Mike Murphy picked up Shrum's "sociology" theme:
The--one of the big vexing things for Democratic elite is how to hell do working-class whites ever vote Republican? We give them all the class warfare stuff, but they still seem to do it. Well, they do it on culture. And the Democrats, many of them, look at this like some sociological disease to be explained away. And Barack, sitting in some $10 million backyard had to explain it like a sociologist...For Murphy, unlike Shrum, "sociology" was not a way of encapsulating and setting aside a stray musing, but evidence of a central problem of Democrats: They're out-of-touch and elitist.
Shrum reworks his meme:
And I think he was explaining what was going on with a lot of those folks. Now, should he have said it that way? No.... People go with sociology, and he shouldn't be a sociologist.... People--sociology says that when people are in distress, when they're economically deprived, they, they hold onto the things in their lives that give them some sense of security and identity. That's faith, that can be hunting, that can be all of those things.Sociology says.... Obama was only saying what the experts know, right? But it was not a good idea to say it when you need these people to vote for you.
James Carville stammers into the fray:
I'm just, I'm just saying that in--culturally, he, he, he, he--I know he's not sociologist in charge, but that he didn't have his kind of history right. He needs to have a better history and a better understanding. I think--and I think Bob is right, he's going to have a chance in the debate, and he's going to have a chance to, to, to kind of re-explain himself here. But this statement was really off in terms of his--its, its, its accuracy and understanding who "these people are." They're--they'll--there's a large segment of the Democratic Party that would like to win an election without these kind of white, working-class voters, and we need a substantial...I think he's about to say that real Democrats can't stand those people Obama was talking about. Shrum talks over him and prevents him from going deeper into that hole.
Posts
81 comments:
We all know what Obama meant to say: "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" - Religion is the opiate of the people.
Thankfully, des Volkes have Obama to condescend to help them out, using the power and tools of an impersonal and unfeeling government, because Obama is so personally compassionate and because Obama’s soul transcends mere mortal partisan sentiments.
He is, after all, the true Savior – even better than that other feller who uninformed and unenlightened people cling to in their silly churches.
It does sound Marxist.
One minor nit Althouse: I think Carville resides in the populist wing of the Democratic party:
I think he's about to say that real Democrats can't stand those people Obama was talking about.
I would postulate that he was talking about Cambridge or SF Dems, not real Dems.
NPR this morning....long report on????
Dora the Explorer!!!
How it was created! How it has more consultants working on it than any other children's show!!! How it is so good and just right!!!
And we learned how she got her name and everything!!! And why she has short hair, too! And why they got rid of that bad Tico! Nighty-nite!
No, but he is running for socialist sociologist-in-chief in charge of we "these people" whom he needs to vote for him but won't because he's bitter and thinks he's better than us.
The upper classes, whether formally so or only in their own minds, have always looked down on the self-sufficient yeomanry, thinking them stupid, uncouth, uncultured, uneducated. They despise the yeoman class, and we (I count myself among them) despise them in return. Pretentious twats.
George:
Did they explain why on Earth they thought it was a good idea to have her shirt not fully cover her belly?
Perhaps it is a misunderstanding on the standard of living of middle class Americans. Obama et al have repeated to themselves so many times that the lives of middle class American's have not improved in the last 25 that they start to believe it... and it then becomes the basis of their thought.
The truth is that the standard of living for the average American has drastically advanced in the last 25 years. Every "average" American who lived 25 years ago knows this, which is why Obama's rants are so condescending.
terriw--
Have to have my staff get back to you on that one.
Anyway, it ain't about electing a professor. We need a gunfighter.
Michael Barone's recent piece about the Academic/Jacksonian divide in 2008 was excellent.
"Jacksonians, in contrast, place a high value on the virtues of the warrior and little value on the work of academics and public employees. They have, in historian David Hackett Fischer's phrase, a notion of natural liberty: People should be allowed to do what they want, subject to the demands of honor. If someone infringes on that liberty, beware: The Jacksonian attitude is, "If you attack my family or my country, I'll kill you." And he (or she) means it.
"If you want to hear an eloquent version, listen to Sen. Zell Miller's speech endorsing George W. Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention. The academic who hears the Rev. Jeremiah Wright declaiming, "God damn America," is not unnerved. He hears this sort of thing on campus all the time. The Jacksonian who watches the tape sees an enemy of everything he holds dear....
"Former Sen. Trent Lott, who once worked as a fundraiser for the University of Mississippi and therefore knew the folkways of elite types in his state very well, once told me that he had relatives who had known McCain's relatives in Mississippi. "They were fighters," he said, as best I can remember his words. "They would never stop fighting you. Those people would never stop fighting." Obama gives the impression, through his demeanor and through his statements on Iraq, that he would never start fighting."
As quale and drill sgt point out, if Obama is a sociologist, he certainly has a Marxist basis in his sociology.
Schrum and Carville: there are two pieces of work. The democrats look like the might do the impossible this year: lost the presidential election even though a majority of the public thinks the country is on "the wrong track."
Bob: recall the Cavaliers of 17th century England looked down on Cromwell's yeomanry and the New Model Army--and how that worked out for the Stuarts.
The moral rot at the heart of the D party is so deep they ain't never going to crawl out of this one.
It is no longer an election about policy.
These clowns, the black guy, and the guy in drag are getting laughed out of town.
I visit lots of blogs and the laughter just doesn't stop.
Kerry was a goof. These people are clowns. The funniest part? They are both playing the straight man.
Would that be the John Stuarts or the Marthas?
The Bonnie Prince Charlie Stuarts. Though he was a later version.
The amount of bloviating over that one simple comment is amazing.
This in the same news cycle when George Bush admitted he approved of Cheney and other top officials plotting torture regimens!
Our press is really messed up.
Hmmmm.
@ alphaliberal
"This in the same news cycle when George Bush admitted he approved of Cheney and other top officials plotting torture regimens! "
Really?
Who was it that said this:
"That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."
Al Gore.
The fact is that Clinton started extraordinary rendition, i.e. capturing people and handing them off to professional torturers in other countries.
If it was torture you were really about then you'd acknowledge this. Otherwise it's just more political nonsense aimed at Bush.
Bob:
Agree onthe upper classes, and particularly the Ivy League breed.
Did you means twits or twats? Out here, twats has a meaning that is a little different.
alpha,
Obama messed up.
He is ruining the brand.
I have been laughing totally all week end. And I started this morning and haven't stopped.
There is a nice version of Section 43 on you tube. You ought to listen, it will calm your nerves.
Or if you want your blood boiling may I suggest A Country Boy Can Survive. A little cross cultural education may be in order. Get some. Heh.
Bob Shrum is the Stump Merrill of political consultants. They should listen to serpent head if they want to gain any traction. Not that I care you, understand, but you should never put your money on Mush (see Bronx Tale).
Obscure sports and movie trivia in one comment. That’s a twofer.
(More hints than usual for you stupid bitter middle class slobs)
If it was torture you were really about then you'd acknowledge this. Otherwise it's just more political nonsense aimed at Bush.
It really is about torture and I do deplore and condemn Clinton's extraordinary rendition policies.
Next question.
save_the_rustbelt said...
Bob:
Did you means twits or twats? Out here, twats has a meaning that is a little different.
Since I'm questioning their basic masculinity in addition to their patriotism, twat is the appropriate word, although twit is effective too, and recalls Monty Python, always a good thing to recall.
*laughs*
This is funny and oddly off the GOP line for Fox:
FOXNews: Rural Pennsylvanians Find Little To Argue With Barack Obama
These complaints from some of the same pundits who say it's a real mistake to drink orange juice in a diner, and that the rubes in the flyover country don't eat arugula.
It's the pundits who are the condescending ones.
The truth is that the standard of living for the average American has drastically advanced in the last 25 years. Every "average" American who lived 25 years ago knows this, which is why Obama's rants are so condescending.
Just what standard are you judging average by Sloan? How has the average American's standard of living improved in the last 25 years? Salaries are not higher--in fact they have not kept up with inflation for the "average (if you mean median)" worker. Medical care is much more expensive and people are more likely to be uninsured. Jobs are more unstable.
Just what measure are you using?
If you want to hear an eloquent version, listen to Sen. Zell Miller's speech endorsing George W. Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Eloquent? More like a ranting, deranged old man which describes exactly the type of person Obama was talking about.
Was it Chris Matthews who Miller challenged to a duel after the speech?
Freder Frederson -
By what standard? Try standard of living! 40 yrs ago the upper middle class didn't have the same amenities that the lower middle class enjoys today. Salary alone tells you very little about affluence ---- purchasing power is a better indicator of overall standard of living.
The Ragin' Cajun and his plasticine partner have moved into my neighborhood. I am not looking forward to encountering his cadaverous pate or her Botoxed countenance at the Whole Foods.
40 yrs ago the upper middle class didn't have the same amenities that the lower middle class enjoys today.
First of all, Sloan said 25 years, not 40. I would certainly agree that that the standard of living continued to go up through the first half of the 1970's and then began to stagnate. Our standard of living has certainly stagnated in the last 25 years. What amentities are you claiming we have now that we didn't have in '83? Cell phones, DVDs, CD players, computers? We may have more electronic devices but that doesn't necessarily denote a higher standard of living.
Beth--I will look forward to any stories you can share about america's strangest couple.
Salaries are not higher--in fact they have not kept up with inflation for the "average (if you mean median)" worker. Medical care is much more expensive and people are more likely to be uninsured. Jobs are more unstable.
There was a story a while back about someone from the 1950s who traveled in time to today to visit Bill Gate's new mansion. The story was about how in awe this person would be. The funny thing, however, was that the person from the 1950s was not in awe with the wealth of Bill Gates, but by the amazing things that the common person today has, such as microwaves, cell phones, the internet, prozac in the medicine cabinet, etc.... Even things like frozen food have drastically improved in the last few decades.
It could be that a salary in 1980, is the same today after you add in inflation, but the things the average person can get with that salary are drastically advanced from 1980.
Here is a great example: In 1980, you could get bypass surgery to correct a heart problem. Bypass surgeries were out of reach to any person without insurance. Today, a med tech can accomplish the same thing by installing a stint for the cost of a day's work.
If small town Pennsylvanians agree with Obama why was Obama having to explain his lack of appeal with small town Pennsylvanians?
Context, hey?
Cell phones, DVDs, CD players, computers? We may have more electronic devices but that doesn't necessarily denote a higher standard of living.
All these things add up to a higher standard of living. Take the internet for example, a person today has more access to information than a billionaire did in 1975.
Even though we hark on the cost of medical care, some of the care we are talking about that costs so much didn't even exist 30 years. Prozac and stints are great examples. Airline travel is another example. Today a ticket is affordable to the average person. This was not true in the 1970s.
Wal*Mart is another drastic change to people's lives. The choices for the average American consumer has gone up drastically in only the last 25 years.
As an aside to this entire, very entertaining, dust up on the Democrat side and stumble by Obama: I credit the Internets and advanced technology in the hands of the ordinary people for this entire thing.
Just think. Without the Internet and the access to cell phone recordings and other technology, the remarks by Obama would never have seen the light of day. Once it hit the Huff Post and went viral across the Internet, there was no stopping it, the cat was out of the bag and all kinds of other analogies.
In the past politicians would have felt safe in showing their double faces: One to the proletariat, the rubes and downtrodden pipples whose votes they need to get elected and the other to the muckety muck, elites, those above the madding crowd, whose money they need to get elected. The money people are who they will really be working for when elected.
It must grind their butts that they can't control the flow of information and treat the people like they have in the past....like mushrooms. You know.....keep us in the dark and feed us sh@t. Drat that Internet anyway!! Who gave the people the right to have access to information? We must do something about this. Hey... let's ask China how they are handling it!!
Thank you Internets. Thank you Al Gore for inventing the Internet. Betcha you didn't see this coming. Ha Ha.
I second Dust Bunny's observation re the internet--I think it was Joe that said on one of these threads that Obama was foolish enough to say what most politicians probably believe about the electorate but are smart enough not to say it in public. Without the internet, Obama's comments would never have seen the light of day.
Our standard of living has certainly stagnated in the last 25 years. What amentities are you claiming we have now that we didn't have in '83?
I left out financial advancements. The availability of the credit card to the masses has been a revolution in its self. Now the average american has access to instant personal credit. Something that was not true in 1980. Mortgages too... despite the recent blip, obtaining a mortgage for the average American is much easier and less costly than it was 25 years ago.
I left out financial advancements. The availability of the credit card to the masses has been a revolution in its self. Now the average american has access to instant personal credit. Something that was not true in 1980.
Oh, give it up Sloan! 1983 (which was 25 years ago) was not the dark ages. They even had credit cards! And even though we didn't have the internet--we had libraries with books! And interlibrary loans! Ordinary people could even save up their hard earned pennies and fly in those new fangled "flying machines"--sometimes as far as urup!
Obviously, access to information doesn't make you any more informed.
My God, how old are you?
Wal*Mart is another drastic change to people's lives. The choices for the average American consumer has gone up drastically in only the last 25 years.
Right. There weren't discount stores before WalMart. You had to shop at Macy's, Sak's Fifth Avenue, or barter at open air markets.
Obama is a communist. I know this because Bill Kristol said so.
Obama is a fascist and his autobiography is the equivalent of Mein Kampf. I know this because Ann Coulter told me so.
Obama is a racist. I know this because Glenn Reynolds told me so, And he has a black nationalist preacher.
Obama is an atheist. Well lots and lots of people have me that, including the author of this blog.
Obama is a Muslim - I know that because his middle name is Hussein.
These are the most important issues facing America. Not the fact that we're in a recession and losing a war and are ignoring Bin Laden.
Vote McCain, because Obama is communist, fascist, atheist, racist, Muslim.
God Bless America.
Freder--
As I recall, about a week ago you told us that the US should support al-Sadr in Iraq, the al-Sadr who assassinates our friends, forces women to veil, shakes down storekeepers, and takes rockets, bombs, money, and military trainers from Iran.
Keep up the excellent advice!
(As for credit cards, most people didn't use them much or have them until the mid-1970s. For example, in Arthur Hailey's 1975 potboiler "The Moneychangers," the banker hero gives a speech to his board demanding that the bank not issue charge cards, for fear that they will weaken the nation's moral fiber. As for "instant personal credit," that was a fantasy in 1980. You had to really prove need back then to get a HELOC.)
And downtown--
Keep that foul language out of here.
"[O]ne of the big vexing things for Democratic elite is how to hell do working-class whites ever vote Republican? We give them all the class warfare stuff, but they still seem to do it."
Wasn't that the subject of a book, "The Trouble With Kansas"?The Democratic elites need to understand that not all working-class whites buy into that class warfare stuff. Many reject it entirely, and not because of "cultural" issues. After 40 years of watching rust-belt industries get walloped by foreign competition and regulatory overreach, a lot of working-class whites understand a lot better than the Democratic elites why the walloping took place, and it's not all "greedy corporate interests."
Wow--I didnt know Obama had all that bad stuff going for him. the MSM is really falling down on the job! Gerbil stuffing? Que es?
Obama is Elmer Gantry.
We DO have more choices today than we did in 1983 and our lives have improved...WalMart shopping being one of them. In the 1980's big discount super stores were not as available to the wider population as they are today.
"During the 1980s, Wal-Mart continued to grow rapidly, and by its 25th anniversary in 1987 there were 1,198 stores with sales of $15.9 billion and 200,000 associates"
"Also in 1988, the first Wal-Mart Supercenter opened in Washington, Missouri."
I was poor as a church mouse in 1983 and my life has drastically improved. The people who are now in the position that I was have also have more and better things than I ever dreamed of then.
Things that have improved since the 80's.
Car Ownership:
In 1983 and earlier fewer people owned more than one new car and those were mostly the wealthy. As I remember, it was unusual for many teenagers to own a car and if they did it was an old junker. Today it is a God given right for teens to have a new or new used car. Most people today think nothing of having one or two new cars. Cars less that 5 years old where considered new.
Home Ownership; while home ownership has been rising slightly since the 80's. There is no doubt that the size of homes has gone up and that the amenities that are considered standard would have been luxuries in the olden days. Multiple bathrooms. A real washer AND dryer in the home!! Dishwasher as a standard piece of equipment. Everyone has their own bedroom instead of sharing. Master suites. Mondo kitchens. Air conditioning. Central heating. Solar efficient windows. Built in BBQs, patios and landscaping that only the really wealthy could afford. Cable or satellite entertainment standard.(1983 was the first year for Nintendo btw) Computers and DSL are considered ordinary and your teens are deprived if they have dial up. Multiple televisions. I remember the first color television in the neighborhood. Everyone would gather and watch Bonanza as a community activity because it was so rare.
Clothing choices and the ability to shop by cataloge other than Sears.
Food choices: fruits and vegetables out of season are normal today. Meat of all kinds is available at the grocery store. I remember only being able to order specialty cuts like rib eyes, standing rib roasts and fish like halibut or salmon fromt the butcher or fish monger. Not available as we wish now. Only one brand or two of each food product.
Choices in news and entertainment. Fox, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC etc. instead of only being able to get 3 stations on a fuzzy antenna.
More?
These are the most important issues facing America. Not the fact that we're in a recession and losing a war and are ignoring Bin Laden.
You sound bitter. Maybe its time to turn to more gunds and religion.
1983 (which was 25 years ago) was not the dark ages. They even had credit cards! And even though we didn't have the internet--we had libraries with books! And interlibrary loans!
Maybe you could get a credit card, but not everyone accepted them. I remember writing checks at the gas station. And the library doesn't compare to the internet. Today's libaries are mostly used by people who want to access the internet (or so it seems).
The important reason why we need to acknowledge these advances is to avoid changing the policies that have made the advances possible. One example is high tax rates on the wealthy. We got rid of them in 1982. We should keep that policy. Yeah, the wealthy have gotten even wealthier, but they have done so by creating things like the internet, the cell phone, the microwave, credit cards, Prozac, etc....
I'm stunned anyone would assert with a straight face that the standard of living for Americans has not increased since 1983. Dust Bunny Queen outlined many examples of the vast improvement in purchasing power. I'm continually astounded of what I can buy today if I so choose.
If you dismiss all the conveniences, you have to do that for the 25 years before 1983 as well and so on.
A real washer AND dryer in the home!!
Yep, I remember as late as my graduation from high school in 1979, going down to the creek with my mom and beating clothes against the rocks.
My parents and my friends were solidly middle class and grew up in a solidly middle class, not rich, suburb of Chicago (Downers Grove). All my friends' families had washers and dryers in their homes (I know we had a washer and dryer for as long as I can remember--certainly as early as 1965), most of them had dishwashers and by 1980, microwaves were ubiquotous. Everyone had at least two cars, and some of my friends had more cars in their family than drivers. None of my friends shared a room and all lived in houses with at least two bathrooms. About half had central air conditioning. True, we didn't have WalMart, but we did have Kmart, Zayre, Venture, Korvets, and a number of other local discount chains.
Okay, so we managed to survive with generally one tv for the whole family and we didn't get a VCR until '82--'83. But having a tv in every room and staggering levels of personal debt (especially the latter) is usually not considered a sign of an elevated standard of living.
I'm stunned anyone would assert with a straight face that the standard of living for Americans has not increased since 1983. Dust Bunny Queen outlined many examples of the vast improvement in purchasing power.
People being comfortable with higher levels of debt (and Sloan's obsession with easier access to credit) does not constitute improved purchasing power.
I bet in 1983, DBQ could have afforded medical care for her husband, let last week we were treated to her story about how she is relatively wealthy yet cannot afford treatment for her husband's bleeding ulcer.
That is a sad commentary on our standard of living.
The problem appears to be that no one has defined what "standard of living" means. For some, apparently, it is choice; for others, not having debt, for others, material things. Of course, no definition makes it easier to argue--apparently for arguments sake. "standard of living" seems to be as ephemeral as the phrase "the middle class" (defined as what income range?
If you dismiss all the conveniences, you have to do that for the 25 years before 1983 as well and so on.
Well no. The difference is that there was real progress between 1958 and 1983. Real measureable things like poverty declining sharply and real income increasing. There were also technological and infrastructure improvements (the transistor, laser, spaceflight, satellites, commercial jet airplanes, the interstate highways) that make the tecnological improvements of the last 25 pale in comparison.
let last week we were treated to her story about how she is relatively wealthy yet cannot afford treatment for her husband's bleeding ulcer.
In 1983, there was no cure for ulcers. It was a thousands of years old disease that people suffered from. People turned to remedies such as drinking buttermilk for short term relief.
However in the mid 1990s, a breakthrough found that ulcers were actually an infection and could be cured with a strong dose of antibiotics. Today you rarely hear about people suffering from ulcers.
I bet in 1983, DBQ could have afforded medical care for her husband, let last week we were treated to her story about how she is relatively wealthy yet cannot afford treatment for her husband's bleeding ulcer
Yes, because at time I was working for Ma Bell in a cushy unionized job with great pay that had negotiated benefits and a kick ass medical plan. Unfortunately, my job and that of many others was legistated away by the break up of the Bell System. Thanks Democrats.
I never said I couldn't afford medical coverage. That is no problem paying for premiums. The problem is that the insurance companies won't issue coverage of any kind to my husband.
In fact there has been a great improvement in my own medical coverage since 1983. I can now invest in a HSA account with high deductible coverage for myself (since I don't need anything other than routine medical care) I reduce my premiums and actually get to put the difference in an account that is mine to keep and can take tax free upon reaching retirement age. A significant improvement. IMO
I never said I couldn't afford medical coverage. That is no problem paying for premiums. The problem is that the insurance companies won't issue coverage of any kind to my husband.
And the difference is? You stated clearly that your husband was bedridden and in pain because you could not afford to take him to the hospital to get his ulcer treated.
To me, this means you can't afford to pay for medical care (and would rather have your husband suffer than be subjected to any kind of universal healthcare plan).
(sorry, a few too many errors required an edit.)
downtown lad:
I don't know much about those other folks you seem fixated on, or what they say about Obama. I say Obama is pretty phony – high on aspirations and low on experience. I listen to the words that come out of his mouth - direct from his lips to my ears – and I make this conclusion.
It seems like you are almost saying that you and the other truly enlightened people create and synthesize knowledge and opinion totally on your own with no input or influence from anyone else, and those stupid conservatives are too dumb to think for themselves and have to be told what to think by the people you mention.
But if going to Harvard or a ‘top school’ instills one with unique insight and wisdom, why doesn’t Harvard and the other tops schools drop their enrollment standards and allow anyone and everyone to enter the school. That way we’d flood our country with correct thinking.
But of course the answer is: that would dilute the value and meaning of Harvard, wouldn’t it? The answer is that some people really are smarter than others?
OK to this point, but then I wonder how people that advocate, support, attend, and maintain elite, meritocritous institutions (ostensibly as a means from which to derive “credibility”) – how then do these same people convincingly advocate full and true social and economic egalitarianism. It is this conflict that so many see and question.
The left has real structural, philosophical problems these days, and this is only one of them.
To me, this means you can't afford to pay for medical care (and would rather have your husband suffer than be subjected to any kind of universal healthcare plan).
Freder: To me this means you don't have much in the way of reading comprehension. I am not opposed to universal health care, necessarily. I am opposed to the kind that says "you will buy your own coverage or be fined" because it is an impossibility for many people. Also, unless they make some provisions for people who truly can't squeeze out an additional $800 a month in expenses or make the coverage affordable, plans like the ones proposed by our Great Leaders are doomed to fail.
And yes. I'm not in the position to be able to pull 75 to 90K out of my .. ahem..nether regions without some financial difficulties. Are you able to do so? I doubt it.
In addition I very much resent the implication that I want to see my husband suffer. How dare you.
BTW: he is back to work this week after following all the doctors orders and taking his medications. Thanks for your kind concern you self absorbed twit.
I am not opposed to universal health care, necessarily. I am opposed to the kind that says "you will buy your own coverage or be fined" because it is an impossibility for many people.
Excuse me if I mistook your disdain for everything that smacks of "socialism", hatred of all taxes and your lack of compassion or sympathy for anyone who finds themselves needing the assistance of the government as disapproval for universal healthcare.
As for being self-absorbed, when you choose to post about your husband's serious illness and lack of insurance yet at the same time tell us about how much better off you are personally with your HSA--Really.
To assert that the technological progress in the last 25 years pales in comparison to the 25 years before that is pure ignorance.
The electronic/information infrastructure may be over hyped, but so is a lot of technology. Nevertheless, the impact has arguably been even more stark than the interstate highway system or jet airliners.
Speaking of which, in the early 1980s, I had to take Amtrak and Greyhound to and from college because plane tickets coast to coast were costing about $800.
In 2000, I had my gallbladder removed. It took a Friday and I was back to work Monday morning. Had I had that operation even twenty years before, I would have been laid up for weeks, if not months.
In terms of real income, mine has gone up several hundred percent. Almost everyone I know has more real income now than they used to. They may have less disposable income, but they have nicer houses and cars than I and they grew up in. Both my cars are much higher quality than anything my father ever drove until he bought his Camry. (Heck, even my teenage son's piece-o-crap 91 Plymouth is better than all the cars my dad owned when I was a kid. The irony is that I paid less for it in non-inflated dollars than I paid for my first car in 1984 and it's cost me less to maintain. Still love my first car though; 79 Red CVCC Civic--some idiot in a Cadillac rear ended me a year later.)
(This doesn't mean everything is fine--housing price inflation and compression have had a real impact on those costs. On the other hand, food has remained relatively cheap and the time required to cook meals has dropped substantially.)
As for being self-absorbed, when you choose to post about your husband's serious illness and lack of insurance yet at the same time tell us about how much better off you are personally with your HSA--Really.
Freder: you really do have a serious reading comprehension problem don't you.
What part of can't get insurance, declined by the insurance company due to pre existing conditions, can't get insurance.....is self employed ...no group insurance...self employed......can't get insurance.....declined.....don't qualify for government assistance.....not about to go on welfare..... don't you get??
What?? You think because he can't get insured, I shouldn't take advantage of a good financial deal and insure myself, also a self employed business owner with no access to group coverage?
My original posting was in a thread about governmental insurance programs specifically Commonwealth Care in Mass. where it was relevant to the topic.
What?? You think because he can't get insured, I shouldn't take advantage of a good financial deal and insure myself, also a self employed business owner with no access to group coverage?
I wouldn't consider my medical insurance situation to be greatly improved if my wife couldn't get insurance and had a serious chronic illness. In fact, even if I had goldplated coverage absolutely free for myself, I would think the coverage sucked if it didn't include my wife.
Now do you get it?
"I wouldn't consider my medical insurance situation to be greatly improved if my wife couldn't get insurance and had a serious chronic illness. In fact, even if I had goldplated coverage absolutely free for myself, I would think the coverage sucked if it didn't include my wife.
Now do you get it?"
What a gold plated ass-hole. So what do you suggest the people like my husband and myself do while we are waiting for the magic wand of the government health insurance fairy to sprinkle sparkley dust on us? Not take advantage of a significant tax deduction that helps us when the IRS hammer falls? Just go ahead and keep paying the old type of insurance with no cash accumulation and no tax benefits because one of us isn't insurable. Not get insurance on the one of us that does qualify? Should we also not contribute to our own 401K plans to reduce our taxes, because it might be that one of us makes more money than the other? Tell me, oh "Big A" what would you do to make the situation of the uninsurable who are over qualified for Universal Care coverage workable?
We were (before you derailed the conversation to be all about medical insurance) discussing how our lives have improved since the 80's. HSA accounts are a financial improvement.
Does it suck that my husband isn't insured? Sure. Is it fun knowing that we are one disaster away from owing everything we have worked for to a Hospital? Hardly. What do you think I and others in my position should do about it?
I'm betting that you have government/taxpayer provided insurance (THAT INCLUDES MEDICARE too you bozo) or you have extorted it from your employer's business and don't have to consider these things.
You know, 25 years ago I might have been having this very conversation, in a very similar, only the 99% of the people involved would all be white, male computer nerds.
Good thing he's not running for commander-in-chef.
Here's a tasty Obama bit that the Wall St. Journal dredged up today...
"Sen. Obama has encountered other problems in trying to connect with rural whites. At a campaign stop in Adel, Iowa, he drew cringes when he asked a crowd of farmers: "Anybody gone into a Whole Foods lately and seen what they charge for arugula?" The upscale, organics supermarket chain doesn't have a single store in Iowa."
Originally in the NY Times in August 2007.. here. At the same event, he also said that "in the neighborhood where I live, the main livestock is squirrels."
As opposed to 99% white, male and female, computer and law nerds.
Freder's determination to deny the last quarter-century of progress is not worthy of respect.
I don't have to go the library; I can read Charles Dickens and Jane Austen online--with footnotes--and then jump to Paradise Lost to check a reference, if need be.
I don't have to trust the local fishwrap for news. I remember when the Soviet Union collapsed--we could actually talk to the people watching the tanks roll down the street.
I can read Michael Yon, Austin Bay, Michael Totten and I can even ask them questions with a high probability of being answered, if I want to get a sense of what things are like from someone who's actually been there.
I love physical books, but there is no comparison in efficiency, volume, specificity, response time--and to denigrate the Internet with "we had libraries" as if the singular primary function of one could compare to the vast richness of the digital world bespeaks a pathological blindness.
If someone in my family has a rare disease, I can find someone else to talk to about it.
If I want to download a song that I'm not even sure exists ("Did Johnny Cash ever cover 'The Man Who Couldn't Cry'?") I can find out in minutes.
If I want to transact business with two guys in Germany who like my prose, they can pay me through PayPal (15 years ago, even, it had to be a money order, and what a PITA that was).
Hell, I can write, produce, record and sell my music online without needing a record company.
Music? Or book, or movies, or art, or anything that can be digitally represented.
I can start a business with people scattered all over the globe.
And, look, that's just the Internet.
Joe--
Trooper is an accountant whose wife runs a clothing store, I believe. Pogo is a doctor. Former frequent contributor Sippican makes furniture.
On another forum I frequent, the regulars are a retired schoolteacher, an auto worker, a defense contractor, a business supply/promotional salesman, a taxi driver and retired banker.
25 years ago it would have been a C programmer, a sys admin, a consultant, etc. And it would've been at 300 baud!
I actually didn't get online regularly until about 17 years ago. And there is a lot of stuff I miss about those days--no spam, e.g., and almost everyone was a serious professional because of the cost--but I wouldn't go back for anything.
Another advantage of the internet. Freeder can stop thinking about me and my husband's lack of insurance. I have found the answer right here on the net !!! Ah progress.
He quits his business and abandons me. I divorce him. I sell all the tools and equipment to make up for the lost income. He changes his name to Jose Jimenez, reappears in East LA and declares he is an illegal immigrant. Ta Dah!! instant health care coverage at the expense of the taxpayers. We get together on weekends in Vegas.
Prices.
In 1983, if you wanted to buy a Beta or VHS copy of a movie, it ran $30 or so.
The breakthrough occurred in 1987, with Top Gun, which was sold at a startlingly cheap $19.95 as part of a promotion with Pepsi.
Now you can get tons of movies for $6 (thanks to Wal-Mart). And it's $6 2008 dollars. Which comes in at, what, $3 1983 dollars?
So, yeah, there's a boost there, and Wal-Mart's about to do the same with music.
Computer games, while expensive, are about the same price for a AAA title, around $60. But that's relatively cheap when you factor in inflation.
Board games ran $15-$20 for a new title. Now they don't make board games that much, but the ones they do make can be found for under $10. You have a greater selection of indie titles now, thanks to the 'net, but those tend to run in the $40-$60-$80 range. The production quality is professional for that price, which was not readily achievable 25 years ago.
Seems to me casual clothing--jeans, t-shirts, blazers, skirts, etc.--runs about the same price or slightly cheaper, but we're using cheaper dollars now. The clothes themselves are flimsier, but that's sort of a wash unless you're someone who wears the same thing year after year.
Junk food gets cheaper and cheaper but non-junk gets more-and-more expensive. That's not good. That's probably the biggest minus. There are certain cuts of meat I can't get anymore because they'd just be too expensive--the butchers don't even know how to do it.
Cars seems to have matched inflation, but on a lark, I bought a 15 year old tiny convertible for under $1000, and it runs well. I don't think I could've even found a tiny 1968 convertible in '83. And no way would it have been safe to drive.
Others have pointed out that travel is cheaper. That seems to be true, though there was a nice period during the first Gulf War that gas ran about 91 cents.
It's part of the digital thing, but telecommuting means that people with otherwise demanding home lives can hold down real, high paying jobs. That wasn't possible 25 years ago.
There was a guy featured on Instapundit the other day with an electronic hearing implant. Not a hearing aid, but an actual replacement. Not possible 25 years ago.
Heh. About 30 years ago, interest rates were 11% just AAMOF. Especially if you were a single woman. Until recently, moderately good credit could put you under 6%. And no one's going to ding you for being a single woman.
You could make a Vietnam/Iraq comparison as well, though you have to go back 35 years. I'll take Iraq any day: volunteer army, 1/10th the casualties, not likely to end in nuclear holocaust, not likely to end in the democide of 3 million innocents.
I'm usually among the first to quote Will Durant ("Progress is a theory") but there is no honest way to look at the last 25 years and say, "Yeah, it's worth nothing." To do it just because you don't like who's been in charge is grotesque hackery.
Downtownlad, I don't care if your intent is satirical. I don't want that racist epithet on my blog. No more. And no more vicious lies about Glenn Reynolds. You can post here, but I'm not going to go through this with you again. We get it. Your an angry guy. But don't use the racist epithet and don't lie about people.
If someone in my family has a rare disease, I can find someone else to talk to about it.
This is a great point. I think the power of the internet to get together motivated people to solve problems is underestimated. Disease is one of these. The internet can bring together experiences and cases with little effort compared to 25 years ago.
This works for common things as well. For example, the other day I found a quick answer to fixing my bathtub drain on the internet. 25 years ago, I would have been forced to call a plumber. Instead today, when I hire a plumber it is usually to install more assets rather than maintain them. The more assets, the richer we all are.
What's really odd to think about is that the next generation -- the folks just being born and the ones in primary school right now -- are never going to know what the world was like when you DIDN'T have this massive wealth of information immediately at your fingertips.
It is odd to think how much time goes into teaching kids stuff that's just a mouse-click away from anyone who actually cares about it. Sure, some of what you learn in school is the kind of stuff you want to have immediate access to, but think of all the stuff you learned that, today, you can look up in an instant -- dates of major historical events, the names of Presidents and state capitals, etc. But we spend next to no time teaching them critical thinking skills; we don't really teach them how to handle NEW information.
I can't shake the feeling that we're educating today's kids for survival in a world that doesn't exist anymore, instead of teaching them how to thrive in the world we live in today.
In fairness, though, we don't even teach them OLD stuff well.
Sloan, yeah, I actually managed to pick a lock for the first time, when it was actually useful to do so.
As usual, my comment was distorted beyond comprehension.
I never said there had been no technological progress in the last 25 years or that it has not been amazing.
What I said is that the standard of living for the average (and by average I stipulated median income since "average" can mean a lot of things) in this country has stagnated in the last 25 years. The fact that we have the internet, cheap clothes at WalMart, and there has been progress in a lot of areas like medical care, does not change that.
Real purchasing power has barely kept up with inflation if not fallen some. Jobs are less secure. People have higher levels of debt and less savings. A higher percentage of the population has no or inadequate medical insurance, even people like DBQ's family who are obviously solidly middle or even upper-middle class.
Ann, it is rich that you scold downtownlad for his racial epithets and lies about Glenn Reynolds yet I have never seen a comment from you critcizing Cedarford.
OK. I won't use the N word. But I have NEVER lied about Glenn Reynolds. Everything I have stated about him is true - and I have links to prove them.
And I am not angry Ann. And it is awfully elitist of you to say so. Do you assume that all gay people are angry?
That last point was satire for those with zero sense of humor, i.e. most of the commenters on this blog.
DTL, we've been through it before about why I think what you said about Dr. Helen is a lie, and I don't want to hear about it anymore. As to your point about Reynolds, I'm not really sure what you're talking about, but I know him well enough to think it's false. Email me if you think I'm wrong. I don't want that stuff on my blog.
What I said is that the standard of living for the average (and by average I stipulated median income since "average" can mean a lot of things) in this country has stagnated in the last 25 years.
The American citizen, when compared to the average of 25 years ago:
- Lives longer
- Has access to better health care (hence the above)
- Has access to a wider variety of food
- Has access to more entertainment
- Is more likely to have a house, a car, a color TV, a phone, cable, and internet access
- Is less likely to be victimized by criminals
There's no stagnation. The average citizen is vastly better off than the average citizen of 25 years ago. The average *poor* citizen, for that matter, is vastly better off than the average poor citizen of 25 years ago.
What I said is that the standard of living for the average...in this country has stagnated in the last 25 years. The fact that we have the internet, cheap clothes at WalMart, and there has been progress in a lot of areas like medical care, does not change that.
So, improvements in life don't change the standard of living? Or do you just get to cherry pick what counts?
Real purchasing power has barely kept up with inflation if not fallen some.
As long as you're disregarding anything Wal-Mart sells, anything you can get for free on the 'net, and any form of entertainment (I actually forgot in my analysis that you can play a new game every day for the rest of your life without ever paying a dime, due to all the free and ad-supported stuff out there), then I'd certainly be willing to concede the possibility that purchasing power hasn't gone up.
All that leaves, though, are certain services and specialty items. I don't know if that's true, but it could be.
My mother objects to that. She's more of a Nordstrom-type than a Wal-Mart-type. Cheap stuff revolts her.
But being able to go cheap on stuff you don't care about allows you to buy the nicer stuff in areas you do care about.
That's power!
We won't even go into Craig's List. It's amazing what you can pick up for free.
Me, I'm not too concerned with clothes. Jeans and pocket-Ts are standard. But I can use that money saved to buy stringed instruments, which I love. Fine guitars, lutes, zithers, dulcimers, banjos, whatever.
Jobs are less secure.
This, I believe, is a good thing. Secure employment = stagnation. Technology, growth, progress = uncertainty, but with greater potential.
People have higher levels of debt and less savings.
I don't believe the situation is quite that simple; I think more people invest now, which I think is good.
Do people get reckless with the consumer spending? No doubt. But for some people, that will result in a painful but memorable lesson.
I'd probably be in the "victim" class here, having been nearly bankrupted by medical bills 15 years ago, but able to pay them all off and rebuild my credit well enough to buy a house. It wasn't consumer spending, but you know what? It wasn't that bad, either.
I do think the bankruptcy bill was a bad idea, and I experience considerable schadenfreude to see the banks hoisted on that petard as they get stuck with overpriced houses as a result.
A higher percentage of the population has no or inadequate medical insurance,
No doubt, the medical situation sucks--but we need to be reminded that the gov't caused this situation, and the only real likely cure is making sure medical insurance is, in fact, medical insurance, and not $0 co-pay.
Good lord, you have to keep a few bucks around for your car, or your residence, and you're more than willing to run a credit charge for a TV, why not a medical bill?
It's the constant interference, in the form of state-granted monopolies, tax breaks, etc. etc. etc., that drives up the price. Otherwise, medicine could be just about as cheap as before, with some need for low-premium major medical.
even people like DBQ's family who are obviously solidly middle or even upper-middle class.
But what you're suggesting can only make things worse: That someone with a "pre-existing" condition be "insured". The point of insurance is to cover significant unknown risk.
I think Mr. DBQ ought to be able to get coverage for conditions not related to his existing one; it might even be possible, dunno.
So, yes, let's all agree the average medical situation has gotten worse in the past 25 years, even if we can't agree on the causes, or on how much to weight the things that have gotten much, much better.
For example, urgent care clinics. Awesome. 100x better than an E.R.
Wal-mart will get into the biz of mundane health clinic stuff and drive the cost down even further. Yay.
The gee-whiz lifesaving stuff, also cool and exciting.
But the medical-legal bureaucracy? Much, much worse.
Even so, that's only a small fraction of life for most people.
C'mon! Cheer up!
Imagine how great the next 25 years could be!
My GF is a sociologist. As a group, they appear to me to be one of the most self absorbed groups of elitist types ever. Especially the academics. A lot of them appear to me to be amature prima donna's. And they think they posess such deep understanding of poverty and descrimination and what not. In a way they sometimes remind me of people who write war novels that where never in a war. They are well meaning I'm sure , at least some fo them. But I can;t help but treat everything they say with a slight bit of contempt or at minimum doubt. Trust me. from what I've seen some of these folks are way more messed up than the people they study by a mile.
The one discomfort I've had with Obama is he kind of smacks of that attitude though. They think they have all the answers for the poor opressed masses, when in reality they have their egos and not much else to offer. For once I'd like to see a liberal president ask the people liberal's purport to want to help what they would like to see a government do to help them. Instead of going to wealthy priveleged liberals/sociologists who tell the poor what they need.
Post a Comment