Romney opts out of Presidental Race

[Spekkio]

The thing is, when people look at those types of salaries, they usually assume it's only one person making that amount of money. A dual-income household with two middle class salaries can pull over $150,000 (which is the 95%, according to the census).

 

[BoaisyJon]

The thing is, when people look at those types of salaries, they usually assume it's only one person making that amount of money. A dual-income household with two middle class salaries can pull over $150,000 (which is the 95%, according to the census).

I'm not sure I understand your point, Spekkio.

Cheers!
Jon

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

For some reason the black community seems to ostracize prominent conservative blacks.
--
Quagmire: The Democratic party has a LONG history of being the party of racists. They killed black Republicans in the 1890's, they put KKK members in the Supreme Court (Hugo Black?), they rejected Republican desegregation of schools & the military, they fillibustered just about every Civil Rights bill ever put into congress (from the 1922 lynching laws all the way to the 50's and 60's). Remember George Wallace and Bull Connor during the Civil Rights movement? Illegitimacy in American black culture skyrocketed after LBJ's war on poverty. Hell Richard Nixon was the first President to push affirmative action.

The same stuff happens today, the Democrats still have a former Kleagle in the KKK in the Senate. Articles like this one show that Democrat voters are considerably less likely to vote for a black candidate than Republican voters, and if you take out the gerrymandered districts, there are fewer Democrat black Representatives representing white districts than Republican.

Sorry for the rant, that got kind of long. I just don't understand how the Republican party is portrayed as being "racist" and the Democrats get a free pass.

Seriously, you don't think I was already aware of this history? But I do thank you for wanting to share the information.

Blacks ostracize some Black Republicans. Alan Keyes, Condi Rice, and Clarence Thomas are not looked upon favorably but if you spoke of people like Colin Powell or TD Jakes, you will get a favorable opinion. Most people think that being a liberal means you are a Democrat and that being a conservative means you are a Republic. Speaking from my experience in the Black community, most older Blacks and devout Black Christians are incredibly conservative people; they will vote Democrat because the perception is that Democrats been the proponents of legislation to help with factory workers and have appeared to be more pro-Union. I'd say it has more to do with economics and how it will help Black communities more so than how the particular party has directly helped Black folk.

 

[Spekkio]

I'm not sure I understand your point, Spekkio.

Cheers!
Jon

My point is that even though a family pulling $150,000 is in the upper percentile population wise, you could hardly consider that "upper class" based upon other factors like cost of living.

My parents made over that amount of money when I was younger -- my mother was a part-time RN, and my father was (and still is) a correction's officer.

On the flipside, good luck finding a two-story house in my area for less than $350,000. BAH/BAS for this area is over $30,000/year.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

No, it's not any different at all. It mandates that one hires a certain amount of people based upon the color of their skin.

You could argue that such a mandate might have been more necessary in the 60s to facilitate desegregation, but that does not make it any different in concept.

Your comments almost make me speechless. Do you not realize that Affirmative Action has actually helped more rural Whites, women, and non-Christians enter in institutions which were historically closed to them? Affirmative Action has far greater impact than just taking a job away from one race to give to another.

 

[BoaisyJon]

My point is that even though a family pulling $150,000 is in the upper percentile population wise, you could hardly consider that "upper class" based upon other factors like cost of living.

My parents made over that amount of money when I was younger -- my mother was a part-time RN, and my father was (and still is) a correction's officer.

On the flipside, good luck finding a two-story house in my area for less than $350,000. BAH/BAS for this area is over $30,000/year.

Roger that. I agree with you. My point was that many people don't understand that upper-class is not just the private-jet, summering in the Hamptons, seven-car-garage group.

 

[Spekkio]

Your comments almost make me speechless. Do you not realize that Affirmative Action has actually helped more rural Whites, women, and non-Christians enter in institutions which were historically closed to them?

So? I don't care who benefits from it; it is wrong for the government to mandate that a private organization has to accept/hire/whatever a certain number of people based upon ethnicity. If a private school doesn't want to accept white people, then that's their perogative.

Roger that. I agree with you. My point was that many people don't understand that upper-class is not just the private-jet, summering in the Hamptons, seven-car-garage group.

I suppose that's my point, too. Most people think that what you detailed is "upper-class," but then when they see the number is only $150,000/year income, it hits home a little more.

 

[UCbearcat]

I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood, but I'm positive (and so is the US census bureau) that 250k a year is Upper Class (>95 percentile, which in 2004 started at 154,000 - sorry I couldn't find more current data)

edit: 2006 data

I'm a conservative of the Goldwater Variety, but let's not mis-characterize what people say, because that never happens on AW.

/end rant

Thank you! That quote of 250K a year was bugging me from when I first read it. I was really hoping that it would be brought up again. The number seemed off. I haven't seen any middle class families making 250K/year where I live.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Spekkio, you talk as if $150,000 is borderline poverty, because you can't find a two story house in your area for under $350.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

So? I don't care who benefits from it; it is wrong for the government to mandate that a private organization has to accept/hire/whatever a certain group of people based upon ethnicity.

Perhaps you should care who benefits from it because I am pertnere damn sure that some of you have benefited. Once again, Affirmative Action is not only used in regards to race and ethnicity, it also works in regards to sex, disability/ability, and veteran status.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Quagmire: It doesn't matter who benefits from it, the point they are making is that it erodes personal freedoms by not allowing business owners to hire as they see fit for their business.

Edit: Being a racist, sexist, whatever-ist, is certainly unsavory - but it is not illegal. But the economy is self-regulating, because businesses who choose NOT to hire the best person for the job are competing at a disadvantage.

 

[Spekkio]

Spekkio, you talk as if $150,000 is borderline poverty, because you can't find a two story house in your area for under $350.

I didn't mean to incinuate that. What I meant was that $150,000 can't be considered "upper-class" in this area when you have to feed four children, buy a house big enough to have at least 3 bedrooms, and pay astronomical property taxes. But that is also why COs and police around here make 6 figures.

On the other hand, if I were making $150,000 a year as a single person just supporting myself, then I'd consider myself upper-class.

There's more to it than just the numbers, that's all I'm saying.

Perhaps you should care who benefits from it because I am pertnere damn sure that some of you have benefited.

Immoral acts always have a beneficiary, and it doesn't make them ok.

 

[BoaisyJon]

Quagmire: It doesn't matter who benefits from it, the point they are making is that it erodes personal freedoms by not allowing business owners to hire as they see fit for their business.

Edit: Being a racist, sexist, whatever-ist, is certainly unsavory - but it is not illegal. But the economy is self-regulating, because businesses who choose NOT to hire the best person for the job are competing at a disadvantage.

Ayn Rand and Adam Smith salute you, Mr. McBeam

 

[BoaisyJon]

I didn't mean to incinuate that. What I meant was that $150,000 can't be considered "upper-class" in this area when you have to feed four children, buy a house big enough to have at least 3 bedrooms, and pay astronomical property taxes. But that is also why COs and police around here make 6 figures.

On the other hand, if I were making $150,000 a year as a single person just supporting myself, then I'd consider myself upper-class.

Perhaps its all based on nationwide averages, anyway. I'm no scientist though.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Quagmire: It doesn't matter who benefits from it, the point they are making is that it erodes personal freedoms by not allowing business owners to hire as they see fit for their business.

Edit: Being a racist, sexist, whatever-ist, is certainly unsavory - but it is not illegal. But the economy is self-regulating, because businesses who choose NOT to hire the best person for the job are competing at a disadvantage.

Then we have a problem then because it matters who benefits from it. His statement was that Affirmative Action only takes from one race and gives to another; the truth is that Affirmative Action is implemented to give historically disadvantaged groups an opportunity to compete in institutions that had previously been run through the good ol' boy network. Historically disadvantaged is not only limited to race, it holds true for women, disabled individuals, older workers, and so on.

And if business owners were creative then they would know of ways to implement hiring practices to restrict the type of people applying to their jobs. Do you know how Hooters hires?

Different federal guidelines exist for different employers based upon the size and nature of their business.