Nice to see the O'club back, and it looks like I have a fair amount of catching up to do.
First, Gunslinger - thanks for posting that article. On the whole I agree with what he is saying. I think he overestimates union membership (its my understanding that fewer than 1 in 8 workers now belong to a union) and in my experience $30,000 - $75,000 annual income is a little skewed toward the low end of middle class (hard for me to picture $76,000/yr as upper class). But I think his main points are right on. btw I do not consider myself a Democrat.
Steve, can you point out the contradiction? Its not jumping out at me...btw I agree home ownership is something of a measure, though maybe net worth would be more accurate? Either way, its all assets and income, and somewhere in that mix we could find a middle class.
Wotan, is it not social spending itself that is the redistribution of wealth, rather than the particular method of tax collection? If all taxes were simply used to pay for national defense and build roads, would you still consider progressive taxation redistribution of wealth? Or what if we had a flat tax (if that is what you prefer) but all spending was on social programs only? Wouldn't that still be redistribution of wealth even though it was a flat tax? btw, do you defined the act of taxing as "government taking something that doesn't belong to them?"
Virgil, I agree that in a capitalist free market society, there is a natural disparity in wealth, as wealth becomes concentrated in the the hands of fewer and fewer people. Interestingly, I have read this exact notion recently in the words of both Laz and Albert Einstein, so make of that connection what you will. My concern remains: does this ever increasing desparity of wealth in a capitalist society reach a point where it adversely affects the normal functioning of democracy? Even if this concern is legitimate, however, it would be a mistake to assume my proposed solution is to take the wealthy's money and give it to the poor. EDIT: In fact I haven't proposed a solution at all. But I can see how virtually anything I suggest could be construed as a redistribution of wealth in some manner or other. So I have to admit I'm stuck on this one.
Ben Franklin was a great man and one of my favorite founding fathers. I don't doubt the wisdom in his words.
Thomas Jefferson was another of my favorites, and he felt strongly about the importance of public education in a democracy.
Having said that, I agree our public schools are a mess. The first thing I'd probably do is get rid of all the computers, hire more teachers, and institute a merit pay system. I'd also like to see teachers be able to administer discipline within reasonable limits, to gain respect from the students. I agree simply throwing more money at a problem is no solution.
I also accept your criticism of my rule of thumb regarding class defintion - I admit its crude. I was trying to avoid using fixed dollar amounts as those become dated, and don't take into account number of dependents, etc. I'm sure there is a statisical way to define middle class though.
Finally Laz, I can't think of a better example of mini-socialism in action than publicly held utilities. The "people owning the means of production" can refer precisely to a municipal wastewater treatment facility. So somebody somewhere thought that was a pretty good idea, and you seem to approve of the arrangement yourself, correct?
Maybe its the U.S.'s blend of practical socialism and free market capitalism that has made us one of the greatest countries to live in. (No one here is under the impression that the U.S. is a pure free market capitalist society or that it isn't a great place to live, are they?)
