I reject the term "working folk" and I even reject the term "middle class." We don't have classes in our society. Who is the term working folk supposed to apply to? Anyone with a job? Or just some jobs? What about "middle class"? What does that mean? Is it an income amount? Or a total net worth amount? Does it vary from region to region? Meaningless terminology.
LOL
Well maybe its like this:
Do you want amnesty for the millions who are here illegally? If not, Dobbs is saying you are being ignored....no matter what your "class" or economic situation might be, unless, of course, you are profitting from the labor if illegals.
Dobbs has it about right on illegals and this commentary nails it pretty good.
I would respectfully disagree Huck! At minimum we have 2; Ruling and the rest of us. Based upon the fact that those in the ruling class operated under a different set of rules I believe it qualifies as a distinct class
A couple of other classes come to mind like Hollywierd elite, MSM elite.
Really! We don't have classes, eh? That's why three generations of the Kennedy family with mediocre academic bankgrounds have gone to Harvard before becoming adult idle rich and politicians and three generations of the Black dynasty have worked at various professions for their entire lives.
Just keep telling yourself we're all the same, and that what is good for the inhereted wealth super rich is good for the guy making 100K a year. That's what we are intended to believe by politicians. That's why Ms. Kerry paid taxes at 1/3 the rate that I do, as a normal working stiff.
Group think. Remember we are not individuals. We must be, think, act, everything as THE GROUP, A GROUP, ANY GROUP, just as long as WE DO IT AS A GROUP. No individuals. Not in SOCIALIST AMERIKA!!!
Sure we do. We have the ruling class and we have the subjects
I don't know either, but to many of our representatives, anyone with a job is 'rich'!
"We don't have classes in our society."
Since when?
Even in liberal universities, class is explained in Pol, Sci. 101 as a paramid.
Take a pyramid shape, and divide it into thirds. The small paramid at the top is the upper class, the middle and larger portion is the middle class, and the lower portion is the lower class and the largest portion. It's roughly about incomes, and used to explain how the few at the top will never be numerous enough to pay all the bills. (liberals will even admit it.)
For those who think taxing the rich will pay the bills, it's been estimated that if one took the entire wealth of the rich and divided it between us, we'd each get about fifty dollars) The lower portion pays taxes too, but even though it is the largest portion it is so large and needy of a larger portion of social services as to hardly make a dent in supporting government, hense, the middle portion is tapped over and over, since only that portion of the paramid is large enough and wealthy enough to sustain government.
If the division of the paramid shifts very much, then things get out of kilter which is what we're taking about here. The lower third of the paramid is getting larger and the middle is growing smaller. There's not going to be enough of us to pay the bills of the lower, and even the rich can't bail us out.
Dobbs is talking about who really has to pay the bills!!! Look at Mexico--No middle class---coming soon to us---in spades.
You sound like Clinton. They are not meaningless terms, but likes many others in common use they have been defined in several overlapping ways. You may object to them for whatever reason, perhaps in a wish to have a classless society. Usually their meaning in quite clear when viewed in the context used.
To be "working class" you need a bad vocabulary and
to wear a wifebeater.