov 2014 #11

They should have invested those penny rolls in the stock market! adirondacker Nov 2014 #13

I think the general reasoning is that the poor aren't able to take time off Maedhros Nov 2014 #12

That and of course they are not a source of campaign cash which Dragonfli Nov 2014 #17

We must also bear in mind that the middle class has all but been erased. Maedhros Nov 2014 #19

To the Democrats, the middle class doesn't even count anymore. Triana Nov 2014 #15

And the Clintons were "dead broke." blkmusclmachine Nov 2014 #16

I think socialists would speak for the poor. Look at a socialist paradise such as Denmark which has Louisiana1976 Nov 2014 #20

The American avoidance of the term "working class" is bleakly amusing. (n/t) Spider Jerusalem Nov 2014 #22

Kinda like when spoiled rich kids sing karaoke. Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2014 #34

Honestly ut oh Nov 2014 #23

The hell of it is the poor and middle class had an opportunity to speak for themselves and only Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #30

They also count the "middle class" as people who have a stock portfolio. Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2014 #33

Poverty Is an Institution it is NOT a "choice" mntleo2 Nov 2014 #35

If this is what you call speaking for us onecaliberal Nov 2014 #37

I think the first half of your OP title is being overly generous in some instances. nt NorthCarolina Nov 2014 #38

Clinton eradicated poverty with NAFTA and Welfare "Reform". Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2014 #39

The Socialist Workers Party, I suppose. Comrade Grumpy Nov 2014 #44