A question for mostly the middle class.

Because I really want to know.

Let’s be honest. Are most people here middle class? Maybe I’m wrong to assume that, but are you? For those of you who are, what do you think about poor people? Do you think that all of their problems about being poor are about being oppressed by the rich part of society, or do you think that they could do more to solve their own problems? Does anybody think that they’re actually lazy? I don’t, but as somebody who wasn’t from the middle class, I’m curious about what those from the middle class do think.

Also, I’m also curious about another thing. I can’t help but notice that most movements are ran by well off people (mostly middle class). I know that working class people are part of the movement too, but they’re typically never the leaders in anything. It’s always the middle class. It’s always the middle class part of the movement that gets the credit for things. The feminist movement is a fine example of this in my opinion. Would anybody here be opposed to the head of a major civil rights/ feminist/ other group being from the working class?

And my last question is about the rich. Do you all think that they’re just a bunch of worker exploiting crooks? Do you think that some or a lot of them can be non-oppressive? Keep in mind that Theresa Heinz Kerry and John Kerry are very well off before answering. What do you all think about the rich?

I just wanted to ask these questions because I think the issue of class hurts or helps thing more than we think. I think it’s an important question for the progressive movement. Let’s be honest. Are most people here middle class? Maybe I’m wrong to assume that, but are you? For those of you who are, what do you think about poor people? Do you think that all of their problems about being poor are about being oppressed by the rich part of society, or do you think that they could do more to solve their own problems? Does anybody think that they’re actually lazy? I don’t, but as somebody who wasn’t from the middle class, I’m curious about what those from the middle class do think.

Also, I’m also curious about another thing. I can’t help but notice that most movements are ran by well off people (mostly middle class). I know that working class people are part of the movement too, but they’re typically never the leaders in anything. It’s always the middle class. It’s always the middle class part of the movement that gets the credit for things. The feminist movement is a fine example of this in my opinion. Would anybody here be opposed to the head of a major civil rights/ feminist/ other group being from the working class?

And my last question is about the rich. Do you all think that they’re just a bunch of worker exploiting crooks? Do you think that some or a lot of them can be non-oppressive? Keep in mind that Theresa Heinz Kerry and John Kerry are very well off before answering. What do you all think about the rich?

I just asked because I think that the class issue is more important than those of the progressive movement might think. In theory, we’re all equal. In reality, it’s the middle class running a lot of the progressive movement. Why is that?

The middle class constitutes the majority of the progressive movement because a) the poor are too busy trying to survive and b) the rich are basically happy with the way things are.

we aren't rich or we wouldn't be here and we can afford computers.

...with all the slings and arrows directed at "the rich" here.

A lot of rich people don't like Booosh either.

Like John Kerry and his wife Theresa Heinz Kerry,
and George Soros,
and Warren Buffet, who seems to know a thing or two about money.

Now why might rich people not like Boosh?

Well, there's the stock market. It sucks. A lot of people who got
rich under Clinton lost it all under Boosh, but even those who didn't
lose it all lost a lot. What good is a capital gains tax cut if there
are no capital gains?

There is the Patriot Act. Rich people HATE the thought of anyone poking around their finances or other aspects of their private life (so does everyone else, but the wealthy are more accustomed to getting their way in these matters).

The Supreme Court. The notion of a Scalia court scares a lot of people across all income brackets, as it should.

The whole theocracy thing. Very few wealthy people are Fundies.

Cronyism. It has been a pretty lean four years for any company
that does not have close financial ties to the Booosh regime.

It's not capitalism anymore when somebody buys the government!

Thanks.

these days: I have one, obviously (in fact, I have two, plus the parts to assemble another one -- obsolete equipment, worth next to nothing in resale, but usable), and my income is a whopping $610/mo disability check.

for me it depends on what you mean - the family/home I grew up in was middle class - my grandparents were working class, I don't know what I slot into, I don't own my own home and am not likely to anytime in teh next 20 years, I live paycheck to paycheck and am in a white collar though not particularly impressive job, my partner is a spraypainter which would probably fit "working class" but he works for a family business owned by his dad and uncles, he receives a normal wage though and no profits.

I think the working class/middle class thing isn't as clearly delineated as it used to be, much like "left" and "right" it's a little more blurred these days.

I agree. Also, most middle class leaders were once poor or grew up in the working class. As far as laziness, there are poor, middle class and rich people who are lazy. Unfortunately, the system makes it quite difficult to progress to the middle class in many cases.

As far as the rich go, I just wanted to present two links here.

http://www.marionfoundation.org/inner/programs/sri.html

“The Marion Institute has helped to sponsor some groundbreaking work in the world of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI). Through the collaboration of Baldwin Brothers Inc. (BBI), The Natural Capital Institute (NCI), Investors Circle (IC), and The Rudolf Steiner Foundation (RSF) a new set of criteria for identifying and screening corporations that truly promote social and ecological change has been developed. NCI has performed in depth research on the existing SRI universe in over 600 mutual funds from around the world.”

Here’s a link which explains why progressives should work with wealthy younger people.

http://www.yesworld.org/jam/jamtext/lpsctext/why_wealthy.html


Starting in the mid-1990's, youth-led organizations like Resource Generation, Active Element, Third Wave Foundation, and Reciprocity began supporting and mobilizing wealthy young people to take a stand for a better world. Today, more than two dozen youth-led organizations work to mobilize young people with access to wealth and to transform philanthropy, as critical steps toward social, economic, and environmental justice. Despite the diversity of approaches and experiences our organizations bring, we respond to a common need. Young people with financial wealth need supportive, inspiring, educational, and challenging avenues for giving their time, power and resources to progressive change.

The working class:

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_006500_civilrightsm.htm

“Widespread support of the boycott was enabled not only by WPC members, who provided transportation alternatives to city buses, but also by the large number of working-class African American women who refrained from using the bus system to travel to jobs as domestic workers in white homes.”

If they have the time to walk to work (sometimes in high heels), then why couldn’t they do regular participation in the movement and perhaps be a leader of a group?

And as somebody who has studied the history of movements off and on, I know for a fact that the poor people did its share of participation only to have middle class people get all of the credit.

That's why I called mine the "simple answer" though. By and large, people who are struggling to feed their kids don't have much time to spend forwarding the progressive movement and people who are rich are happy as long as they remain so. But, that does not mean that there aren't or haven't been poor and rich progressives. Only ignorant, stupid and self-destructive people work against their own betterment. That is why I don't understand poor and middle class people supporting this administration, or the republican party, for that matter.

Where are the lines drawn ? I am a blue-collar worker, yet I make more money than some of my friends with white-collar jobs.
So, I ask again, where are the lines drawn ?

I think it was Hemingway who called lunch a "movable feast" - "middle class" is a movable concept. If no one else helps out I'll try to give some links when I have more time later.

I'm middle class. No, I don't think the poor are lazy. It's hard work being poor. Even the simplest things are much harder to accomplish, and a lot of the coping mechanisms the poor end up using (check cashing services, running credit card balances) rob them of even more money. Of course, some people from all classes are lazy.

Many rich people are genuinely concerned with the well-being of all people. And, frankly, they have more time and resources to spend on fixing things than the rest of us. We have a rich couple running at the top of our ticket now. Howard Dean is rich. The Roosevelts are rich. If you look at Mount Rushmore, you'll see four progressives, and three of them were wealthy.

I always can identify with those who have to struggle.

Good people exist in any income bracket. However, democratic ideals help many people survive serious downturns that could be catastrophic. Bush caters only to the top 2%. Many Americans, including Kerry, want government to be an advocate for the other 98% instead of just corporate America

I'm a divorce Mom of one. I make I guess a decent salary. About 35k-40k It varies each month becaus I am in sales. I work full time and struggle each month to get by. I do not live the high life. Do own a home but it needs alot of work and is small. Something is always breaking and when I get hit with a bill like $1000+ I have to make payment arrangments with contractors. I don't have a whole lot in savings although I try to put about $125 a month in an emergency fund. The problem is there are always emergencies so the money doesn't stay in there very long. 6-9 months tops. I get no income from dividends or capital gains. I do contribute to a 401k at work but could really use that extra money some months but if I don't continue to put $ in there how will I be able to survive later on. Food, gas, and utility bill continue to rise. Since I sell advertsing which is the first place companies look to cut money this year has been a struggle. Clients I thought I could count on for advertising for 4thQ are cutting back while others are not advertising at all. I have not been on a vacation other then a few days with my daughter (usually within driving distance) for 5 years. I can't justify spending that cash for a vacation when so many things need to be fixed around my house.

This being said I am better off then some because other then my car and house I have no debt but I am far from feeling comfortable. I think there are many others in my boat. They work hard every day but don't really get ahead of the game. If I suddenly became unemployed or god forbid got sick it would be a disaster. The middle class gets squeezed more then other groups due to day changes in prices. The lower class gets help via food stamps, childcare allowances, welfare etc. The rich just can't buy a new Lexus or BMW right now. They never have to worry about cutting down on grocery shopping or basics. The middle class is being forced to make choices about real life issues. Pay the heat or buy food with this pay check. We often let bills float a few weeks when something unexpected comes up.

As far as class. I have known good people and not so good people from all three classes. Some poor people do use the system and some are just put in that position due to circumstances. People in the middle class are one or two paychecks away from that. Support systems also play a role in how far down the ladder you fall when an unfortuate matter happens.

middle class be cause hubby and I are both college grads.

But it hasn't always been that way for me. During the first Bush years I can remember paying for gas with pennies and skipping dinner because I couldn't afford to eat. I had to have friends help me get my car back when it got repo-ed. I'm fortunate to have benefited from Clinton's policies and to have found a great job right before the Bush/Gore election.

That being said, I think it's terribly unfair that there is an income difference between whites and non-whites, men and women, etc etc. My philosophy is if all men are created equal, why don't we treat them equally?

I am middle class, and I know - not think - that most prevalent problems of poverty in America will not be solved by blaming those in poverty. It will only be when we acknowledge the following things:

1. The outrageous, astronomical and growing disparity between the richest and poorest in society
2. The continual and systematic annihilation of rights and basic protections for the working class
3. The reality of an uneven playing field, in which not everyone starts with the same chances, same opportunities or same hope - many start without hope.
4. The policies of our government for the past twenty years at least, from Regan, through Clinton and into the present have been disproportional hard on poor people while continue to slash corporate taxes and provide more and more benefits and exceptions to the wealthiest top percent of the nation
5. The rampant and totally unchecked greed and corruption of an out of control corporate system that defines its very existence on the basis of worker exploitation and keeping poor people poor to keep wealth consolidated in the hands of the elite.

Nothing infuriates me more than to hear people acting or speaking as though poor people are only poor because they are lazy. While that is a bullshit bigoted generalization that has no substance on the whole, and is used only as a convenient rationalization for the guilty consciences of the exploiters, I would also add that I might be lazy too, if all my hope and all the possibilities for meaningful change had been so utterly crushed and stripped away from me, as they have been from some people.

In many cases "laziness" is just a rationalized word, so that people who don't give a fuck don't have to use the true words: hopelessness and despair. There is big difference between being lazy and having your will to go on totally and utterly crushed by the forces of exploitation and oppression. There are fewer more important domestic issues than an acknowledgment of our classist society and the class warfare instigated by the ruling class against its lower class to keep everything in "its place."

I would add only that there is also a racist undercurrent to mainstream reporting on "the poor" that encourages the electorate to ignore and demonize the poor. (Even though in just number total there are more poor whites than poor minorities. In % of population the difference is startling: around 8% of "White-non-Hispanic" poor while about 25% poverty rate for African Americans and Hispanic).

I do a lot of local political work, and it is amazing to see how fearful local pols are of touching the hot buttons around poverty or being painted as soft on welfare or crime - two code words here for minorities, despite our area having suffered massive job losses over past years and again, numerically more of the poor being white.

"There is big difference between being lazy and having your will to go on totally and utterly crushed by the forces of exploitation and oppression."

I agree. Well said.

Why do you repeat your questions a zillion times? I saw this posted twice before this week by two other people. Why?

But I'll try to answer some of the questions because I've spent time in a number of economic areas. I was brought up solidly middle class and ended up dirt poor. I don't beleive most people wind up poor because they're lazy. There's a whole complex fabric to poverty. It's not just one aspect.

For instance, you're poor because you don't have the skills and experience to get a decent paying job. Because your job doesn't pay you well, you live in a lousy apartment. Because your apartment sucks and there's mold and damp, your kid has asthma. Because your kid has asthma, he misses school. Because he misses shcool, you miss work. Because you miss work, you lose your job.

You need to find a new job soon so you take whatever you can get. You're driving a piece of shit because it's all you can afford to buy. You're always fixing it because it's always breaking down so you can't afford to buy another car because the one you have is sucking all your money into it. You can never save any money because you don't make enough as it is to pay your bills. You are always behind.

Because you're under so much stress, because you work so hard and because you live in an unhealthy environment, your health suffers. Thsi causes you to lose more work time. This causes more stress. You see where it goes? It's a cycle, and can be an unending one. People talk hopefully of schooling or job training - in reality, few poor people have the time, resources or knowledge of these programs to take advantage of them.

Things cost more when you're poor. You have to put down security deposits on your utilities and your apartment becuase you have no credit. This makes you poorer. You live for the day you get your tax return because you can use it to pay all the bills you're behind on. It's almost impossible to get ahead because you never can put anything away.

The middle class has more leisure time to devote to politics than the poor or working class. When you're poor, you're too tired for outrage.

1. I consider myself of the middle class.
2. Some poor are poor because of other problems (mental health, disability, poor education etc.) not one simple answer, but the opportunity to better oneself is relative..
3. I don't think the rich necessarily take advantage of the poor. The well off naturally wish to protect their wealth and the means by which they acquire it and have the means and ability to do so. The poor do not have the same
4. I have met very few lazy people. On the other hand, there are many direction-less people.
5. I think leadership is classless. So I don't agree that middle class are not leaders. There are many who rise to positions of leadership who came from humble beginnings. Bush, on the other hand, is feckless and was on the fast track.
6. Oppression? Pure oppression is not common. Like I said, those who have done well have a tendency to want to protect themselves. The rich that do not see themselves as part of the community, are the bad eggs.
7. Overall, I think that class problems exist when we begin to think of ourselves as not part of the whole society and loose respect for those less fortunate than ourselves. The purpose of our democratic society is to create the opportunity for all of us to better ourselves. The direction we are heading is one that accentuates our differences and stifles opportunity, i.e. the growing disparity between rich and poor.

I drifted in and out of classes. My first husband and I came from families where money was never an issue - quite wealthy. When he and I married against their wishes, we were cut off and became quite poor.

Now I'm married to a man from a poor family, but we're middle class. He has a master's and is a white-collar professional, and I choose not to work. Who knows, maybe he'll lose his job and we'll end up in the working class, or I'll get a nice inheritance, and be rich?

A lot of people I know aren't as rich as they think they are, I'll tell you that, but are being misled into thinking that they are, I suppose so they'll vote for Bush.

I have no prejudice against either the rich or the poor.

"lose his job and we'll end up working class"

I'm laughing at myself because you're right. " Working class " is an odd term, now I think about it. From now on I'll say " blue collar."

There's been a lot of debate as to what the working class is. I think poor people like that term because it's better than just "poor" because "poor" has meant almost the same thing as "lazy" to some ignorant individuals. So, they want to make it clear that they are the working class.

But then some people of upper classes too offense to it I guess because they think of themselves as also working class.

Somehow, Rosa Parks got labelled working class by some sources despite the fact that she (and the NAACP who trained her) were really middle class. I personally take offense to this because I found out that before Parks, there was another potental person that the NAACP could have used to demonstrate civil disobediance. It was a poor teen who was pregnant. She refused to give up her seat. Either the NAACP didn't think she was good enough or they were afraid that society wouldn't view her as good enough because they used Rosa Parks. They trained her and everything so they could have the "perfect" person demanding their rights. They would later use the other girl when it all got started, but that's still a slap in the face to anybody who is "below" the middle class. That's just one area where I think the middle class has gotten way too much credit in the movement. It could very easily had been a working poor person in Rosa's place; many of times it was a working poor person in her place. For some reason, middle class Rosa gets about 90% of the credit on this bus issue. I do respect Rosa Parks a lot, but I don't think that the civil rights movement was fair on this one.

Anyway (to get myself back on the subject), this is where I think the "working poor" term comes in. It's to show that they're working and they're poor. :)

Think about what they were up against. The NAACP couldn't afford for their cause to be dismissed because of lack of sympathy. There was only going to be ONE shot at this.

I also know that the woman who refused before Rosa Parks wasn't considered someone unsmearable as Rosa Parks was. To this day, Rosa Parks is unsmearable! :-) (If you saw the movie BarberShop, that statement would make perfect sense to you.)

A poster child is always chosen for a reason. Most of the time we don't question why, because deep down we know. A poster child without complete innocence will not draw the same sympathetic response - and that's the whole intent of a poster child.

A society that decides that a middle class black woman deserves rights, but that a poor black teen is just too bad to care about is classist. This civil rights and the feminist movement of the 1950s-60s was great. However, they missed a lot of what's important by having to fight the way they do. To this day, a lot of those people still don't get it on this subject. A society with all rights for blacks and women won't be as good as it could be if it's still classist.

Actually, this isn't the only case the NAACP snubbed. They also snubbed another one, which the Communist party took up. I don't like the Communist party, but they do seem to be less apologetic about taking up certain cases. The NAACP took it up later when it had already gotten sympathy as a case. I learned that in a class I took. The NAACP is also known for condemning people who use violence and certain other things. As a mostly middle class group, they don't appear to understand that the poor blacks suffer worse than they do; so they self-righteously condemn the ones who get violent. I don't promote violence, but something about the NAACP is too moderate. Too snobbish. The group rubs me the wrong way. Sorry if I'm offending any members on here by saying that.

I might do the same thing in the NAACP's place regarding Rosa Parks. I guess certain issues just get to me. I guess I'm just worried about how progressive a society will truly be when it's over if all the work is accredited to a bunch of middle classers. That's all it is in this case.

The NAACP is VERY middle-class in its thought processes, and that influences how they perceive things and do things. No denial there. And LOTS of people don't like them.

But I tend to look at the ends more than the means with them, especially since none of their means were violent or illegal. Just "snobbish". The NAACP won Brown vs. Board of Education. I don't even want to imagine what my life might have been like otherwise. And the NAACP elevated Thurgood Marshall to sufficient recognition to be picked as a Supreme Court judge. That fills me with tremendous pride.

I guess, for me, it's like pointing out that MLK was an adulterer. No one and nothing is perfect. But if the good outweighs the bad, I tend to focus on the good.

Live in a one bedroom that I share with my girlfriend, don't own a car. Most I ever made was 32K at the end of Clinton era. I left that gig because I saw the crash coming and wanted to hide out in grad school for a few years.

Yeah, I'd love to be rich. I'd love to actually earn money someday instead of watching my debts grow.

I study homelessness and I have had close homeless friends. They vary as much as middle class people. Actually, you can't be as physically lazy as most middle class Americans and survive on the streets. Otherwise, the range of honesty, decency, sanity, and sheer assholeusness is the same on the streets and in the suburbs. People are people.

I am probably most negative on the middle class out of the three. We (I grew up middle class and will always consider myself middle class) have been fucked by Republican policies since Reagan, but most of us have not been shining examples of humanity in adapting to the situation. Look at our TV, our food, and our cars--most of us have settled for less, and I think that's a damned shame.

The poor believe the rich aren't doing enough to help. The rich believe it's the poor persons fault because it's the poor person's choices that they made while growing up (not getting a good education,etc).

I believe they are both wrong. I believe it's 50/50 split between the choices you make as you grew up and the environment in which you live.

I'm middle income and building wealth. One of my brothers is over 50 years old and still lives at home. It wasn't environment, it was his choices he made. So what is the answer for my brother:
Democrats - The government should help him and make sure he has food, clothing, and shelter.
Republicans- Kick him out (tough love) and force him to become self-sufficient. If he doesn't make it, it's his fault.

My personal conflict is "Do I love him enough to set him free?"

BTW: My spouse works with the mentally handicapped, I think people from both parties believe these people need the governments help. But then, is my brother handicapped in some way? I'm so confused, I think I'll stop typing now.

consider middle class?

Definately above the poverty line. I personally think it's somebody who's college educated and above the poverty line. These people aren't typically managers as McDonalds. I would think that they're teachers and so forth.

I think there's a difference between the regular working class, the working poor, and the middle class. I could be wrong though.

...there are very energenic & good poor people and there are very bad & lazy rich people, and the other way around too.. ....there are very sad & depressed rich people and very happy & content poor people....economics has some bearings on the condition of ones lot in life but should never be used to gauge a persons worth

Lot of QUESTIONS! Here's my take.

Are most people here middle class?
Me: OF COURSE! Most poor people can't afford computers! And those of us who are using them DURING THE DAY, DURING OUR JOBS, are definitely not impoverished. Now, some may be working-class. But I don't think anyone here is poor, has always been poor and will always be poor.

For those of you who are, what do you think about poor people?
LOTS of things. First, I think they are human beings just like I am. Two, I think there are good ones and bad ones, just like any other class. Three, I think THE MAJORITY ARE GOOD!!!! Just like any other class. In some cases, I think many of them are BETTER than many of us. Because some poor people are a lot more charitable with the little they have than we would ever be. However, I think that many of them have a completely different set of values and priorities, those predicated on a level of survival that many middle-class folks have never lived and will never understand. You can't put your milk money in the bank. You just can't. You have to buy milk. If you can't make ends meet with the salary you have, you CANNOT save. Not all poor people are frivolous. Way too many of the solutions proposed by the non-poor make no sense to the poor. So, in a nutshell, I think the poor are human, just as I am, but many have values and priorities that I don't understand because I'm not where they are. I know that sometimes, in my naivete, I have a hard time respecting that, and sometimes, I'm pathetically judgemental. But by and large, I know that they are a product of their environments, as I am of mine, and that breaking out of a mold isn't trivial for anyone.

Okay, next question...

Do you think that all of their problems about being poor are about being oppressed by the rich part of society, or do you think that they could do more to solve their own problems?

It's a combination. It's like the iron-shackled baby elephant who can be held by a rope by the time she's a year old, because she was conditioned for an entire year to think that she could never escape. It's hard to escape home-training. If home training doesn't teach hope and opportunism, it's not likely you'll learn it elsewhere unless you're truly lucky. Poor folks often solve their problems in their own ways. For example, lots of poor folk have MANY children. We see that as a problem - they see it as INSURANCE. ONE of those kids will hopefully make good, and help the family. Poor folks often live in extended families. Is it because they can't afford a retirement community? NAH! It's because they WANT to be together! Not to mention, it's a much more affordable solution to day care if grandma can help with the kids! Now, let's be real about "oppression". It IS a problem. Oppression includes not maintaining property because the tenants are poor, and exposing them to health hazards. Oppression is building housing projects or low income housing next to power lines, train-tracks, sewage treatment centers, nuclear plants, and chemical dumping sites. Oppression is underfunding the school system, even though the kids have greater needs! Oppression is the unbroken cycle of "you can't have a job if you have no experience"... when you'll give a job to #1 A-hole George W. Bush because he's daddy's son. Oppression is jailing kids and young adults who sell drugs, but rarely if ever stopping the actual flow of drugs, and doing next to nothing to keep people off of drugs. Now, this is not to say that poor people wouldn't be doing themselves a HUGE favor by having fewer OOW children, staying away from drugs, staying in school, not getting used to hand-outs and forgetting how to take pride in their own achievements, starting their own businesses out of their homes and gradually amassing capital... and not killing each other over stupid sh*t. So yes, poor people can do more, but there's a lot more we could be doing for poor folk if we really wanted to level the playing field. The REALITY is, in a capitalist society, an underclass is required. As long as there are poor, someone will exploit them, and as long as there are people who are happy to get rich through exploitation, there will be people who are poor.


Does anybody think that they’re actually lazy? Some are.

Would anybody here be opposed to the head of a major civil rights/ feminist/ other group being from the working class? It's already happened. Fannie Lou Hamer, the woman who HEADED the black delegation to the 1968 Democratic Convention had an 8th grade education and had grown up tenant farming. That woman makes me proud every day. MLK was doing his damnedest to empower POOR people when he got killed. And many think that it was his decision to turn toward class issues and addressing class issues that got him killed.


Do you all think that just a bunch of worker exploiting crooks? Definitely SOME of them. Just like some poor people are horribly violent repeat offenders. Many generalizations are based on small truths.

Do you think that some or a lot of them can be non-oppressive? OF COURSE! Oprah's rich. I don't think that woman oppresses ANYBODY! Cosby's rich, and he's doing amazing things with his money. Yeah, Bill Gates squeezed out most of his competition, but I applaud his philanthropy. And Sam Walton - he was a GOOD MAN! (His kids are blood sucking thieves, but that's another story.) If you think back, the premise of Wal-mart was truly a store for the people, with AMERICAN products at REASONABLE prices, and EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND SHAREHOLDING!!!! Hard to remember, but that's how Wal-mart USED TO BE, before Sam Walton died and his kids became greedy little animals determined to milk every dime out of the company.


In theory, we’re all equal. In reality, it’s the middle class running a lot of the progressive movement. Why is that? Believe it or not, because they have MORE time on their hands than the lower classes, and less detachment than the upper classes. The middle class doesn't get a big benefit from oppressing the lower class. Many people from the middle class pulled themselves up from the lower classes, and they haven't forgotten what it was like. Many people in the middle class have relatives in the lower classes, sometimes PARENTS; and even if they pulled themselves up, they may not have enough to bring their parents along with them. But all of that is besides the point.... the middle class is usually the MOST EDUCATED CLASS. Poor people don't have time, and rich people often don't have the perserverance! The middle class is more likely to understand environmental issues. And the middle class is NOT SHELTERED from the whims of the upper class. Middle class folks don't have enough money not to care about: child care, health care, college costs, global warming...

Ooops... one other thing. The middle class DOES have enough money to decide how much they want to bank on faith instead of self. Often, when the poor feel the least empowered, they are the most likely to turn to religion, "the opiate of the masses". And except for the most liberal congregations, religion maintains the status quo. The middle class who DO attend church with a true interest in spiritual salvation (as opposed to a sense of duty or a social comfort zone) often want an activist church. If you look at all of the white ministers who came to march with MLK, most of them were from middle-class congregations. Middle class religious folks tend to balance faith with a certain level of secular personal empowerment. And many middle-class religious folks do believe that faith without works is meaningless. Because they CAN. Poor folks can't sing that mantra because in too many cases they are struggling too hard with their own lives to have the leisure to believe that heaven will be denied to them if they can't find the time to be charitable.

WHEW! That's all the questions... those are my answers...

Yes, I consider myself middle class. I believe that "poor" people and the reason for their problems are varied.

I know "the poor". Maybe, I am poor, or was poor. Maybe, I am a middle class intellectual elitist. Maybe, I am both. I hold a middle position at a food processing plant. With a couple of exceptions (spouse with a good job), those people might be considered poor. As far as the problem with the poor themselves, while it is true that some of them have had habits or have a below average iq, the biggest problem is that most of them don't have any sense of entitlement, despite what the media would have you believe. They don't believe that they are entitled to to a higher education, good pay, a good job, or respect. A lot of this attitude is unfortunately based on experience of themselves or friends or family. I think that many people they encounter encourage this way of thinking among the poor, even teachers. There are certain poor people who do not have this attitude. They are often not desirable employees because they don't know their place. Low level workers aren't supposed to have good ideas. They are supposed to do what they are told.
Something for all of you to think about, a number of underclass people become successful drug dealers. They are successful businessmen. They have qualities that employers say they want, but often these people got into an illegal business because no one would hire them, at least not above a poverty wage. Why do you suppose that is? Wouldn't they rather be a manager in a legitamate business like their upper class counterpart? Don't you think that most high level managers hire people like them? Don't you think that some people have no chance in that world?
There is a solution, of course for the poor, if they start out on the right track young. If they believe that they can go to college too, they often can. To be successful though, it often means leaving everyone else behind.

Now I'm working poor.
One paycheck away from homelessness, baby, one paycheck away...

I think the whole class term should be dropped. To use the term middle class to me means the people under me would be lower class. To me that would mean that they are lesser than me. That sounds truly degrading to me. I think that I am a middle income family.