The middle class...

is not going away. The previous post shows that there has been little or no change since 1983.

Now consider this from The McKinnsey Group: "Immigrants account for approximately 12 percent of the total population of the United States, the highest percentage in eight decades, and the vast majority of these newcomers have either limited or no credit history.

Could it be possible that there hasn't been a drop in the middle class, but an increase in the lower class? Yes, it is very likely since most of them don't come here with wealth. Now throw in the millions of uneducated blue collar workers from Mexico, Central America, and South America and you exasperate the situation.

So, get a grip on your emotions and study the data. The ultra rich are getting richer, but that doesn't mean the middle class is going away. It also doesn't mean that the lower class is increasing because our system is failing. It could be we have a huge influx of lower income people. In our system, they will have a chance (or thier kids will) to improve their status.

The middle class...

has about the same amount of wealth that it has had since 1983. This data came from economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).



Did you notice that the peak for the super rich (upper 1%) was under the Clinton administration... not under a Republican. Hmmm.

Did you notice that the shift of wealth was really from the lower end to the middle - the "rich".

According to a 2006 Met Life study the richest Americans (top 15%) have an average net worth of about $860,000.

So what do people mean when they say the "middle-class"? Get a grip. Things are about the same now as they were the second half to the 1900's (the so called glory years), except that now you don't have to be white to have money - though it still doesn't hurt...

The ACLU has an easy task...

since they have a single purpose to their mission. They only pursue "civil rights" and don't seem to balance that against anything else like the security of the nation or economic impact - the assumption being protection of civil rights insures economic success and national security. That is great, I'm sure the founding fathers would approve.

However, the ACLU doesn't seem to me to be protecting all of our civil rights with the same devotion. I'm trying to find some examples of the ACLU defending the right to bear arms. Also, while they are pressing hard on freedom of speech, they apparently require their employees to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents any employee from expressing critism of the ACLU. Last point on this topic - I see no evidence that the ACLU is protecting us against the IRS which takes real property from families and takes money right out of our bank accounts (with aide from the banks that don't want to be the target of IRS ire). Is the IRS found anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? I don't think so...

So, if you are an ACLU supporter, GET A GRIP ON YOUR EMOTIONS, and recognize that they are playing some game, they have some secret agenda, and you are very unlikely to be the beneficiary of their efforts by any means other than luck.

Grumpy

Global Fattening...

From 1980 to 2000 the number of obese Americans doubled. Using the same techniques used by selected doomsday scientists to predict the impact of global warming we identify a catastrophic future:
1. By 2020 60% of Americans will be obsese
2. By 2040 120% of Americans will be obsese
3. By 2080 all humans will be obeses

This will increase the demand for cheese burgers which will drive up the demand for both cattle and charcoal. The result will be accelerated global warming even if we get rid of all other carbon based energy sources.

So, GET A GRIP ON YOUR EMOTIONS, and stop over-eating and start exercising.

General Robert T. Herres

I learned that Gen. Herres is very ill. I am proud and lucky to have worked for him. He is as fair, kind, honest, generous, and down to Earth as any man I have ever known. His leadership is impeccable. He did a lot for all Americans, the United Way, youth, San Antonio, many employees, his church, and many more.

God Speed to you Gen Herres.
God Bless you and your family Gen Herres.

The opposite of liberal...

is not conservative. The opposite of "liberal" is "not liberal". The opposite of "conservative" is "not conservative". It looks like this...

Most of us are not purely conservative or purely liberal. But, with a two party system we are forced to pick a pole (no offense meant to all my Polish readers...). Still, the countries with more parties (AKA Isreal) don't seem to have less division and strife.

So, GET A GRIP ON YOUR EMOTIONS and recognize that as much as you don't like it we all have at least some liberal and some conservative in each of us. Unless you liberals think canibalism should be a right and you conservatives think words like "bitch", "ass", and "queer" should be banned from all print.

This has got kill a lot of people...

According to an article in the New York Times... Data from the latest census shows that “Texas is gaining from all racial groups, a true multicultural magnet.”... Wow.

GET A GRIP ON YOUR EMOTIONS and recognize that redneck, boot stomping, beer drinkin, truck drivin, environment wreckin, gun totin, W votin Texas is the "true multicultural magnet." I'm laughing my ass off!!!

Of course, this is no suprise to me because I have data and use my brain instead of my emotions to evaluate the world around me. You see, I live in a small town in the Texas Hill Country and regularly interact with people from Vietnam, India (Namaste!), Taiwan, Germany (Guten Tag), Russia (Dobrea Utra!), Mexico (Ola!), Chile, Ukraine, France, Canada, and China (Neha Ma).

NBA fans...

Every call made against your team is not automatically bad. Every call made against the other team is not automatically good.

I do not understand how one team can get 25 free throws in one quarter and the other team get only 2. But, you will never convince me that the refs or the NBA brass favor San Antonio over all other teams and wanted San Antonio to be in the finals over Dallas or Phoenix.

EMOTION may be the key to being a fan (short for fanatic), but GET A GRIP ON YOUR EMOTIONS. You act like you are going to get a bonus or a ring if "your" team wins. The last 3 times the Spurs won I didn't get either a ring or a bonus. What is up with that?

Go Spurs Go!

Hillary is manipulating you...

OK, all politicans are attempting to manipulate all of us, but I just saw Hillary saying if she elected she will raise corporate taxes to help the middle class. The news then showed a middle class woman in New Hampshire saying she can't get by (She was single with 3 kids - I know this is not nice but, hmmm, I wonder why she can't make ends meet?) without help and she is going to vote for Hillary. Instead of voting to raise taxes why doesn't the woman get married. Or, in retrospect, why didn't she think about the potential economic consequences of having 3 kids...

Part of the reason I don't have as many cool things as everybody else around me is that my wife and I don't spend every penny we make and do everything we want - we THINK ahead and use personal restraint. Now this lady, with help from Hillary, wants to spend my money in addition her money. I do not think it is right.

GET CONTROL OF YOUR (POOR ME) EMOTIONS and use some logic. If corporate taxes are raised one of two things will happen...
1. The corporations will raise prices to cover increased costs (rational and non-emotional) - how does that help the middle class?
2. The corporations will not raise prices and will go out of business (irrational) and middle class people will loose their jobs - how does that help the middle class?

The Tyrant Is Not in DC

People (especially NY Times), the tyrant is not in Washington D.C. Look further South. hugo chavez is an autocratic tyrant - and he is not benevelant. He is not charming - if you oppose him. He does not care about the poor - except to be his milita. He does not care about law. He does not care about human rights. He is a power hungry bastard that manipulates desperate peoples - not unlike Adolf Hitler.

Get control of your emotions (hatred of W) and look at the actions of hugo chavez.

Difference between Dem and Rep, about a nickle

The difference between a democrat and a republican is less than a nickle.

They both:

1. Use the military when it suits their needs : Kennedy almost took us to nuclear war over Cuba, LBJ escalated Vietnam, Carter botched a military rescue in Iran, Clinton took us to Bosnia, Reagan used military in Panama and Greneda, both H and W did the Persian Gulf.
2. Both support tax and spend. The republicans want taxes to be 30 - 35% the democrats want it to be 35 - 40%. Bottom line: both want tax and spend.
3. For all the talk about civil rights both have used the Secret Service, FBI, Treasury, and DOJ to watch and listen to what we say for decades.
4. Regardless of the "talk" about ethics and values both dems are reps are very human and very flawed: JFK was a womanizer, LBJ was a womanizer, Nixon a liar to protect his own skin, Clinton a liar to protect his own skin and a womanizer, Newt a womanizer, Hillary a liar, Julianni a womanizer...

So, get a grip on your emotions. TALK IS CHEAP. LOOK AT THE ACTIONS AND THE RESULTS. There isn't 5 cents difference at a macro level.

Your emotions might be out of control if...

...you are writing and saying that our civil rights have declined under W.

I don't care whether you like W or not. I don't care if you think he is a good or horrible president. Box your hatred of him, get a grip on your emotions, and show me what rights you had under prior administrations, that you do not have now.

Before going further let me say that TO ME our rights are defined in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't care about how rights are defined in China, Russia, Iran, Syria, France, Venezuela, or especially the UN.

This is about you and me in the US. Yes, I'm a nationalist. Yes, nationalism has caused as many wars as religion. Yes, Nationalism is the worst form of society - except for all the others that people have tried.

1st admendment - The fed has been monitoring our communiques, and taking action on the content of many communiques, since the inception of the FBI. The fact that they are monitoring our communiques does not mean that we don't have the right to free speech. The right to "free speech" (not to be confused with the "right to be heard") was constrained by the Supreme Court long before W was born.

The closest I've seen to limits on free speech are two very recent examples and I don't see what they have to do with W:

1. Dixie Chicks - they spoke freely about W in a critical way and much of the U.S. public responded with a boycott. Free speech doesn't mean "consequenceless" speech.

2. Don Imus - he spoke freely about the Rutger's basketball team in a racist and sexist manner and a couple of high profile leaders (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) raised a furor to successfully get him fired. I happen to think he was wrong. It doesn't mean that I'm not concerned by what happened.

To me free speech means that the law isn't used to limit our speech, or worse that the government doesn't circumvent the law to limit our speech. Of these two examples above, only the second example bothers me. It bothers me because, while Jackson and Sharpton are not in the government, they are both high profile political figures and have run for president. That is bordering on government officials meddling with the first amendment.

I intend to take a run at the other amendments... maybe you'll come back to participate, maybe not.