Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why is NOW the right time for a Middle Class Revolution in America?

Posted 2 years ago on April 15, 2012, 11:07 a.m. EST by KingofthemiddleClass (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Because if you are rich (1%) or poor (10%) in this country you got it made! Your living the American dream. If you are in the Middle class like the rest of us, your getting the shaft. In this country the poor are getting richer, through the freebie social programs and the rich are getting richer through the tax codes, while the Middle class taxpayers are stuck paying the tab for both their free rides. Its time for both their free rides to end, before the middle class, the heart of our country, becomes like the dinosaurs; extinct. The only way to save the dying middle class is through a revolution- a revolution in thinking- Thoughts in Books not Bullets in guns, that’s how we’ll fix this great country. As a King of the Middle Class, and a die-hard red, white and blue American patriot, I am here to lead this much-needed revolution. Look we all came together to save the bald eagle, an icon of America, now its time, before its too late, to save the most valuable asset in America, the middle class the heart & soul of our great country.

39 Comments

39 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Class is not determined by income. The traditional classes were the Working Class, which were not self employed but supplied labor to business owners, The Middle Class which were the small self employed, entrepreneurs that often sold goods like produce and clothes, often employing those from the Working Class, and the very elite but small in number Upper Class- which were the Captains of Industry, owning vast collections of companies, employing most of the Working Class, passing their holdings down to their own heirs. Each class could have various overlaps in income by their members.

The 'Middle Class' that you are King of, is a creation by Henry Ford. Old Henry made automobiles, but he could only sell some of them to the wealthier Middle Class and Upper Class which were a small part of the population. What Henry did have in large quantities under his control was the Working Class. So Henry had a brilliant idea. He would pay his Working Class employees more than any other manufacturer, so that they could afford to buy his cars. This was the beginning of the Working Class becoming serious consumers. The idea took hold with other manufacturers as well, in addition to collective bargaining efforts. The Working Class as a whole started to do much better.

The Working Class was starting to make salaries that often put them in the income ranges of the traditional Middle Class. After a short time, they started to even call themselves Middle Class... but in reality they were Working Class members who were doing better. They still had no way to have a self sufficient, self generating income that differentiated the true Middle Class.

This new wealth by some members of the Working Class caught the awareness of politicians, who saw new ways to fund their projects by taxing this group. The politicians worked to keep the notion that the Middle Class was the wealthier Working Classes new name. Division always works to a politicians advantage. The new Middle Class members could look down upon their poorer brethren, as you do.

So you want to save the better paid Working Class members? The group you represent? Join a Union. Lobby for Fair Trade as opposed to Free Trade as it is implemented today. End the Banks push to globalism.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

The working class also gained the capacity to buy homes, that is, to become "landed" like previous upper classes. This created an income stream for them in the sense that the money that they would have payed as rent, they kept in the form of equity. This process begins to resemble middle class status even more, once a second home was bought and rented.

The mortgage crisis was kind of an assault on this path of the working class towards becoming middle class.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

That's a good point. I believe that the ability for a working class member to buy a home though was an illusion. That single home did not add to his net worth in any real sense. He has to live somewhere, so if he cashed that home in... he has to reinvest that money in a new living situation... it just was cycled. Traditionally home value just increased at the same rate as the standard of living increases.. no real increase.

But many working class people were able to obtain second homes, some through savings, most through taking on more debt (they change the name to having credit which is really funny). Debt is the tool of the banks, debt is the what allows the attack on your holdings to have teeth.

You are correct. Artificially increase a working mans home value (he believes he is wealthier), increase his opportunity to go deeper into debt (by extending more credit) and you have the tools to wipe him out before he realizes what happened.

The only true way a working class member can safely increase his net worth is through becoming self employed and really becoming a member of the Middle Class.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Why do you say there was no increase to net worth. For every month that the home owner paid his mortgage, his net worth increase. This could continue until the home owner paid off his home, at which point he would not have to pay a mortgage, and could even pass the home on to his or her children.

When buying a second home, the individual would make a down payment and take on some debt. Whether that debt got paid off or not depended to a great extent on which economic system we were operating on during that time period.

In America, since its beginning, two different economic systems have been active at different times. Originally, America was run on the English system of free trade/imperialism, while today, we run on that same system as well.

There have been periods, however, when we ran on a different system, the "American System" of economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_%28economic_plan%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_%28economics%29

This was an honest system, which had the capacity to create an ever improving economy, to the extent that it was not interfered with by imperialist free trade types trying to implement their system.

So the capacity to profit from owning a home or running a business, for that matter, depended to a great extent on the economic system of the times.

[-] 1 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

Yours is very very dangerous thinking. You are stumbling over a basic economic truth, home ownership is not usually a good investment for many people. Houses can go down in value and they arent liquid.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Oh, I'm not especially an advocate of home ownership. I was just discussing it from more of a theoretical perspective.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I say that it doesn't increase his net worth because in a mortgage situation he is climbing out of debt for one and can't realize the value of his asset (the home) until it is sold. If he sells it, he is without a home.

A living space is mandatory, now he has to take money from this sale and if he is to realize a surplus in cash, invest in a living space that was worth LESS then the one he sold, otherwise he is just trading living spaces of equal value, or going into debt again if the value of the new living space is more.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5804) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

So that's why some formulas for determining net worth don't include your primary residence? That makes good sense to me. See, I'm learning as we speak. ;-)

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

That is why. The assumption is you have to live somewhere, where is that money going to come from? It's a necessary expense, expenses are negative.... home values don't always go up. :)

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5804) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Makes perfect sense.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think debt can be either a good or bad thing depending on which economic system you are operating under. If we are operating under an imperialist/free trade system, the debt can be used to rip us off. But if we are operating under the American system, then debt can be used to finance real growth.

If I were to buy a home with a $20k deposit, and paid my mortgages until I had acquired an additional $20k equity, I would have increased my cash on had by $20k upon the sale of the home. I may not have a home by I have the additional $20k.

With that money I could make deposits on two homes or just invest all of it in one new home. Why are you saying the person would have to invest in a space that is worth less than the one sold? Many people invest in a bigger home, the second time around, because they've had children, for example.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

"With that money I could make deposits on two homes or just invest all of it in one new home. Why are you saying the person would have to invest in a space that is worth less than the one sold? "

If you make two deposits you have just increased your debt twice as much... those are minus signs in net worth. With a 30 yr mortgage you typically pay the bank 2 to 3 times what the home is worth in just interest alone.

If I paid off my home and want to realize its value as an asset, and sell it... I have three choices. If I want to continue living somewhere and realize a cash profit from my sale, 1) I have to live in a home that is worth LESS than what I sold for. This gives me a cash profit; 2) move to a house of equal value, which means no cash profit, just trading locations; 3) If I want to up grade my living quarters... take on more debt to pay for it.

"Many people invest in a bigger home, the second time around, because they've had children, for example." 1) Provided they sold in an up market, which we currently do not have, and 2) chances are they are taking on debt to do so.

Personal debt generally is not a good thing. There are exceptions having to do with eliminating that debt as quickly as possible in a transaction.

The key to owning land as a positive asset, is to own land separate from your living quarters that has been paid for out of savings... not debt.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Do you think it would be better for people to just rent homes or apartments all their lives, and never buy homes?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

With the current system its a double edged sword. I think that people should buy homes with the understanding that for the average person they will be in debt for most of their lives and that it is not the asset they believe it is. Renting is just paying someone elses mortgage and property taxes with out the benefits of ownership, like being able to put holes in the walls if you should choose without permission.

A major part of the problem is real average wages. At the time my parents bought a home, the cost of a new home was affordable to what the household income was. My dad never made more than $15K a year in his life, but the homes were affordable with that salary. Because of inflation, the dollar had more buying power, and wages were higher than today corrected for inflation. Today we have the largest gap in income between that haves and have nots, since the Great Depression... as all of us know.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Ok, well, I would agree with all of that, but if I were to say it myself, I would emphasize the difference in the economic systems that have been active in the US since the times of your parents and of today.

Now, we have a free trade economy, and back then, we had more of a production and scientifically oriented economy. We used to follow the "American way", and now, we're following a global, corporatist way, the economic philosophy of our original enemy, the English empire.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I believe that we agree for the most part. I'm good with that.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

And what do you think would be a good solution to our situation?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Wow... that's going to take a bit of doing. IMO, all went to hell in a handbasket when we went entered consumerism as a society. We set the banks free, and the first thing they did was attack personal savings and created an economy based on debt. Add to that massive derregulation in most industry sectors, free market ideals, Free Trade- not Fair Trade, and the rise of globalism... and here we are. 60 years later.

How does one undo all of this? I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

A lot of OWS people, among others, recommend passing Glass Steagall as the first step. However, since Obama is against it, we would have to pressure him to pass it, or move towards his impeachment if he doesn't pass it. That would go for any president, republican or democrat.

Also stop the wars, and reduce or eliminate our foreign bases. Then build up the home economy through government creation of credit for productive investment in infrastructure. These kinds of projects would also require the redevelopment of our manufacturing sector.

Then we would make treaties for mutual development projects with other major nations. For example, building of a train rout that would cross from Alaska to Siberia, linking up America with all of Asia by train. This would go along with expanding the train routes with American and Asia.

This is by opinion. Glass Steagall would undo the financial mess, than investment in infrastructure would create growth.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Glass-Steagall alone would not undo the financial mess. You would need to repeal the 'Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000', which allowed the use of derivatives and other SIV's. Credit Cards would have to be eliminated as they are the biggest provider of consumer debt. Fannie Mae and Freddie would have to be reconstructed as well.... then there is the Federal Reserve to deal with.

[-] 0 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

For some people, absolutely! Debt usually destroys wealth. Some debt is useful but properly managing debt is a skill. The vast majority of people completly mis manage their debt, most of which they shouldnt have in the first place.

Pay cash for everything or never carry a credit card balance. If you can pay cash for everything, save at least 15% of your paycheck monthly, you MIGHT be ready for home ownership.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

If, when you say "you" you are really talking about me, I already own a home.

[-] 3 points by shooz (17621) 2 years ago

If you really think the poor have it made, you should try being one for a while.

It's not all it's cracked up to be. Besides, they had nothing to do with why we are where we are.

Really want to help?

Find a local Occupy and help them out, any way you can.

You might even meet an actual poor person while you're there and get dose of reality..

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

The poor are not doing better. Ending welfare and cutting social programs, privatization, all of it has been done. Where is the benefit to the Middle Class you claim it brings? Things have a cause and an effect. Where is the Middle Class boom we can see and jump to enhance? Fact is none of the policies you back helps anyone but the rich. The rich are the only ones doing better. Hating the poor and social programs just takes more money out of circulation and reduces the ability of the mass to do more than pay for basic needs like housing and electric. Extras really aren't done, they are not an option. The rich are doing so well because by the stocks they own, they profit when a person eats a piece of food grown from their patented seed, or put gas in their car to go to a dead end job, or send some trash to the landfill. They own stock in all that. If you are breathing they are making money off you Middle Class or poor. They are simply blood sucking leeches, not glorious innovators. But really according to the changes in policy and what has been done already, the Middle Class should be rolling in cash according to you. Why complain? Are you afraid people standing up and pointing to polka dotted elephant in the room and stating the obvious facts that this type of policy is doing more harm than good will bring about a reversal in this devastating policy trend?

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

The entire premise of your argument is preposterous. If you think that the poor are enjoying a free ride you should try joining them. More and more people are joining the ranks of the poor around the industrialised world so you will have plenty of company. Why don't you come back here after that and inform us on what an easy ride it is. Until then I will consider your argument flawed and dare i say "classist"

[-] 1 points by lisa (425) 2 years ago

Why now is the right time? It is more basic than that, they don't have the drones up over our skies yet. Once that happens, there will be no revolt. Palestine is completely subjugated by Israel. It can happen here. Who do you think they built the FEMA camps for? Those who rise up in mass protest. They tell you it is for use in a natural disaster or if too many Mexicans swarm across the border, but they have barbed wire facing inwards, train tracks like the Nazi death camps, and they even wrote up guidelines for civilian internment camps. They built concentration camps in this country. People need to wake up soon.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Because if you are rich (1%) or poor (10%) in this country you got it made!Your living the American dream.

freebie social programs

You lie!

[-] 1 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 2 years ago

The middle class are mental prisoners of the ever-stretching path, the lie implanted in the heads of our youth and stubbornly held by the old until it destroys them, called the American Dream.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

http://news.yahoo.com/twinkies-maker-hostess-gives-unions-final-offer-214352492.html

Before the company filed for bankruptcy protection, eight top executives got pay raises last year of up to 80 percent. This month, some agreed to take $1 a year until the company comes out of bankruptcy or Dec. 31, whichever comes first, while others gave up their pay raises.

This is what you need to fight. this is what is destroying the middle class. nothing to do with tax codes. its the greed of the corporations. that could care less if they have a job or not or what happens to the economy. the idea that you can give a few employees millions by taking away from the middle class worker. and getting help from the government to do it!, CHange the laws that allow this practice thats what your revolution should be about.

[-] 0 points by PresidentialCampaign (2) 2 years ago

Please visit Matthew's Campaign Website and learn about the monumental changes we are going to bring to America:

Copy and Paste full link:

Campaign Website: www.wix.com/usa2012/campaign

Matthew hopes to gain the support of all the Occupy Wall Street Protesters. If you all stand united under this one cause, Occupy will have been successful

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

You might think Hostess would try offering a more healthful line of products. With twinkies, ho hos, and wonder bread off the market, the country will be better off, a bit slimmer and healthier.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

doubtful.. there would be walmart generic replacments thats all. if the execx had taken an 80% pay cut in 2008 instead of an increase the company would be solvent. its this mind set of corporations that has and will continue to cause the evaporation of the middle class. they will stay in business,, but the workers will become poor .. thats the over all plan of the 1%

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 2 years ago

Leader, take me to your Article V convention. Constitutional intent must reign.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I dont think the Middleclass has it hard enough yet to get involved. They are usually pretty apathetic.

I think UE needs to hit 30% before they are ready to get involved.

[-] -1 points by veepveep (-7) 2 years ago

Why don't you define middle class for us.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You first. Something tells me that it would be a good time.

[-] -1 points by veepveep (-7) 2 years ago

How can I? He's the one that started the thread with the term "middle class".

I can't get into his f'd up head, as screwed up as you whiners are.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Did you just whine and then act like a douche?

Yes, you did.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Who me? Isn't that your job? I would never take someone else's job.