Disturbing news about middle class America from Pew:
About half of all Americans think of themselves as middle class. They are a varied lot.
...And about the same percentages of blacks (50%), Hispanics (54%) and whites (53%) self-identify as middle class, even though members of minority groups who say they are middle class have far less income and wealth than do whites who say they are middle class.
Geez, they are probably talking about shared middle class values or something. Such a failure for Jeremiah Wright and his Black Values System, which denounces the Pursuit of Middleclassness (and favors a direct leap to the big house.) But why call it a failure - the glass is still half empty!
And we can find some bad news for Michelle, who whined in the New Yorker that
“We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”
From Pew:
Economic, demographic, technological and sociological changes since 1970 have moved some groups up the income ladder and pushed others down.
Relative winners include seniors (ages 65 and older); blacks, native-born Hispanics and married adults. The income status of all of these groups improved from 1970 to 2006. Losers include young adults (ages 18 to 29), the unmarried, foreign-born Hispanics and people with a high school education or less. All of these groups have seen their relative income positions decline.
Relative winners include Michelle Obama, who got carried into Princeton by her big brother's basketball and academic prowess and holds her current high-paying job because of her race and street cred:
"Because she is of color, that gives her some credibility," said Wendy Cox, chief executive of Chicago Family Health Center.
It's a great country. Tell no one.
INTERESTING POINT: Her hubby supports Affirmative Action but Michelle can't bring herself to praise the program as contributing to her own advancement (I won't stray from her message by saying "success", since she still has a brutal existence). So why so coy about an evidently helpful program her husband supports?
Pew stinks. I'd like a whiff of those questions.
=============================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2008 at 09:14 AM
Another great irony; her 'credibility' is incredible. The reaction of most Americans and Christians to 'God Damn America'? Incredulity. Yes, this irony has street cred.
===================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2008 at 09:19 AM
Losers include young adults (ages 18 to 29), the unmarried,.."
I wonder if the growing numbers of Peter Pans who eschew marriage affects the stats?
"Consider: in 1970, 69 percent of 25-year-old and 85 percent of 30-year-old white men were married; in 2000, only 33 percent and 58 percent were, respectively. And the percentage of young guys tying the knot is declining as you read this. Census Bureau data show that the median age of marriage among men rose from 26.8 in 2000 to 27.5 in 2006—a dramatic demographic shift for such a short time period. That adds up to tens of millions more young men blissfully free of mortgages, wives, and child-care bills."
Blissfully single Peters may be higher up Pew's ladder than unclaimed blessing Paulines.
Posted by: DebinNC | April 10, 2008 at 09:35 AM
Alliterally, elevatingly, enlightening, too.
============================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2008 at 09:50 AM
Deb,
Are you trying to imply that personal decisions have some effect upon the economic status of individuals? What a heretical concept!
I sure hope that Michelle takes advantage of every opportunity given to her to speak at length and in detail. She's a treasure.
To Red Witch and McCain.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 10, 2008 at 09:51 AM
Ah, I a meant 'alliteravily'.
=================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2008 at 09:51 AM
It's just occurred to me that whoever wins the Dem nomination, won't want the other's high negatives on the ticket. A perfect storm. Sure, Karl, we know you're in the stands. It's the mind rays, right?
================================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2008 at 09:53 AM
This article from last January, when Michelle was free and unmuzzled, offers a peek into her view of herself and the reasons for her "rise" to where she is today. Once again, affirmative action is not mentioned. Why not, unless benefitting from AA is deemed shameful? What part does this black shame and the resulting white resentment play in the racial divide?
Posted by: DebinNC | April 10, 2008 at 09:59 AM
It's a good thing we're all cuzzins, or there would be real trouble.
========================================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2008 at 10:11 AM
DebinNC - Can I ask why we think that Michelle was a beneficiary of affirmative action? I assume that this primarily relates to her admission to Princeton, and maybe to Harvard law as well.
As for her position at U of C hospitals, I attribute that to politics, not AA. BTW, I'm a lawyer in Chicago, and I know a little about UC and the Obama's.
This seems to be a theme that is emerging more and more in the conservative blogosphere, but frankly it seems to be less a fair commentary than a mean spirited attack like the attempts to put Clarence Thomas in his place by reference to his benefitting from AA. Just wondering what I've been missing.
Posted by: Lycurgus | April 10, 2008 at 10:54 AM
"DebinNC - Can I ask why we think that Michelle was a beneficiary of affirmative action?
Yesterday there was a discussion about NCLB mandated testing, and someone supplied a link in which Michelle Obama admitted she didn't have exemplary grades in high school. She's 5'11", so perhaps she was a stellar athlete like her brother and entered Princeton on an athletic scholarship. Otherwise, why was she admitted to Princeton over others, except via targeted efforts to increase racial "diversity" on campus? Is that not affirmative action?
Posted by: DebinNC | April 10, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Sure, L, in Chicago it's street cred, not AA. But is the street cred credible. There is divergence from reality, as evidenced by Wright. It's analogous, and as insidious as AA, this delusion.
================================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2008 at 11:13 AM
DebinNC - Can I ask why we think that Michelle was a beneficiary of affirmative action? I assume that this primarily relates to her admission to Princeton, and maybe to Harvard law as well.
Yesterday I linked to this, from Newsweek:
Didn't have the grades, didn't have the sports. Did have a successful big brother who was also a sports star - if Affirmative Action was not helping her, who in the world is it helping?
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 10, 2008 at 12:48 PM
It might not have been AA. Her brother could have blackmailed Princeton for an early legacy. What she acknowledges is that she didn't earn the slot. She then provides evidence which supports her contention. Repeatedly.
VIMH is unhappy with Michelle.
Some things are sacred.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 10, 2008 at 01:26 PM
perhaps she was a stellar athlete like her brother and entered Princeton on an athletic scholarship
I am fairly sure that Princeton and other Ivy League schools don't give athletic scholarships.
Posted by: Elliott | April 10, 2008 at 01:44 PM
“We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”
If she had lived in Zimbabwe she would have been long dead by 44.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 10, 2008 at 01:45 PM
If,if, if wishes were horses.......
Posted by: clarice | April 10, 2008 at 01:48 PM
Do the Obamas consider themselves middle class? That would be an interesting question. I think the only alternatives are rich and poor, and I'm guessing they would claim neither of those.
Posted by: buford gooch | April 10, 2008 at 03:16 PM
Another Michelle quote from her visit to NC this week: “When people look at me, I don’t want them just to see perhaps the next First Lady of the United States; I want them to see what an investment in public education can look like,” she said.
Wouldn't that mean more if the Obama daughters weren't enrolled in the private Univ. of Chicago Lab schools? "In a debate during his 2004 senate campaign, Obama said he opposed government vouchers and tax credits to attend private schools because they would undermine efforts to improve the public school system." []
Posted by: DebinNC | April 10, 2008 at 05:59 PM
Pretty amazing that Chicago based lawyer did not know what TM could respond to within minutes. Better Mobys please.
Posted by: GMax | April 10, 2008 at 06:55 PM
NO the Ivy League does not give out Athletic money, but as several of them told JMax, we decide who is financially needed not the Fed govt. In other words, they just call it something else, and since they have huge endowments can allocate money for need even if you dont meet the Fed Govt guidelines.
And does being a gifted athlete, get you opportunities other students without the athletic gift dont see, well Harvard told her she was in ( of course her white male classmate who was Valedictorian got turned down at UNC and she got in too so its not just the Ivys). Viva la diversification!
Posted by: GMax | April 10, 2008 at 07:00 PM