I think we sank lower and lower after the post war boom thanks to tax and spend dems who were limousine liberals posing for a public unwilling to really scrutinize them. Clinton got credit for the Republican congress’s wresting and repairing of the economy from the tax and spenders who had been in congress forever. It wasn’t ANYTHING Bill did or dems could point to it and crow about doing more like that (note what Hillary is NOT saying as she campaigns). Our economy is still rising and still growing and still doing fantastic even as the Asian Tigers and China are doing everything they can to eat our lunch. Thanks Newt Gingrich, for setting the table for the stability we now enjoy.

Posted by: Kansas | July 31, 2007 at 08:16 PM

Gee Kansas, the one thing that you should have learned from your heroes Bush and Cheney is that there are no rules.

While I may not go quite that far, I would have to agree in principal

Posted by: Kansas | July 31, 2007 at 02:17 AM

Sorry Kansas but the new Republican rule is:

Poop in your diapers and sit there and masturbate.

I’m so glad that the Republicans have brought honor and integrity to Congress.

I really am conservatiove on a lot of things, liberal in others.

I cannot imagine a party that demands loyalty to Phil Kline or Brownback who are so far to the right they may as well go to church with the Rev Phelps.

That is what the Republicans have come to. Agree with the Far Religious right or leave.

Sieg Heil Kansas!

Somebody has to clean up after the poopy diaper Republicans!

Median income is over $43,000. If you can;t do those things on that income, in this state, you are not living correctly. How do I know. Because I know lots of people who don;t make any more than that, and they are not living in their parents basement.

Posted by: CR | July 31, 2007 at 05:03 PM

Oh BS. Please define middle class. I just showed you the real NUMBERS of what happened to the median income since 1977. What would you like to debate? That it costs more to live on basic necessities, or on cable TB, the computer, the internet, the iphone, the ps3? The fact that when I went to high school, few owned cars, and when they did, they were older. Now you go past a high school parking lot, full of new or nearly new cars? That kids buy %200 tennis shoes? What would you like to debate? What is middle income? How has it gone down in relation to expenses? For the same lifestyle. That means no computers, no cable or dish network, no netowrk, no ipod. No cell phone, fewer air conditioners, usually one car per family. Smaller houses in general. Few people affording a cruise, or trips to the bahamas or cancun. And I meand damn few. No motor homes or fifth wheelers, except for the very well off. The list goes on. So, tell me where the middle class has lost ground? SO me some proof, not bs arguments or editorials.

median income 1977 $16,100in 2005 dollars $45272

Median income for 2004$43318

Seems like it pretty well kept up to me—–
Amen Mary - finally someone who has a clue as to what middle class really is.

I’m not surprised that others on this blog want to debate as to exactly what is middle class.

These people try to deflect the debate into meaningless tangents rather than to really debate the issue. I think they do that because deep down they know what exactly what Bush has done to the middle class but don’t want to own up to it.

lj: What do you think an ‘income gap’ is? Do I need to draw a picture? Imagine an hourglass, except with a very, very, tiny top portion.

It’s not exactly rocket science, man. Do the math.

I’m sorry, but I’m disinclined to do it for you. I think you know better.

You mean those who already pay no income taxes?

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.************************This is anything but a new thing: It’s been happening for about 35 years.

How about this:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?ex=1332907200&en=7a75e549037fb358&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

If the truth depends on the definition of middle class, I guess both sides could pick their own definition and prove themselves right.

Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 31, 2007 at 12:59 PM

You are right. Cr brought it up, he should define it . And after quickly looking at some numbers, it is difficult to decipher. Is it all households? Households with two adults and 2.3 children? It really does depend on ones definiton. Wwhat does define? The number of households owning their own home? Is it a income spread, say 25K to 75K? Well, 25K may be too low, and 75K not high enough. is it the spread of the middle 50% of all household income. the bottom 25% being poor, the top 25% being rich? The federal guidelines for poor? Cr, please tell me what you mean!

If the truth depends on the definition of middle class, I guess both sides could pick their own definition and prove themselves right.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/48988/

This economist talks about how things have gone for the “middle class” (your term) for the last thirty years.

Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 31, 2007 at 12:33 PM

This was basically an opinion article, and had little statistical facts.

———-Google “shrinking middle class” and drill down farther than the first two articles.

Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 31, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Will do that when I get some time.Hopefully this afternoon.

Still, please define middle class