• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which Party Values the Middle Class More?

Which Party values the Middle Class More?

  • Total voters
    39
Surtr said:
View attachment 67137198
..........
Click to expand...

LOL

But it's certainly an interesting discussion, don't you think? Especially since both candidates of the GOP and Dem parties are screaming at each other about who cares about the middle class more.
 
Cilogy said:
You have to also look at what the Right is doing and wanting to do. They say they don't want people dependent on the government, which is great, but at the same time they also don't want to broaden channels to weaning people off of entitlements: not wanting minimum wage increases (in fact, wanting wage decreases), wanting less support for public education, not wanting universal healthcare, all factors that in some way affect a person's financial livelihood. If people are criticized for being dependent on government, but also not given the proper access or the proper opportunity to actually uplift themselves, then obviously they won't. I mean, you can't expect people to become self-sufficient when they have almost no means of doing so.
Click to expand...

The right, like the left, thinks of the middle class as a labor force. Neither side really wants the middle class to become independent. The difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney wants to increase people's dependence on corporations.
 
Jonsa said:
So in order to allow anyone from any class to become "rich" you abandon or ignore all those people who do not have the intellectual capacity, the circumstance, the physical capacity, the education to become "rich"? What about all those people who don't lust after money and things, but who are wealthy in love respect and family - repectable working class people of specific personal ambitions that once the food is on the table and the roof stops leaking are more than content to enjoy their true "wealth"?

That the right requires the rich to remain rich is essential the same thing as a class of inherited power/wealth which is NOT the definition of a republic. Ironic, eh?
Click to expand...

Your post suggests you are a liberal to the core! A true believer. You think in terms of ALLOWING people to become rich. Conservatives don't think in those terms. In fact, the very idea of controlling people as your post mentions, is detested by Conservatives. And I think you could search long and hard and not find a more compassionate and giving human being than Mitt Romney. No one is talking about abandoning those who are unable to do for themselves. But, neither does the Democrat party promise wealth to those you champion in your post. In fact, the Dems' policies will become a major problem for those middle class citizens once the reality of Obama's programs becomes known to all.

And, to conclude your post, you once again reveal your dyed-in-the-wool liberalism by assuming the Right can or does "require" any such non-sensical thing as requiring the rich to remain rich.


Your notions are faulty.
 
Wake said:
Personally I think neither care about the middle class.

The Left needs the poor to remain poor, to retain their vote.

The Right needs the rich to remain rich, to retain their vote.

We keep voting for these politicians. We keep getting lied to. They keep breaking their promises. Our national debt is still rising. It wouldn't surprise me that Independants are increasing in number because they're disillusioned with both Wings. Oh, and the attack ads are still ridiculously disgusting, petty, and dishonest.

Why should we settle for voting for the lesser of two evils? Don't we deserve better than that? So no, I'm not voting, because both candidates tow their party lines while smearing their opposing party and lying to the fools who routinely vote them into office.
Click to expand...

You are sadly mistaken if you think one party cares more or less about the middle class.Democrats enjoy tossing the salad of businesses just as much as republicans do.
 
rocket88 said:
Which is why Romney's blaming Obama for not creating jobs and saying he'll do it?

Think about it for a second. Government doesn't create jobs means the President can't create jobs.

I've come to the conclusion listening to Romney that he really believes he can. Which is why he'll fail. He's a big-government guy same as Obama.
Click to expand...

Romney has made it clear, all along, that he will create an economic and political climate that will encourage the private sector to create the jobs. Something he knows how to do very well. And something Obama not only hasn't a clue about, but something Obama is philosophically opposed to.
 
Cilogy said:
LOL

But it's certainly an interesting discussion, don't you think? Especially since both candidates of the GOP and Dem parties are screaming at each other about who cares about the middle class more.
Click to expand...

None of them give a ****. It's all just pandering to get more votes. The middle class makes up the largest voting demographic of the US, so of course the candidates are going to say they care about them. Neither Romney, nor Obama understand the middle class, because neither of them are middle class, and I'm willing to bet the same is true of those in Congress, and the Senate.
 
marsden said:
Romney has made it clear, all along, that he will create an economic and political climate that will encourage the private sector to create the jobs.
Click to expand...
Yeah ... for China.
 
straykatz said:
The message I've heard from Obama is that he wants everyone to have an equal and fair chance....what's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

It is the same argument used to 'sell' Communism to developing third world nations Obama grew up in. And his father fought against capitalism because he saw it as evil and Communism was fairer.

What advicates of Communism don't want us to know is that the equality that's gained isone that assures that everyone will be equal, alright...equally miserable.
 
marsden said:
Your post suggests you are a liberal to the core! A true believer. You think in terms of ALLOWING people to become rich. Conservatives don't think in those terms. In fact, the very idea of controlling people as your post mentions, is detested by Conservatives. And I think you could search long and hard and not find a more compassionate and giving human being than Mitt Romney. No one is talking about abandoning those who are unable to do for themselves. But, neither does the Democrat party promise wealth to those you champion in your post. In fact, the Dems' policies will become a major problem for those middle class citizens once the reality of Obama's programs becomes known to all.
Click to expand...

"allowing" is the correct term. That is not putting impediments in the way. Allowing is not controlling. BIG difference.

Democrats don't promise wealth to anybody regardless of who I champion. Republicans also don't promise wealth to anybody, but they are somehow infatuated with the notion that the gardener on the gated estate actually wants to have his own gated estate, that everyone craves riches, when in fact only a minority of people crave riches - the majority crave "wealth" - love, honour, respect, family - you know stuff that doesn't carry a price tag.

I totally disagree with your statement that the middle class will have problems with Obamas programs.

And, to conclude your post, you once again reveal your dyed-in-the-wool liberalism by assuming the Right can or does "require" any such non-sensical thing as requiring the rich to remain rich.
Click to expand...

I was responding to an earlier post which stated exactly that.



Your notions are faulty.
Click to expand...

Really? well thank you for the feedback, but I think I'll keep them.
 
Rich is a relative term, the beauty of the US, is that average people can attain a level of wealth and financial security that only the rich have in other countries.
Owning a home, sending you children to college, retiring comfortably, all attainable. There is no need to be a CEO, just a worker bee.
Plan and live within your means, grow your savings with your income.
In addition to these things, is freedom, freedom to decide where you live, work, what education you need, ect.
The big Brother left , assumes the middle class is not smart enough to make those decisions, I say they are.
 
Cilogy said:
Yeah ... for China.
Click to expand...

For an intelligent person to actually believe such nonsense is frightening. Do a comparison between what Romney has done in his past suggesting he would be disloyal to the USa or it's citizens. Then do the same thing for Obama's past.

Maybe that will help clear things up for you.

Oh, and please don't forget Obama's "Global Poverty Act" which didn't get as far through Congress as Sen. Obama intended it to. It's a bill which would have levied a new tax on Americans for the expressed purpose of giving it to poor third world nations. The plan was to route the tax money through the crime-splashed fingers of the United Nations, utimately spilling into the hands of rulers who might keep some or all of Obama's largesse at your expense.
 
Last edited:
marsden said:
It is the same argument used to 'sell' Communism to developing third world nations Obama grew up in. And his father fought against capitalism because he saw it as evil and Communism was fairer.

What advicates of Communism don't want us to know is that the equality that's gained isone that assures that everyone will be equal, alright...equally miserable.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? What fair chance did communism promise? I seems you are implying that the son is guilty for the sins of the father.
considering that there are only four countries left that can be called communist (with china making all kinds of capitalist reforms) I think the world as a whole has recognized its failures and fallacies.
 
longview said:
Rich is a relative term, the beauty of the US, is that average people can attain a level of wealth and financial security that only the rich have in other countries.
Owning a home, sending you children to college, retiring comfortably, all attainable. There is no need to be a CEO, just a worker bee.
Plan and live within your means, grow your savings with your income.
In addition to these things, is freedom, freedom to decide where you live, work, what education you need, ect.
The big Brother left , assumes the middle class is not smart enough to make those decisions, I say they are.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with your summary.


who is this big brother left? what policies do they have that indicate that the middle class is not smart enough to make appropriate financial decisions?
 
marsden said:
It is the same argument used to 'sell' Communism to developing third world nations Obama grew up in. And his father fought against capitalism because he saw it as evil and Communism was fairer.

What advicates of Communism don't want us to know is that the equality that's gained isone that assures that everyone will be equal, alright...equally miserable.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting how many toss the word communisn around like it is truly a threat to our American society.....and what's even more interesting is the people that buy into this theory.
 
marsden said:
Romney has made it clear, all along, that he will create an economic and political climate that will encourage the private sector to create the jobs. Something he knows how to do very well. And something Obama not only hasn't a clue about, but something Obama is philosophically opposed to.
Click to expand...

"I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."
 
Jonsa said:
What are you talking about? What fair chance did communism promise? I seems you are implying that the son is guilty for the sins of the father.
considering that there are only four countries left that can be called communist (with china making all kinds of capitalist reforms) I think the world as a whole has recognized its failures and fallacies.
Click to expand...

That is Communism's main attraction imho. The idea that everybody is equal. And as far as the son being guilty of his father's sins. I think the title of his book is enlightening. "Dreams FROM my Father." Not "of," but "from." That means he's taken those dreams. He says as much in the text of the book. He has adopted those dreams and made them his own.

And, despite the fact of Communism's obvious lack of success there are too many young people who think it's cool to be a Communist. The episode of Seinfeld where Elaine's new b/f is a Commie and she thinks it's chic. Or notice how many T-shirts you see with the image of Che Guevara. Or the lack of caring when Obama's mother and grandmother's and his associates (both pre and post Chicago days) Communist backgrounds are brought to light.
 
Cilogy said:
You have to also look at what the Right is doing and wanting to do. They say they don't want people dependent on the government, which is great, but at the same time they also don't want to broaden channels to weaning people off of entitlements: not wanting minimum wage increases (in fact, wanting wage decreases), wanting less support for public education, not wanting universal healthcare, all factors that in some way affect a person's financial livelihood. If people are criticized for being dependent on government, but also not given the proper access or the proper opportunity to actually uplift themselves, then obviously they won't. I mean, you can't expect people to become self-sufficient when they have almost no means of doing so.
Click to expand...

Minimum wage increases only starts a never ending spiral of rising incomes, BRIEFLY, then what quickly follows are price increases to the consumer which eventually requires another round of minimum wage increases in order for the low wage worker to aford to live. This is a common ploy by the Democrat Party and the unions they collude with.

Educationally, the problem with our kids is not a lack of money. It's a lack of good judgment in how the public education funds are spent. And that is a direct function of a problem with the teachers union, which too often, places a higher priority on maintaining it's own power than on doing what's best for the kids.

Free healthcare is a nice idea but it just doesn't work. It produces problems that most Amercans have shown they do not want.


The idea of having something first in order to become self sufficient is an interestingbone to explore. In my twenties I was destitute and homeless for a while, refusing to apply for welfare, I recognize you need a shiwer and lean cvlothes and the means f producing a resume


Healthcare is a nice thing but it just d
 
Last edited:
Please pardon my abbreviated posts as my keyboard isn't working well on my tablet and it makes accessing the top and the bottom of my entry field difficult to impossible at times.
 
Ontologuy said:
What the right either doesn't understand or likely simply doesn't want to admit is that the opportunity to become rich is meaningless, as the scarce nature of money makes becoming rich absolutely impossible for all but a very tiny percentage of "ALL classes", of all people everywhere, the dynamics of money and its system being what it truly is.
Click to expand...

This part is spot on. The rest of it is kind of silly.

straykatz said:
I find it interesting how many toss the word communisn around like it is truly a threat to our American society.....and what's even more interesting is the people that buy into this theory.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people confuse socialism and communism with fascist military dictatorships like the USSR and China.

Wake said:
The Left needs the poor to remain poor, to retain their vote.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea how that would work in practicality. Are we presuming that the poor of this country are so stupid as to not realize whether or not their lot is improving? Or does this rely on the idea that socialized medicine makes people lazy because there's "no incentive to work" if you don't have to worry about being able to afford to get an x-ray for a sprained ankle?

Why should we settle for voting for the lesser of two evils? Don't we deserve better than that? So no, I'm not voting, because both candidates tow their party lines while smearing their opposing party and lying to the fools who routinely vote them into office.
Click to expand...

Well, there's a lot of issues besides jobs and taxes. There's foreign issues like our relations with Iran and the possibilities of war, social freedoms like same sex marriage, which types of energy we will pursue, whether to focus on public or private education, or issues of free speech and civil liberties. There is really a big difference between the candidates.
 
iguanaman said:
The America we all know was built on the ideas of FDR and the "New Deal". That is what raised up the great middle class that made us the envy of the world.
The right has spent the last 75 years trying to tear it down and replace it with the America of the 1900's, when workers got $2.00 a day and had to buy even a radio on credit.
The Right will fail, just like Romney will. Ther is no stoppng progress only delaying it.
Click to expand...

Is that a Kool-Aide stain on your lips?
 
I won't see neither party cares about the Middle Class -- they care very much, because they need the votes of that demographic to win.

But I would say neither cares enough to put the middle class over their respective core demographics.
 
Paschendale said:
Ontologuy said:
What the right either doesn't understand or likely simply doesn't want to admit is that the opportunity to become rich is meaningless, as the scarce nature of money makes becoming rich absolutely impossible for all but a very tiny percentage of "ALL classes", of all people everywhere, the dynamics of money and its system being what it truly is.
Click to expand...

This part is spot on. The rest of it is kind of silly.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Well, under your avatar it does say "socialist".

So I can understand where you'll find my truthful assertion about the right acceptable ..

.. But you'll have a wee bit of trouble with this:
Ontologuy said:
Sadly, Obama does indeed want everybody to be equal, but not just everyone who is an American, but everyone throughout the world, including Americans, all lumped together, equally earning the same wage scale. In order to get there, Obama, a Multi-Cultural Internationalist, actually does want Americans to continue to lose jobs to in-sourcing to illegals and out-sourcing to wage-slaves in other countries. That will in effect import third-world poverty to American wage scales, and though that's part of Obama's dismantling of America to achieve his idealized one-world U.N nationless boundaryless government, it will indeed make every worker equal: impoverished.
Click to expand...
.. My equally truthful assertion about the left, the left being, of course, where socialists reside. ;)
 
Ontologuy said:
:lol:

Well, under your avatar it does say "socialist".

So I can understand where you'll find my truthful assertion about the right acceptable ..

.. But you'll have a wee bit of trouble with this:
.. My equally truthful assertion about the left, the left being, of course, where socialists reside. ;)
Click to expand...

Your assertion that anyone in this country wants to weaken the US for the benefit of other nations just makes no sense. The idea that the president intentionally supports Americans being unemployed also makes no sense. Nobody wants the United States to more resemble a third world country. Not even the selfish business criminals who support the right. They just don't care about anyone else. But you attribute far too much intentional malice in your characterization of the left for it to be true.
 
marsden said:
That is Communism's main attraction imho. The idea that everybody is equal. And as far as the son being guilty of his father's sins. I think the title of his book is enlightening. "Dreams FROM my Father." Not "of," but "from." That means he's taken those dreams. He says as much in the text of the book. He has adopted those dreams and made them his own.
Click to expand...

Have you actually read the book? do you actually know what the title refers to? this is nothing more than glennbeckian nonsense.

Barack Obama
This article provides a series of close readings of Barack Obama’s autobiography Dreams from My Father. It places the narrative within the history of African American literature and rhetoric and argues that Obama uses the text to create a life story that resonates with central concepts of African American selfhood and black male identity, including double consciousness, invisibility, and black nationalism. The article reads Dreams from My Father as an attempt to arrive at a state of “functional Blackness,” which moves away from questions of racial authenticity and identity politics but recognizes the narrative powers of African American literature to shape a convincing and appealing black self.



And, despite the fact of Communism's obvious lack of success there are too many young people who think it's cool to be a Communist. The episode of Seinfeld where Elaine's new b/f is a Commie and she thinks it's chic. Or notice how many T-shirts you see with the image of Che Guevara. Or the lack of caring when Obama's mother and grandmother's and his associates (both pre and post Chicago days) Communist backgrounds are brought to light.
Click to expand...

oh please. Seinfeld? Che Guevara t-shirts (although I will bet big that 99.9% of the people wearing them have no clue that he was a murderous revolutionary basterd)?
So, you have no problem with condemning the son for the sins of the mother? He associated with commies, so that makes him a commie?

I associate with black people, does that make me a black person? I associate with jews does that make me a jew? I associate with conservatives, does that make me a conservative? (for the record, no, no, and no).
 
marsden said:
Minimum wage increases only starts a never ending spiral of rising incomes, BRIEFLY, then what quickly follows are price increases to the consumer which eventually requires another round of minimum wage increases in order for the low wage worker to aford to live. This is a common ploy by the Democrat Party and the unions they collude with.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it's well known that minimum wage as it stands right now is too meager for the standard of living. So I guess we either increase wages or we somehow lower the standard of living. So what then do you suggest we do to level the playing field of opportunity so that "everyone has a chance to become rich"?

Educationally, the problem with our kids is not a lack of money. It's a lack of good judgment in how the public education funds are spent. And that is a direct function of a problem with the teachers union, which too often, places a higher priority on maintaining it's own power than on doing what's best for the kids.
Click to expand...
I partly agree with this, but I think one of the main reasons the teacher's union does what it does is because teacher's are generally not paid as much as they probably should and the standards for becoming a teacher are probably not high enough, and that's sort of a product of both the union as well as schools and school boards.

Free healthcare is a nice idea but it just doesn't work. It produces problems that most Amercans have shown they do not want.
Click to expand...
I suppose this is just where we differ then, because I see healthcare as a basic right, not a privilege. You're right though, it does produce problems most Americans do not want because most Americans already have healthcare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom