Political affiliation and household income

[dalegg 143]

I think if you're wealthy you're probably a conservative, unless you're an actor or an artist of some sort.

If you're poor your a probably a democrat, unless you are praying to God to get you out of your misery, in which case you're probably a Republican.

[JimandSarha 0]

A couple of observations. Educated doesn't equate with smart. It just means means being able to maintain a solid D average as long as you are willing to pay for seat time. This is NOT a slam on democrats, republicans or teachers. Its just an observation. Ive met some extremely well educated idiots. And I don't mean idiots because they disagreed or agreed with me. Just plain idiots. People with multiple masters degrees and lots of knowledge. None of it useful nor with any ability to use their knowledge to actually accomplish anything. But they seemed to like the structure and atmosphere of colleges and tended to gravitate back for more as often as possible.

Next

When push comes to shove, you can count on government to be incompetent. This forum is a perfect example. When you can have forums like this one and CFL running along, it points to a need to have them. The need to have them would disappear if government wasn't moronic about most anything they don't absolutely have to do.

Can you imagine flourishing forums on getting a driver's license? Could government survive if it communicated and actioned on tax collection the way it does about on immigration.

Can anyone comprehend how many forums like this one would exist and be visited by tens of millions of people each day if we had universal healthcare?

It comes down to this generally, the more money you have, the less you need government. So you want less because you get taxed for it. You tend to be republican. The more you need government because of your financial situation, the more of it you want.

Both political spectrums, left and right, are populated by people who think you and I are incompetent and can't survuve without them. I think more 'educated' people are liberal because the more 'educated' they get, the more they think they know more about running your life than you do. Republicans tend to think they have to run things because if they don't, the social tinkerers will run the place to hell.

Both sides of the fence are wrong. I don't care who's in charge. I'd probably vote republican more often because, besides Bill Clinton, republicans make better drinking buddies. And thinking about politics makes me want to start drinking. Screw them all.

Jim

Edited March 5, 2007 by JimandSarha

[Jenn! 918]

Both sides of the fence are wrong. I don't care who's in charge. I'd probably vote republican more often because, besides Bill Clinton, republicans make better drinking buddies. And thinking about politics makes me want to start drinking. Screw them all.

Jim

Jim, you crack me up!

[Caladan 19]

Wit and tact are not mutually exclusive.

[GaryC 7]

I started my political life on the right and have stayed there. My income, however, is only recently gotten into the center of the middle class. For me it's less about money and more about philosophy.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

My income, however, is only recently gotten into the center of the middle class.

Interesting phrase. I've read articles with definitions of 'middle class' and 'upper middle class' and all those other terms, and they invariably define them as functions of income. I find that approach to be lacking - after all, the same income level will buy you very different standards of living in various parts of the country. So what is your definition?

[GaryC 7]

In my area my income gets me the stereotypical "middle class" lifestyle. I can afford a median priced house, 2 cars and an annual vacation. For my area I sit right on top of the local bell curve as incomes go.

[Alex+R 0]

My income, however, is only recently gotten into the center of the middle class.

Interesting phrase. I've read articles with definitions of 'middle class' and 'upper middle class' and all those other terms, and they invariably define them as functions of income. I find that approach to be lacking - after all, the same income level will buy you very different standards of living in various parts of the country. So what is your definition?

Hm, I think the most in-depth treatment of class was done by the NY Times last year, and it took into account prestige of profession, assets and what type, etc. Even Wikipedia takes those thigns into account. Some people will seem like aristocrats when broke and some will always be working class no matter their income

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

A Republican is a Democrat that's been mugged.

[Reynaldo 0]

A Republican is a Democrat that's been mugged.

And then lost touch with reality... ???

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

My income, however, is only recently gotten into the center of the middle class.

Interesting phrase. I've read articles with definitions of 'middle class' and 'upper middle class' and all those other terms, and they invariably define them as functions of income. I find that approach to be lacking - after all, the same income level will buy you very different standards of living in various parts of the country. So what is your definition?

Hm, I think the most in-depth treatment of class was done by the NY Times last year, and it took into account prestige of profession, assets and what type, etc. Even Wikipedia takes those thigns into account. Some people will seem like aristocrats when broke and some will always be working class no matter their income

All I'm saying is a $90,000 salary in Central New Jersey doesn't buy much. In Manhattan, it buys even less. In rural Texas, it probably buys you a lot. Same income level, same profession, same total assets and identical underlying asset mix. And yet, very different standards of living. I feel it's the quality of life that a certain income/asset level buys you that ought to define class.

[Alex+R 0]

My income, however, is only recently gotten into the center of the middle class.

Interesting phrase. I've read articles with definitions of 'middle class' and 'upper middle class' and all those other terms, and they invariably define them as functions of income. I find that approach to be lacking - after all, the same income level will buy you very different standards of living in various parts of the country. So what is your definition?

Hm, I think the most in-depth treatment of class was done by the NY Times last year, and it took into account prestige of profession, assets and what type, etc. Even Wikipedia takes those thigns into account. Some people will seem like aristocrats when broke and some will always be working class no matter their income

All I'm saying is a $90,000 salary in Central New Jersey doesn't buy much. In Manhattan, it buys even less. In rural Texas, it probably buys you a lot. Same income level, same profession, same total assets and identical underlying asset mix. And yet, very different standards of living. I feel it's the quality of life that a certain income/asset level buys you that ought to define class.

Some people think it's the quality of life you are raised with and feel you must maintain that defines class.

But the other bizarre thing is that some professions pay the same all over the country, more or less, but, like you said, buy radically different lifestyles depending on location. How can someone doing the same job, with the same education, really be of a different class? I feel like the prestige/value of a position really makes a difference in class.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How can someone doing the same job, with the same education, really be of a different class? I feel like the prestige/value of a position really makes a difference in class.

I disagree. If I lived in midtown Manhattan, I wouldn't be able to afford most of the things I can afford today. In my mind, that would represent a fall in quality of life and a fall in 'class'.

Clearly, we define class differently. Prestige means very little to me.

[Alex+R 0]

How can someone doing the same job, with the same education, really be of a different class? I feel like the prestige/value of a position really makes a difference in class.

I disagree. If I lived in midtown Manhattan, I wouldn't be able to afford most of the things I can afford today. In my mind, that would represent a fall in quality of life and a fall in 'class'.

Clearly, we define class differently. Prestige means very little to me.

I think certain things also apply though. Are you talking about class in a purely economic way, or are you talking about class and its social connotations too? Because education level certainly comes into play, and certain tastes have something to do with it too. I think there is a very little economic distinction between upper-upper middle class and the upper class. I think those things can be defined almost purely socially.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am speaking in strict economic terms.

And I disagree with the statement "there is a very little economic distinction between upper-upper middle class and the upper class". For example, in my mind, my i-banker cousin who can easily afford a $4,000/month mortgage and lives in a much nicer Central NJ neighborhood than I do is upper middle class. Warren Buffett is 'upper class' (aka 'rich').

But that's just how I mentally define the terms. I understand that different people may define it differently.