• 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!

Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

Are Republicans against helping the middle class?


  • Total voters
    83
I'm kind of curious how you can be for the poor and at the same time for controlling who business can hire. How does that work? If I stop industry from expanding to third world countries is it not true to say I'm stopping poor people from being employed?
When politicians say they are for the poor and middle class they are not talking about the poor and middle class in other countries.
 
Why are education costs so high in the US?

Canadian university costs to rise 13 per cent over 4 years: report - Canada - CBC News
Students will need deeper pockets to study at Canadian universities over the next four years with annual fees projected to rise 13 per cent on average to $7,755, having almost tripled over the past 20 years, according to a new report released Wednesday.

Students in Ontario can expect to shell out $9,483 on average in tuition and other compulsory fees in 2017-18. Fees in the province have nearly quadrupled over the last two decades, said the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Tuition fees by university | AUCC

Fast Facts

Clear this one made a dumb move.
Higher education: Is college worth it? | The Economist

WHEN LaTisha Styles graduated from Kennesaw State University in Georgia in 2006 she had $35,000 of student debt. This obligation would have been easy to discharge if her Spanish degree had helped her land a well-paid job. But there is no shortage of Spanish-speakers in a nation that borders Latin America. So Ms Styles found herself working in a clothes shop and a fast-food restaurant for no more than $11 an hour.
 
Is there an echo in here? Re-read my post -- I dumped a bathtub-sized amount of blame on the democrats for those agreements. It wasn't what I was asking, though. I was asking how you would expect lines to be drawn on this forum if it was proposed to repeal those agreements.

Like I said it would be chamber of Commerce democrats and republicans on one side and on the other side would democrats and republicans who are severely outnumbered by the chamber of commerce democrats and republicans.
 
Why? All that does is imbalance the market and make overpriced markets more desirable then they should be.

I look at this kind of from a nationalist or patriotic perspective, not someone whose lips are firmly planted on the cocks of businesses. That means I want American citizens to be employed not Chinese,Indian or what ever citizens to be employed. That means I want the taxes from the manufacture of goods to go to our government, not to the Chinese, Indian or what ever government who would use those tax dollars to strengthen their military that could later be used against out country. I want goods to be made here instead of other countries.
 
I look at this kind of from a nationalist or patriotic perspective, not someone whose lips are firmly planted on the cocks of businesses. That means I want American citizens to be employed not Chinese,Indian or what ever citizens to be employed. That means I want the taxes from the manufacture of goods to go to our government, not to the Chinese, Indian or what ever government who would use those tax dollars to strengthen their military that could later be used against out country. I want goods to be made here instead of other countries.

I have no use for nationalism or views that serve to hold back the development of third world countries. Protectionism might serve to boost markets for those areas they are designed to protect, but they harm everyone else in the process and further enable harmful policy by enabling uncompetitive markets to strive. I have no use for protectionism that causes declining prosperity and well being in the long run. It's a stupid policy that only serves to hurt people.
 
Last edited:
Why are education costs so high in the US?

Here in the United States we have two industries whose purchases are mostly funded by the federal government - education, and healthcare.

We also have two industries whose prices have been skyrocketing way ahead of inflation even as quality growth has stalled - education, and healthcare.

:thinking
 
I have no use for nationalism or views that serve to hold back the development of third world countries. Protectionism might serve to boost markets for those areas they are designed to protect, but they harm everyone else in the process and further enable harmful policy by enabling uncompetitive markets to strive.
You are globalist, I am not. I do not care about the third world I do not want the rest of the world 'helped" out at the expense of Americans. As globalist you wish to see American manufacturing disappear I do not.
 
Republicans appear to be determined to block any sort of efforts designed to help the middle class. For example they opposed this effort to allow students to refinance their student loans

GOP blocks Warren

They also have voiced opposition to Obama's plan to provide free community college and opposed extending unemployment insurance to unemployed Americans.

Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

That bill had nothing to do with helping the middle class. If the Democrats had presented a clean bill allowing student and opportunity to refinance their student loans using normal financing rules, there would have been no objection as that would have given a break to the middle class. But the other part of that bill is that the lowered interest rate would have diminished federal treasury receipts and the Democrats intended to offset that with an alternate minimum tax of 30% on high earning Americans. And it was THAT the GOP saw as unacceptable. So did a lot of Democrats. The bill only got 38 votes.

I can't speak for all Republicans, but IMO the conservatives/libertarians (little "L") among us are mostly quite supportive of anything that will help the middle class and that would include a lot of Republicans. They see less intrusive expensive government as the way to help the middle class, however, instead of more and more government.
 
Here in the United States we have two industries whose purchases are mostly funded by the federal government - education, and healthcare.

We also have two industries whose prices have been skyrocketing way ahead of inflation even as quality growth has stalled - education, and healthcare.

:thinking
Health care costs - inflation increases are now much lower.
What are the factors driving the high cost of education in the US?
 
Here in the United States we have two industries whose purchases are mostly funded by the federal government - education, and healthcare.

We also have two industries whose prices have been skyrocketing way ahead of inflation even as quality growth has stalled - education, and healthcare.

:thinking

That is worth repeating, even though it will fall on deaf ears.

BTW, I'm not for the poor, or the middle class, or the rich. I'm for opportunity for all. The more the liberals try to balance the field the more it gets out of kilter.
 
No idea, just look at Germany and finland, and other European countries, what the **** are we doing???

Germany uses streaming do they not?
Also much higher tax rates as well.
 
You are globalist, I am not. I do not care about the third world I do not want the rest of the world 'helped" out at the expense of Americans. As globalist you wish to see American manufacturing disappear I do not.

I do not wish anything of the sort. I wish for consumers and business alike to benefit from competition. I do not wish for a market strangulated by government regulation or a market where business is locked out from competing in certain countries. I want a market that is not only competitive for business, but is competitive for individuals, so they have more choices for jobs and places to buy goods and services. A competitive market no matter the scale breeds innovation, lower prices and higher wages. That is why I push for the world to be open for all to compete.
 
Health care costs - inflation increases are now much lower.
What are the factors driving the high cost of education in the US?

Health care costs are not lower for everybody or in general. It is less expensive for those who don't pay for it or are subsidized.

The high cost of education is caused be federally supported student loans. People who use other people's money for their purposes are never as careful with their spending as those who use their own money.
 
I not wish anything of the sort. I wish for consumers and business alike to benefit from competition. I do not wish for a market strangulated by government regulation or a market where business is locked out from competing in certain countries. I want a market that is not only competitive for business, but is competitive for individuals, so they have more choices for jobs and places to buy goods and services.
Saying you wish for laws that make it easy for companies to set up shop in other countries while saying you wish for companies to stay here is a contradictory statement. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if a company can set up shop in another country and pay those workers next to nothing then that is what is going to happen, they are not going to stay where they have to pay someone more money.This is why slavery happened for a long time, because using your logic that is why slavery stayed around for a long time in most of the world.So yes you do wish for manufacturers to leave the US.You also wish countries like China to strengthen it's military and be a potential threat to us in the future seeing how that is where all those tax dollars on manufacturing are going.
 
Health care costs - inflation increases are now much lower.

They started reducing off of their peak in 2003/2004, and are still running ahead of inflation.

What are the factors driving the high cost of education in the US?

The Government subsidizes school loans, effectively reducing the price at point-of-purchase for students, resulting in massive overinvestment in college education via a non-price-sensitive mechanism. Half of our students who go to college don't graduate, half of those who do graduate don't graduate in 4 years, and half of those who graduate have jobs that don't require college degrees. So college prices skyrocket as they add endless administrative positions and nice amenities rather than scholastics. We are in a bubble. The market mechanism to create downward price pressure get's short-circuited by near-universal student aid, and the colleges react in accordance with their incentives in the face of massive inflows of non-price-sensitive money.

Incidentally, it's not just conservatives who say this.
 
Germany uses streaming do they not?
Also much higher tax rates as well.
Higher tax rates compared with a higher standard of living, lower cost of living, higher wages, and little debt. Also, Doesn't America have the most expensive education in the world? I say we need higher taxes based on wealth, heck, a system similar to Germany, but that's another point. The college system is utter bull****, and it's screwed my generation. (16)
 
Saying you wish for laws that make it easy for companies to set up shop in other countries while saying you wish for companies to stay here is a contradictory statement. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if a company can set up shop in another country and pay those workers next to nothing then that is what is going to happen, they are not going to stay where they have to pay someone more money.This is why slavery happened for a long time, because using your logic that is why slavery stayed around for a long time in most of the world.

A policy that can isolate you from the world allows you to raise your prices and your wages to a point where they can not compete if those barriers you have set in place are lowered. If the barriers were dropped any pain that comes to the US wouldn't be from those barriers being dropped, but from what the government and the people did while the barrier was up. Furthermore, while companies would look for lower wages elsewhere those wages would be forced up by markets being opened.
 
A policy that can isolate you from the world allows you to raise your prices and your wages to a point where they can not compete if those barriers you have set in place are lowered. If the barriers were dropped any pain that comes to the US wouldn't be from those barriers being dropped, but from what the government and the people did while the barrier was up. Furthermore, while companies would look for lower wages elsewhere those wages would be forced up by markets being opened.

You can say that all you want.But it does not change the fact it contradicts your statement of saying you do not wish for manufacturers to leave the US.Plus the fact you admitted to have no use for nationalism or views that serve to hold back the development of third world countries means you do not give two ****s about manufacturing in America.
 
Republicans are not merely against helping the middle class. The middle class is the main target of Republican policy.
There is no point in wasting precious resources in having a middle class. Not when the rich can slurp that up.
 
I'm not sure, but I know that Republicans are doubling down on catering to a dying breed. No literally they are dying. The demographics of Republicans vs Democrats shows that in the end, most Americans are democrat at heart, but the GOP's strength is trying to get support by means of social conservatism and strong stances on military and foreign policy. I don't particularly understand the Republicans strategy of going further and further right, other than those 2 points. I think the Republicans best bet right now is sadly, Jeb Bush. He seems like if he could erase what his brother did, and do a better job than his father, he can erase 20+ years of republicans being total tools.
 
No, they simply strongly disagree with the Democrats on the methods that best go about helping the middle class, either in the long term or the short term. Undoubtably as well they likely have, in some fashions, different metrics and methods of determining what is "helpful" and what "isn't" in their minds.

The only way to say the Republicans are against helping the middle class is by judging them based off the Democratic view point on the issue as being the only potential way to view it and absolute/singular objective fact.

To be honest with you I don't care who puts the proposals forward, I think the things I mentioned would help the middle class.

But lets take the Democrat/Republican out of it, do you and/or Republicans feel that allowing consumers to refinance their student loans is something that would help the middle class? If so, why haven't Republicans pushed for such legislation? If not, then why do you feel that way?
 
To be honest with you I don't care who puts the proposals forward, I think the things I mentioned would help the middle class.

But lets take the Democrat/Republican out of it, do you and/or Republicans feel that allowing consumers to refinance their student loans is something that would help the middle class? If so, why haven't Republicans pushed for such legislation? If not, then why do you feel that way?

What would help the middle class and all of us is for the government to get the dickens out of the way and let the economy boom.
 
No really, what my argument was about was you cherry picking something that *might* help the middle class as an argument that Democrats care for the middle class and Republicans "demonstrate a pattern of behavior that is hostile to middle class interests" while ignoring all other actions to date from both parties.

It is not cherry picking, allowing consumers to refinance their student loan debt would help the middle class, no doubt about it. Now if you don't agree with that could you please tell us why?

It is extremely naive to suggest Warren's bill was only about student loan refinance, another active part of the discussion was what would pay for the difference.

So you are saying that the bill was primarily about paying for student loan refinance. By your cripple logic she should have passed a bill called "Paying For Student Loan Refinance" and then introduced one that only talked about student loan refinance. What an absurd notion you are putting forward.

A tax on millionaires in the form of something very close to the so called "Buffet" rule going so far as to include language that suggested how well the taxation efforts ended up would result in continued rate decreases for those that have existing student loans.

So you think that millionaires cannot be subjected to tax increases? What the hell is the who pays for it crap anyway? The government should not be trying to make money from people who are actually paying back their student loan debt in good faith. That money should be strictly used to pay back their loans and nothing more. It is totally ridiculous that a group of people, namely Republicans, that have not seen a tax DECREASE on the wealthy that they did not like, want to overburden middle class people who are faithfully repaying their student loan debt with interest rates that are excessive.

The distortion is this bill was about Warren jumping on the political bandwagon of class warfare and suggesting the middle class would be helped, and we have little evidence that would be the case.

What? Are you really stupid enough to suggest that allowing consumers to refinance their student loans would not help the middle class. Of course she is a politician and is politically motivated, but that does not mean that allowing consumers to refinance their student loans would not help the middle class.

Once she disagreed with amendments this legislative effort hardly made it out of committee.

Why the hell did Republicans feel the need to put amendments on a bill that would allow consumers, who are faithfully repaying their student loan debt, the opportunity to refinance their student loan debt. They are all eager to give the wealthy tax breaks, and bomb innocent Muslims in the Middle East every chance they get. But when it comes to giving consumers who faithfully repaying their student loan debt the chance to refinance, they become reluctant and find the need to attach amendments before they can consider such a measure. What kind of raggedy ass bull**** is that?

Yes, refinance efforts should be made. Going after more taxation on the wealthy to pay for it does not mean it was the right approach.

So since refinance efforts should be made, what Republican efforts have been made to get such legislation enacted? What's the matter? It is not important enough for them? To the interests of the middle class matter to them? Do they even give a damn about the middle class? Is all that they can do for the middle class is give tax breaks to the wealthy so that they can trickle it back down? That is merely a weak, bull**** excuse to burden the middle class as much as possible.
 
I want to say no, because to make that kind of partisan blanket statement instinctively feels the same to me as agreeing that "Republicans want to shoot puppies out of canons," which is of course ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous. Republicans time and time again shoot down every damn thing that comes up that will actually help the middle class. The only thing that they can seem to put forward is tax breaks that primarily benefit wealthy people. The rest of what they do is designed to burden the middle class, and then tell them its all their fault because they don't work hard enough. They are full of bull****. All they care about is the interests of the wealthy. Its socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
 
Back
Top Bottom