birdog1960

agree that their positioning on the sideline is suspect....would need to look at more kickoffs and see if they're positioned where gunners might be expected to leave the field. farfetched? maybe, but so was belicheats videotaping and farve's naughty pictures...steroids can cause strange behavior and who would have more access to them than the strength coach? there's no shortage of juicy theories.

wilson said he wants a qb in this draft .... i think we're gonna find out who he likes in an early round, probably the 1st.

the "oppression of the holidays" line was a bit over the top....he really must be a miserable sod (simplify, jerry!). but i couldn't help but think that the minuses of winning this almost meaningless game outweighed the positives.

hmmmmm...sounds a lot like class warfare to me. in the first paragraph we have lower against middle and in the second, middle against upper. no wonder you feel the middle always gets screwed....never a good idea to fight wars on 2 fronts

can you point out to me all the benefits that the middle class have seen from the bush tax cuts for the wealthy? are there any economists that really still believe in trickle down economics?

what evidence do you have for the first statment? i would argue that many, if not most employers, especially of good paying jobs, would themselves be top decile earners. weve already established that it's relatively uncommon for those of lower economic status to attain that threshold. as far as the second statement, the chance at a "decent living" enabling greater self respect would be most likely accomplished by voting in a party that supports a living wage level for the minimum wage. this has consistently not been the policy of the party that embraces the wealthy's causes so rabidly.

i thought it was groucho that branched out into the garment biz.

no. what i'm saying is that class warfare is real and not some contrived political tactic. i would never discourage anyone from trying to better themselves and improve the "quintile" in which they land. my point is that it is illogical for people of middle and lower socioeconomic status to vote for candidates who will protect the wealthy because they believe they may one day benefit from these policies . one way to explain this thinking is an overestimate on the part of the public on the chances for upward mobility. i think this is the case.

and all that from my brand of sportcoat...very insightful. maybe that's why you dislike obama so much. i hear he likes hart suits.

you've omitted the most likely possibility: a sampling error. how likely is it that someone who has tried and failed is going to join the thread and write about it? conversly, it's quite likely that those who have succeeded will. just one more example of the dualist thinking so in evidence on this site. in medicine, we formulate differential diagnoses. if you are only able to produce one or two possibilities to explain your findings, you are likely not very good. i think this can be extrapolated to life in general.

yup. the hart, shafner and marx sportcoat i'm wearing this week just screams "old hippie".

and then live in a gated community watching vigilantly for people who never came up with an idea that still want what you have. how bout this instead? produce things people really do need (wholesome foods, shelter, health care) at a fair, affordable price and have a little less in excess for yourself?

i'm guessing that you and magox then contend that this type of story is common...that you are representative (if so, there's little to be proud of in your success, but of course you're not representative).... and so the myth spreads. the saddest part is that it becomes an unobtainable expectation for many who fail to obtain it against the long odds despite their best efforts. and the "normal" lifestyle portrayed on the various media is had without massive debt only by those in the top 5 or 10% (who hold about 44% of the country's wealth). i think of it as the "barbie effect"....why do americans so often insist on setting ourselves up for very likely failure? is one success in 55 really worth possible unrest from the other 54 as the divide and expectations get further separated?

as the editorial you linked states, looking at quartiles is not the same a looking at individual lives. most people make more as they advance through a career, especially advancing from an entry level position or compared to what they make in training or college. this accounts for a significant portion of "upward mobility", conversly, a million dollar per year earner that retires on $100000 a year drops his standing significantly in one fell swoop. but the odds of a top 5% earner dropping to a bottom quartile earner and a bottom quartile earner becoming a top 5% earner are not even close. i think most envision "the american dream" to be just what i described (which in my example included middle income people).those odds are 1:55, magox' success notwithstanding. perhaps we disagree on what "the american dream" conveys. btw, the dixie chicks rock!

economists view gives several learned interpretations including krugmans and the wsj's on the data. seems not everyone reaches the same conclusions....see the comments as well...very interesting krugman shows how downward mobility data on the very rich can be deceiving..it also includes a link to my original broken citation which tangentially addresses the subject but not the treasury dept study.

does anybody here really think that the average american knows that if they're born into a family making $54,300 or less (in 2006) that their chances of making it into the top 5% (much less the top 1%, which is a quantum leap from the top 5) is less than 1:50? walk into any public school classroom in an average or below average income area and look at the students. odds are that not a single student you see will "make it". do you really think that's what is understood to be the american dream by the majority of citizens? pretty long odds but that's what the wannabes are betting on. but hey, look at how well lotto tickets sell.

some facts about us upward mobility

ah, but a closer analysis of cbo numbers reveals methodology flaws that propagates the myth that so many desperately cling to krugman this came almost immediately up on a cursory search but i'm fairly certain more recent analyses are available. i'll post when i get a chance. this is a long standing and contentious debate that will not be settled here...but what does a nobel winning economist know?

these are not exclusive problems. it's not either/or. in my opinion it's both. and entitlement mentality and the willingness to live on meager means is exacerbated by hopelessness and minimum wage jobs that pay far below a living wage. in many cases, these wages benefit the elite class i'm disparaging at the expense of those that you are.

the concern is that we are regressing and forming an elite caste of untouchables. the point is that we DO know how good we have it and don't want it destroyed in an attempt quench the insatiable thirst of those very elites.

yes, that's something to aspire to. you would expect mankind to have learned something in all that time.

the problem with this argument is that it's based on the fallacy of a level playing field. one need only examine tax burdens as a percentage of wealth in the top 1-2 % versus the rest of the unwashed masses to obliterate that premise.

hmmm...freudian slip? i was using the estate tax example to show how truly small the pool of elites really is. no argument that the number of wannabes with little to no realistic chance is enormous.(that's the basis of the american dream..er, myth) incentives are absolutely necessary but they should be proportional and not obscene to the point of impoverishing the remainder of society.

that's what i thought...both your reply and magox' citation point to the "believe they'll make it to the other group" club.(you do realize how small that group is, right? about 7500 individuals are expected to pay the estate tax under the newly proposed rules) look, i want for very little (really nothing except really extravagant luxury items) nevertheless, i will never attain the levels of wealth and power of the uber rich...and it doesn't bother me, at least not for now. but it might if this concentration advances much further and affects my lifestyle. it will affect the other 94% of the population first but we're already seeing the canaries in the coal mine as lower middle class and middle class families fail financially with more regularity. class warfare exists and ignoring it won't make it go away.

i believe that the nation's wealth is becoming more concentrated in the hands of a few than ever before and at an alarming rate. this IS new and i think IT represents class warfare with the obvious winners and losers being, respectively the very rich and just about everyone else. what amazes me is that some in the vast, not extremely wealthy majority don't see themselves as losers. i can only surmise that they believe they will eventually make it to the other group, are misinformed or are just stupid.