[SK in CV]

I think the diagnosis is accurate. The middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. The concentration of wealth among the top 5% over the last 30 years is staggering.

However, the conclusion that it is related to globalization is unclear. Correlation and causation are two different things. I’m not even sure that a good case for correlation has been made.

There is much stronger correlation between the decline of the middle class and concentration of wealth among the top few percent originating with the fiscal and regulatory policies of the 80’s.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

[SK in CV]

I think the diagnosis is accurate. The middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. The concentration of wealth among the top 5% over the last 30 years is staggering.

However, the conclusion that it is related to globalization is unclear. Correlation and causation are two different things. I’m not even sure that a good case for correlation has been made.

There is much stronger correlation between the decline of the middle class and concentration of wealth among the top few percent originating with the fiscal and regulatory policies of the 80’s.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

[SK in CV]

I think the diagnosis is accurate. The middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. The concentration of wealth among the top 5% over the last 30 years is staggering.

However, the conclusion that it is related to globalization is unclear. Correlation and causation are two different things. I’m not even sure that a good case for correlation has been made.

There is much stronger correlation between the decline of the middle class and concentration of wealth among the top few percent originating with the fiscal and regulatory policies of the 80’s.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

[SK in CV]

I think the diagnosis is accurate. The middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. The concentration of wealth among the top 5% over the last 30 years is staggering.

However, the conclusion that it is related to globalization is unclear. Correlation and causation are two different things. I’m not even sure that a good case for correlation has been made.

There is much stronger correlation between the decline of the middle class and concentration of wealth among the top few percent originating with the fiscal and regulatory policies of the 80’s.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

[SK in CV]

[quote=DWCAP]
Id like to see some links or other supporting evidence.[/quote]

Beginning about 18 months ago it was mostly Dick Armey’s baby. His money. His organizational support. His agenda. Along with a support from a few other previously existing organizations (including Fox News), some with strong ties to industry lobbyists.

Here’s one link. There are more out there.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/04/the-tea-party-movement-whos-in-charge/13041/

I suspect it’s more organic now than it was then.

[SK in CV]

[quote=DWCAP]
Id like to see some links or other supporting evidence.[/quote]

Beginning about 18 months ago it was mostly Dick Armey’s baby. His money. His organizational support. His agenda. Along with a support from a few other previously existing organizations (including Fox News), some with strong ties to industry lobbyists.

Here’s one link. There are more out there.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/04/the-tea-party-movement-whos-in-charge/13041/

I suspect it’s more organic now than it was then.

[SK in CV]

[quote=DWCAP]
Id like to see some links or other supporting evidence.[/quote]

Beginning about 18 months ago it was mostly Dick Armey’s baby. His money. His organizational support. His agenda. Along with a support from a few other previously existing organizations (including Fox News), some with strong ties to industry lobbyists.

Here’s one link. There are more out there.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/04/the-tea-party-movement-whos-in-charge/13041/

I suspect it’s more organic now than it was then.

[SK in CV]

[quote=DWCAP]
Id like to see some links or other supporting evidence.[/quote]

Beginning about 18 months ago it was mostly Dick Armey’s baby. His money. His organizational support. His agenda. Along with a support from a few other previously existing organizations (including Fox News), some with strong ties to industry lobbyists.

Here’s one link. There are more out there.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/04/the-tea-party-movement-whos-in-charge/13041/

I suspect it’s more organic now than it was then.

[SK in CV]

[quote=DWCAP]
Id like to see some links or other supporting evidence.[/quote]

Beginning about 18 months ago it was mostly Dick Armey’s baby. His money. His organizational support. His agenda. Along with a support from a few other previously existing organizations (including Fox News), some with strong ties to industry lobbyists.

Here’s one link. There are more out there.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/04/the-tea-party-movement-whos-in-charge/13041/

I suspect it’s more organic now than it was then.

[SK in CV]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
I’m no expert on the Tea Party, (nor would I categorize myself as a supporter) but my take runs something like this.

The Tea Party started as grass roots thing. It’s agenda was pretty undefined, with lots of different people all with their own idea of what it was about.

[/quote]

Your take is in conflict with history. It did not begin as a grass roots thing. And it’s agenda was better defined at its origin than it is now.

Look into who funded and promoted the initial events. Despite their claims to the contrary, it is astroturf gone organic.

[SK in CV]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
I’m no expert on the Tea Party, (nor would I categorize myself as a supporter) but my take runs something like this.

The Tea Party started as grass roots thing. It’s agenda was pretty undefined, with lots of different people all with their own idea of what it was about.

[/quote]

Your take is in conflict with history. It did not begin as a grass roots thing. And it’s agenda was better defined at its origin than it is now.

Look into who funded and promoted the initial events. Despite their claims to the contrary, it is astroturf gone organic.

[SK in CV]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
I’m no expert on the Tea Party, (nor would I categorize myself as a supporter) but my take runs something like this.

The Tea Party started as grass roots thing. It’s agenda was pretty undefined, with lots of different people all with their own idea of what it was about.

[/quote]

Your take is in conflict with history. It did not begin as a grass roots thing. And it’s agenda was better defined at its origin than it is now.

Look into who funded and promoted the initial events. Despite their claims to the contrary, it is astroturf gone organic.

[SK in CV]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
I’m no expert on the Tea Party, (nor would I categorize myself as a supporter) but my take runs something like this.

The Tea Party started as grass roots thing. It’s agenda was pretty undefined, with lots of different people all with their own idea of what it was about.

[/quote]

Your take is in conflict with history. It did not begin as a grass roots thing. And it’s agenda was better defined at its origin than it is now.

Look into who funded and promoted the initial events. Despite their claims to the contrary, it is astroturf gone organic.

[SK in CV]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
I’m no expert on the Tea Party, (nor would I categorize myself as a supporter) but my take runs something like this.

The Tea Party started as grass roots thing. It’s agenda was pretty undefined, with lots of different people all with their own idea of what it was about.

[/quote]

Your take is in conflict with history. It did not begin as a grass roots thing. And it’s agenda was better defined at its origin than it is now.

Look into who funded and promoted the initial events. Despite their claims to the contrary, it is astroturf gone organic.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sreeb]I have also found the home warranty companies hard to deal with.

When we bought the house our home inspector evaluated the dishwasher as servicable.

Six months later the diswasher rusted through and their inspecter denied the claim as a preexisting condition.

The inspector/clains evaluator was the same guy!!![/quote]

My recollection is that almost every claim we made was initally denied for some reason or another. I suspect that is their standard MO. Deny all claims. Never had to bring in an attorney, but aggressive phone calls and sternly written letters with quotes from the actual policy document (or brochure in some cases, where there was a conflict) almost always got the initial denial reversed. It was obnoxious, annoying and frustrating, but my pool heater (or maybe filter) was the only claim I couldn’t get covered because of a specific exclusion. The next year I added the pool and got it paid for. (That may have been the year I changed companies.) I did get a waterfall pump covered, despite the pool exclusion, even though the waterfall emptied into the pool.

Funny thing was, after changing the companies, the company I left called at least a dozen times trying to get me to switch back to them, despite having paid out in claims at least double the premium amount every year.

[Author]

Posts