And in 1967 what percentage of those middle-class households were 1-income vs 2-income households? And in 2003?

And in 1967 what percentage of those middle-class households were 1-income vs 2-income households? And in 2003?

Why must you lefties analyze everything with your relentless logic? You should all just accept that today's families with two full-time workers working a combined 90 hours per week to earn $52,000 is MUCH better than 1967's families, with one full-time worker earning $48,000 over 40 hours.

Inflation figurues like don't consider energy, health care or college tuition. Income taxes may be down, but federal debt and deficit is way up. We're taxing the future to pay for today.

This guy's analysis is FREAKIN' BRILLIANT! It based off the principal that if you go back in time far enough, we all look like millionaire philosopher kings!

For instance, here's a short list of things the middle class now has to worry about that weren't serious issues in 1967.

* Health Care
* College Tuition for one, maybe two children
* Private Schooling for one, maybe two children (unless, you know, having your children wear see-thru backpacks and go through a metal detector every day is a education that will prep your child for the 21st century.)
* A Personal Computer
* Internet Access (which will double your cable bill)
* Home theater of some kind (not essential, but if you're middle class people will look at you funny if you're just got a color tv and dvd player. I'm not taking about some ludacrious package. Just a quality DVD player, Widescreen TV, speakers, DVR, etc -- with bonus points for HDTV)
* Xbox 360/Wii/PS3 (if you have teenagers, this is pretty much a given)
* ARMs -- interest rates on home loans that jump up 2-3 points after 5 years.
* Car payments -- cars are a lot more expensive. Which also means higher insurance costs.
* MP3 Player (keeping up with the jones' again)
* Cell phones (let's face it, today they're pretty much viewed as a necessity. And we in the US pay more per-minute than anyone else does overseas).

So despite a lower tax burdern, a higher costs of living and higher health care and education expenses definitely make the middle class seem to shrink the other way.

Why not come up with some more support metrics if you feel you're so right?

Like, how many college graduates pay off their loans in less than 10 years? What's the average age of a first time buyer of a house back then and now? What's the average starting salary for college graduates, and how much is it likely to increase after 5 years out in the work force? Why not compare the cost of automobiles from 1967 and now? And homes?

Nice try, but I think your graphic is highly inaccurate.

Yeah.

Problem with accounting with "constant" dollars is that the cost of living is not constant. All the money in the world could not have bought a laptop computer or an MRI in 1963. Today we have two-income households who pay much more for healthcare, child care, energy, fresh food, etc, than they did in the 60's.

"The noose is actually just as roomy as it was last year, see?"

The stats say they are inflation adjusted, but if you use the Fed's inflation figured, you're probably far under estimating the impact.