*What happened in Russia at the turn of the last century or in France in the late 1700's? Change seems inevitable but at what cost?*

You are daft. You want to compare Czarist Russia and Bourbon France--two of the most unbalanced societies in history insofar as wealth distribution--to the modern United States? Unreal. Further, pray tell, how did the revolutions you mention turn out for the underclass in each case? Not well. A reign of terror, dictatorship and 20 years of war for the latter, a reign of terror, civil war, millions dead through starvation and 75 years of grey malaise for the former--which it still hasn't fully shook off, by the way...just look at Russia, the people are so disenchanted by life that they don't even bother to reproduce.

The last "educated" class of American citizens (not schooled) that actually understand things like principle and virtue, who have been squeezed out by the elitists working to implement their "new world order". Also, a class of people bordering on extinction.

Exactly. The figure that I posted (19%) are those that get any inheritance, which doesnt mean that they are inherited millionares. Believe it or not, most wealthy people actually appreciate their money and the hard work dedicated to earning it. That mindset can only be passed on to the future generation by allowing them to work for it in the same fasion. Something given has no value. Give a 16 year old a car, and they'll beat the hell out of it. Have a 16 year old work and pay for their own car, and they'll wash and wax it every week.

"Most of them didn't and don't as 90% of the wealthy in this country inherited it."
--dtb

Wrong. Most of them EARNED it.

"Most studies show that more than two-thirds of today’s millionaires made it themselves, rather than from inheritance."
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/01/12/d...

DTB "Most of them didn't and don't as 90% of the wealthy in this country inherited it."
Actually only about 20% of weathly individuals inherit it. Here is a more accurate representation of the typical millionare.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/sta...

I define it as "WHAT I USED TO BE 20 YEARS AGO"
And you can bet your sweet rear end, I didn't go up in class....

One word, "Vanishing"

President Clinton defined wealthy as anyone with a savings account as he stated 90% of the world does not have one. Two pretty broad spectrums.

It is one of those "you know it when you are" type of things.

Last time I looked it wasn't the president's job to promote "fairness".
It is his job to promote "freedom".

Have to agree with jv93 and garyprimer. In my case: Be grateful for what you have earned and saved, be glad for what others have more than you if not gotten through illegal means, and help out those less fortunate if able and they are really trying to help themselves. NOTE: I say this as an individual ... not as a government entity ... I will redistribute what wealth I can to help others. Do not need the government doing it for me.

" because none of those folks ever worked hard, and paid their fair share."

Most of them didn't and don't as 90% of the wealthy in this country inherited it.

jv93 got it right.

Middle Class is obviously a relative term. The very existence of such a group of people proves that our society is mobile and dynamic. People can improve their lifestyle and increase their income. Of course, it also works in the other direction. That is where "risk" enters the picture. For every "wealthy" person that succeeded, there are those that did not.

@JohnWicket: You are joking. That makes no sense.

Obama defines someone as "rich" as earning $250,000. The Vice-President defines "middle class" as someone who earns $379,000.

I would sure like to be Obama's middle class- WOW!

There's nothing quite so satisfying as the "poverty" of living in America's Heartland. Here one can work hard a lifetime, save and scrimp and never achieve half of a "middle class" lifestyle, regardless of educational attainment or work ethic. I don't know about you but redistribution of wealth sounds good to me. But historically, few such redistributions take place short of a revolution. What happened in Russia at the turn of the last century or in France in the late 1700's? Change seems inevitable but at what cost?

"to cover the wealthy millionaires and corporations that get the free ride." ...... because none of those folks ever worked hard, and paid their fair share. It's silly how some folks want more, but despise those who have it.

NVgrf

How you could even make a comment like that based on anything I posted here....is simply beyond belief.

Middle class is hard to define. You could go off of net worth, but you would also have to factor in debt as well which would bring many down. You could use the income level from the highest-being some billionare to the poorest individual-someone in the negatives (has no income and is paid by both the state and federal governments by tax credits, welfare, SS-when not earned, and other forms of aid). This also wouldnt be an accruate measurement as the few high earners would skew the median so someone making 2million a year would be seen as average. You can't really go by social class as there are individauls in the poor catagory collecting benefits that eat better and drive nicer cars than someone who is a multi millionare who chooses to live a modest if not frugal lifestyle (DLK from WW was an example of this for anyone that lived there).If I had to define middle class, I would say it's a combination of a persons income, net worth, value system ( hard work, pays taxes, involved in community, homeowning, etc...), sustainability(are they trending ahead, or are they in danger of falling behind resulting in living off benefits of other tax payers), etc... Given these variables, it would be very difficult to determine a persons status, therefore I'll just stick to the age old definition of: "A broad group of people in contemporary society who fall socio-economically between the working class and upper class. The common measures of what constitutes middle class vary significantly between cultures." Even this isnt accurate as majority of the working class would be considered middle, where the non-working or underpaid would be considered part of the poor class. Or I could consider middle class to be :Individuals that work hard, pay taxes, have equity, strive to achieve more, contirbute back, leave a legacy, live off their own means vs. the means of others, etc...

The people that work hard and pay their fair share in taxes and just get by in today's world to cover the wealthy millionaires and corporations that get the free ride.

I would define middle class as the middle 50% of income earners. The term to me has always been a monetary one, and I'm not afraid to state it as such. I can also agree with previous posters that income "class" has little to do with social class.

To believe that one particular political party is the only one that cares about people.....is truly ignorant.
Most of the population fits into the middle class, why try to dissect and analyze it to suit a political purpose?
I was trying to allude to the fact that "middle class" isn't just measured by money, and I did not define it by any monetary value...others did.

Except for wislady, we are all agreeing it's an arbitrary categorization developed by government bureaucrats and used by all politicians to pander. I agree with those here that many of the happiest people are dirt poor. Middle class could be defined as those that spend money they don't have on things they don't need that are made outside the U.S.

"What you are saying is just be happy being poor."

Your interpretation of what I stated is INCORRECT.

wislady: What you are saying is just be happy being poor. Don't try to become something you are not good enough to become. There are a lot of folks that would rather be a poor democrat than a republican. You can put me at the top of that list because I truly care about folks who have less than I have.

I wish people would quit trying to put people in classes. Just be happy with what you have, and quit being jealous of what someone else has.

"Democrats, in particular, claim to be great defenders of the middle class."

A ridiculous statement, and largely untrue. They care only about redistribution of wealth.

Middle, high or low class has little to do with money. It has more to do with values.

So based on my income, I could be destitute in one state, middle-class in another and rich in another.

"Middle class" is an arbitrary parameter whose boundaries depend largely on how many people one wishes to pander to.