4 ms·

Sorry, there is no such thing as the upper middle class. Just another conservative trying to deflect blame from themselves.

mikestew 11y ago
You're just arguing semantics, didn't read the article, or both. The author defines who he's talking about, and whether or not "upper middle class" exists isn't the point.
- lightlyused 11y ago
  1. The premise of the article is wrong to begin with, no one "class" is "ruining America". 2. Upper middle class is nothing but a construct that would better be defined as the "affluent". Those with money, or enough money that they aren't going to be hurt by a tax increase, but are so conservative that they think they shouldn't have to pay taxes. 3. He never defines what is "best" in this country. 4. Uses the "National Review" as a source. A known site or racist articles. 5. No mention of the Republican plan to deny President Obama victory on any legislation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/biden-mcconnell-decided-to-withhold-all-cooperation-even-before-we-took-office/2012/08/10/64e9a138-e302-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/biden-mc... 6. No mention of white privilege. 7. No mention of conservative efforts to restrict voting to for minorities and young people. He just mentions that the affluent vote at " vote at substantially higher rates than those less well-off". This is a big one, because with this could actually change things, but again no mention of what conservatives are doing. Again, the article is a waste of time.
  - lani0 11y ago
    so's your comment. the article makes an interesting point, while not riding the ruts you prescribe
  - pushnpop 11y ago
    I think the points about NIMBYism and fake environmentalism of the liberal upper middle class are quite insightful. It really would benefit the environment to have a higher population density in places like the bay area.

mikestew 11y ago

You're just arguing semantics, didn't read the article, or both. The author defines who he's talking about, and whether or not "upper middle class" exists isn't the point.

lightlyused 11y ago
1. The premise of the article is wrong to begin with, no one "class" is "ruining America". 2. Upper middle class is nothing but a construct that would better be defined as the "affluent". Those with money, or enough money that they aren't going to be hurt by a tax increase, but are so conservative that they think they shouldn't have to pay taxes. 3. He never defines what is "best" in this country. 4. Uses the "National Review" as a source. A known site or racist articles. 5. No mention of the Republican plan to deny President Obama victory on any legislation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/biden-mcconnell-decided-to-withhold-all-cooperation-even-before-we-took-office/2012/08/10/64e9a138-e302-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/biden-mc... 6. No mention of white privilege. 7. No mention of conservative efforts to restrict voting to for minorities and young people. He just mentions that the affluent vote at " vote at substantially higher rates than those less well-off". This is a big one, because with this could actually change things, but again no mention of what conservatives are doing. Again, the article is a waste of time.
- lani0 11y ago
  so's your comment. the article makes an interesting point, while not riding the ruts you prescribe
- pushnpop 11y ago
  I think the points about NIMBYism and fake environmentalism of the liberal upper middle class are quite insightful. It really would benefit the environment to have a higher population density in places like the bay area.