• 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
It takes some real guts to finally admit this.

I don't know man. Sometimes I think you guys are right. Maybe human greed makes it such that humans can't handle capitalism. People with money will just use that power to misuse the lower classes.

What a shame.
 
I don't know man. Sometimes I think you guys are right. Maybe human greed makes it such that humans can't handle capitalism. People with money will just use that power to misuse the lower classes.

What a shame.

Humans can handle capitalism. But because men aren't angels, it must have restrictions and regulation, otherwise it naturally becomes predatory. And it's the restriction and regulation that the pro corporate GOP opposes.
 
Humans can handle capitalism. But because men aren't angels, it must have restrictions and regulation, otherwise it naturally becomes predatory. And it's the restriction and regulation that the pro corporate GOP opposes.

I absolutely agree, Im all for democratic socialism, although if the current system must stand, it needs what you've said.
 
I absolutely agree, Im all for democratic socialism, although if the current system must stand, it needs what you've said.

As the saying goes, democratic socialism is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
 
As the saying goes, democratic socialism is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

That's actually the description of unregulated capitalism.
 
What? You want to burden student loan consumers, but you don't want the wealthy to be encumbered? What kind of **** is that? Sounds like just what I said, Republicans are against the middle class and for the wealthy.

I can see how you would believe that, what with all of your flamingly biased rhetoric aimed at Republicans. But think about this - had Sen. Warren really wanted interest relief for students, she wouldn't have hitched that horse to the "double the taxes on the wealthy" wagon. It would have been it's own standalone provision. Interest makes the government money, but it doesn't cost the government anything to lower the rate. Wouldn't it be a better idea to divorce the two - student loans and income generation - from each other within the government?

Her offer wasn't a real offer, nor more than if I offer to cut your grass for you one time, so long as you paint my house and repave my driveway first.

What in the hell do you mean paid for with what? Paid for with the same damn money that has been spent towards the Republican rat hole that is Iraq.

Uh, Iraq is over. Perhaps you haven't heard. And I don't see that money magically appearing anywhere else with the stroke of a pen. It's already eaten up by other programs. Not only was the cost of the war a very sore point for many Republicans (and especially those libertarians who trend Republican during elections), but I didn't hear Democrats complaining about it at the time, either, nor for the first few years of solid Democrat rule when there wasn't even a budget.

The university system in the US is dependent upon four year attendance; the community college system supplements the universities by way of filling in capacity for the traditional underclassmen who don't return to the third and fourth year of their educations. If you were to remove first and second year students from universities, you would instantaneously overpopulate the community college system (dramatically driving up costs, paid for now with taxes) and cause massive unemployment and cost overruns at public universities.

Sounds great. I bet the middle class would just LOVE a higher tax bill coupled to rampant unemployment in small university towns.

Study after study my ass.

EconPapers: Unemployment insurance and the distribution of unemployment spells
The Impact of the Potential Duration of Unemployment Benefits on the Duration of Unemployment
http://people.virginia.edu/~sns5r/classes/grad/econ871stf/meyer.pdf
http://www.nber.org/feldstein/aeajan8.pdf

The average length of unemployment increases commensurate to an increase in UI benefits. There is also a pronounced spike in rehiring of UI benefit claimants upon the termination of their benefits, i.e. their job search suddenly becomes more fruitful when benefits are about to expire.

Imagine that.

The only thing that you have done is posted a bunch of stupid nonsense that demonstrates a profound inability to see what is actually happening. Republicans are screwing the middle class and are merely using them to create more wealth for the rich. If you can't see that you are blind.

Your ad hominem style of argument doesn't actually address the issues. I am not surprised.

Yes it would be nice if they did come up with some plans of their own. Why can't they? Because they have a hostility towards the middle class and want to use them to create more wealth for the wealthy. There isn't a damn thing bad about letting student loan customers refinance their loans. It's bad if you are a Republican that hates the middle class.

You are confusing the reluctance to adopt bad ideas with hostility for the class the ideas are allegedly trying to help.

If you can get over this whole us-vs-them mentality and actually examine what people are saying, perhaps you wouldn't come across like one of the bleating sheep Republicans and Democrats so love complaining about.
 
As the saying goes, democratic socialism is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Really now? Sounds like unregulated capitalism and the glorious "free market" I'll just look at countries adhering to systems of democratic socialism and there booming economies, less debt, jobs, wages, healthcare, QOL.:
 
No, and here's why

1. Republicans are on record for opposing letting student loan consumers refinance their debt
2. Republicans are against Obama's free community college proposal
3. Republicans were against extending unemployment benefits to workers struggling from the effects of the recession

Here, Republicans have said no, no, no to things that would help the middle class.

Now one might wonder with all that negativity what are for. Well here is what they are for

1. Republicans championed letting creditors and big banks garnish wages.

So they have been against things to help the middle class, and all they can be for is garnishing wages by big banks. It is quite a pattern. And it is a pattern that strongly suggests that Republicans are hostile to middle class interests.

While I agree that elected, appointed, and hired members of both parties are far more interested in their own prestige, power, influence, and personal wealth than they care about any of us, and pretty much everything they do is in their own self interests, I disagree that the Republicans are hostile to middle class interests. At least they represent the middle class and do try to throw it a bone now and then while the Democrats depend on special interests--minorities, the 'poor', the unions, the protected groups, the activist groups, those who make their living in government, etc.--to keep them in power. And everything the Democrats do, and some of what the Republicans do, to benefit their constituency is another blow to the gut for those in the middle class.

The national debt clock passed 18 trillion in December and continues to grow by hundreds of millions every single day. THAT is the most damning thing happening to the middle class. And the party pushing for more and more spending is not the Republicans.
 
That's actually the description of unregulated capitalism.

You're saying unregulated capitalism results in a majority of the population being part of the powerful elite?
 
While I agree that elected, appointed, and hired members of both parties are far more interested in their own prestige, power, influence, and personal wealth than they care about any of us, and pretty much everything they do is in their own self interests, I disagree that the Republicans are hostile to middle class interests. At least they represent the middle class and do try to throw it a bone now and then while the Democrats depend on special interests--minorities, the 'poor', the unions, the protected groups, the activist groups etc.--to keep them in power. And everything the Democrats do, and some of what the Republicans do, to benefit their constituency is another blow to the gut for those in the middle class.

The national debt clock passed 18 trillion in December and continues to grow by hundreds of millions every single day. THAT is the most damning thing happening to the middle class. And the party pushing for more and more spending is not the Republicans.

The national debt has been exponentially increasing for decades... :roll: Also, what "bones" are they throwing, and democrats are helping more, whether you want to deny it or not. What do you think republicans want to cut? You think they want to Lower taxes on the middle and lower classes? Help disabled workers?
 
Last edited:
You're saying unregulated capitalism results in a majority of the population being part of the powerful elite?

When did he state that? Unregulated capitalism results in a tiny group holding almost all of the wealth while the others struggle.
 
When did he state that? Unregulated capitalism results in a tiny group holding almost all of the wealth while the others struggle.

Wolves represent the powerful, don't they? And in the allegorical scenario (originally constructed as a poke at unlimited democracy) there are more of the powerful wolves than the weak sheep.

I suppose if you wanted to craft an anti-capitalistic metaphor, it would have to involve two wolves voting on how to divide up the millions upon millions of sheep between themselves. You know, if you wanted to take the straw man approach to capitalism, that is.
 
The national debt has been exponentially increasing for decades... :roll: Also, what "bones" are they throwing, and democrats are helping more, whether you want to deny it or not. What do you think republicans want to cut? You think they want to Lower taxes on the middle and lower classes? Help disabled workers?

I think if the middle class had enough votes to make a difference, we would have a balanced budget, we would be paying down the debt instead of increasing it by hundreds of millions every single day, there wouldn't be 17+ million able bodied Americans out of the labor force, there would be far fewer part time jobs and more good jobs for those who want there, and Americans would be in charge of their own lives again instead of being micromanaged by a huge, bloated, government that doesn't manage things very well while it continues to absorb more and more of the nation's resources.

And again it is the Republicans who mostly represent that middle class. There just aren't enough of the middle class left to overcome the demand for more and more and more from those the Democrats represent.
 
Wolves represent the powerful, don't they? And in the allegorical scenario (originally constructed as a poke at unlimited democracy) there are more of the powerful wolves than the weak sheep.

I suppose if you wanted to craft an anti-capitalistic metaphor, it would have to involve two wolves voting on how to divide up the millions upon millions of sheep between themselves. You know, if you wanted to take the straw man approach to capitalism, that is.

Capitalism as it stands right now follows what I just stated, and continues to go that way, regulation helps to stem that. I fundamentally disagree with capitalism, but it is not realistic to implement an alternative as of now, so I support regulation.
 
When did he state that? Unregulated capitalism results in a tiny group holding almost all of the wealth while the others struggle.

What would give you that impression?
 
I think if the middle class had enough votes to make a difference, we would have a balanced budget, we would be paying down the debt instead of increasing it by hundreds of millions every single day, there wouldn't be 17+ million able bodied Americans out of the labor force, there would be far fewer part time jobs and more good jobs for those who want there, and Americans would be in charge of their own lives again instead of being micromanaged by a huge, bloated, government that doesn't manage things very well while it continues to absorb more and more of the nation's resources.

And again it is the Republicans who mostly represent that middle class. There just aren't enough of the middle class left to overcome the demand for more and more and more from those the Democrats represent.

Voter turnout is poor, if they want to make a difference, they all need to vote, I certainly do. Yes, good luck balancing the budget by gutting almost every social program, we have a debt based country now, it's not going away realistically, and saying middle class voters would someone change all of this is hilarious. 17+ million able bodied Americans out of the work force, where did you get this from? Does it include disability? Teenagers? Ah, private businesses control if jobs are part time or not, not the government, more good jobs? Jobs are there, they just don't pay a livable wage, if you want to get more americans working and stop the minority on social programs from "leeching" maybe paying them a livable wage is a start like it used to be. Republicans don't represent the middle class on what they're doing, maybe voters think they do, but that's their problem.
 
Capitalism as it stands right now follows what I just stated, and continues to go that way, regulation helps to stem that. I fundamentally disagree with capitalism, but it is not realistic to implement an alternative as of now, so I support regulation.

I follow a Hayek-Mises-Friedman inspired libertarian bent toward economics, but I still believe in regulation.

The type and amount of regulation, however, is what I sometimes have a problem with. The purpose of any proposed regulation should be scrutinized under a microscope, and any sense of "moral purpose" should be kept out that does not directly deal with safety and overall system stability.
 
What would give you that impression?


Come on, any capitalist society has the small percent with the most wealth gain more and more while those below don't benefit without some sort of regulation.
 
Voter turnout is poor, if they want to make a difference, they all need to vote, I certainly do. Yes, good luck balancing the budget by gutting almost every social program, we have a debt based country now, it's not going away realistically, and saying middle class voters would someone change all of this is hilarious. 17+ million able bodied Americans out of the work force, where did you get this from? Does it include disability? Teenagers? Ah, private businesses control if jobs are part time or not, not the government, more good jobs? Jobs are there, they just don't pay a livable wage, if you want to get more americans working and stop the minority on social programs from "leeching" maybe paying them a livable wage is a start like it used to be. Republicans don't represent the middle class on what they're doing, maybe voters think they do, but that's their problem.

The 17+ million is the actual unemployment number--able bodied people who would be in the workforce if they could find jobs. The number is out there and it doesn't take a lot of research skills to find a lot of confirmation of that number and a lot of discussions about it.

And if the Republicans don't represent the middle class then nobody does because the Democrats have been doing their damndest to destroy it and make everybody dependent on government for a very long time now.

Just look at your posts. Every one suggests the Republicans 'hate the middle class' because they don't want to spend more and more money that we don't have--money that same middle class has to pay and will be saddled with debt for unto generations to come. That 18+ trillion dollar debt represents about $56,000+ for every man, woman, and child in American--over $160,000 per household. How much in taxes does it take to just pay the interest on that debt do you think? How long can any nation sustain such a debt?

Stopping unnecessary government spending and allowing the middle class to profit more from what they earn is the best and only way to realistically help the middle class. I'm not seeing any Democrats suggesting that.
 
Last edited:
I follow a Hayek-Mises-Friedman inspired libertarian bent toward economics, but I still believe in regulation.

The type and amount of regulation, however, is what I sometimes have a problem with. The purpose of any proposed regulation should be scrutinized under a microscope, and any sense of "moral purpose" should be kept out that does not directly deal with safety and overall system stability.

Ok, what regulation do you have a problem with?
 
Come on, any capitalist society has the small percent with the most wealth gain more and more while those below don't benefit without some sort of regulation.

What in the world does that have to do with unregulated capitalism?
 
The 17 million is the actual unemployment rate--able bodied people who would be in the workforce if they could find jobs. The number is out there and it doesn't take a lot of research skills to find a lot of confirmation of that number and a lot of discussions about it.

And if the Republicans don't represent the middle class then nobody does because the Democrats have been doing their damndest to destroy it and make everybody dependent on government for a very long time now.

More fear mongering statements coupled with paranoia.'
Wait, hold on, 17 million?
Employment Situation Summary
What have democrats been doing to destroy it? Republicans don't want tax cuts for the middle class, cheaper college... :roll:
 
What in the world does that have to do with unregulated capitalism?

It shows what happens when capitalism has no regulation to little regulation, there is literally no denying this.
 
It shows what happens when capitalism has no regulation to little regulation, there is literally no denying this.

No, it doesn't. Nothing about America is unregulated. Well, unless the product is brand new, but even then most likely it still falls under a few regulations.
 
Back
Top Bottom