• 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
Hate speech does not lead to thoughtful discussion.

The points that I made were thoughtful. Furthermore, on the point in question, he did not note the entire response. As far as I am concerned he was making an excuse.
 
I'd like to see one instance where unregulated capitalism has worked, they can't provide one.

If you define capitalism as free markets then you have to accept that it worked for hundreds of years. And it works very well here in black markets.
 
Not working? Oh come on, it's working better then unregulated capitalism ever did.

Is there any possible way to get you to provide an argument that is backed up by data or reason. I know we are of a generation where are politicians have convinced us that if we say things often enough and loud enough they will become true. But I'm a bit old fashioned.
 
The points that I made were thoughtful. Furthermore, on the point in question, he did not note the entire response. As far as I am concerned he was making an excuse.

It appears you're making an excuse. Maybe its contageous.
 
Is there any possible way to get you to provide an argument that is backed up by data or reason. I know we are of a generation where are politicians have convinced us that if we say things often enough and loud enough they will become true. But I'm a bit old fashioned.

Just look through history before regulations. Hell, capitalism as a whole is a system that inevitably favors a small group of people. I agree with that point about repeating things, but I don't see that happening in regards to this, history shows us what happens, and looking at what capitalism, even when regulated, does.
 
I would ask you to explain that a bit further. To me crony capitalism is when a capitalist engages a politician for mutual benefit, ie the capitalist gets favorable treatment in regulation in return for monetary contributions.

That I won't disagree with. But that's a perversion of the real government roll of regulating capitalism to protect all people's involved. Do you not understand the extent men will go in their pursuit of ever greater profits without some restraining mechanism. Again, we don't have to imagine it. Are you familiar with the plight of the American worker during the advent of the Industrial Age, when there was little or no regulation? Men are not angels. Our constitution and the people's bill of rights is regulation!
 
Is there any possible way to get you to provide an argument that is backed up by data or reason. I know we are of a generation where are politicians have convinced us that if we say things often enough and loud enough they will become true. But I'm a bit old fashioned.

The War between Capital and Labor

Because we live in an age in which workers are protected by federal and state laws as well as by sound business practices, it is hard for us to imagine a time when workers—especially unskilled, often immigrant workers—were completely at the mercy of their employers. (The plight of many illegal immigrant workers today may be comparable; however, without legal status, they have little recourse to assistance in case of unfair practices.) As we mentioned above, before the industrial age factories and workplaces were small enough that the owner knew everyone by name and often worked alongside his or her employees. The age of the modern factory and impersonal management changed all that, and the patent unfairness with which workers were treated became scandalous. For example, if a worker was injured on the job by faulty machinery, there was no mechanism for obtaining compensation. If a worker sued, he or she had to prove that it was not his or her own negligence that caused the accident. It is very difficult to prove a negative in such circumstances.
 
It appears you're making an excuse. Maybe its contageous.

Oh no!!! It was not an excuse at all. And since you have put it like that, you are welcome to take up the cause, if you think you can take it.
 
If you define capitalism as free markets then you have to accept that it worked for hundreds of years. And it works very well here in black markets.

You must think that everybody can be trusted to do the right thing, lol. Why do we have contracts, treaties, verification inspections, OSHA. Dude, the pursuit of profits compromises character and ethics, sorry, it is what it is. It blows my mind that you don't see the need for any regulation or restrictions at all.

Before OSHA, workers health in the work place was constantly compromised. A cabinet shop was a terrible place to work, and lung problems were regular. Business didn't decide to spend the money to address this problem, regulation was put in place requiring a business to install ventilation, vacuum, filtration systems that were quite costly initially, but worker safety, health and productivity increased. Just expand that concept across the board.
 
Last edited:
I was talking about the states. Regulation and intervention isn't bad, every other country does it.

yes... if you mean states, because state government is closer to the people and is always better government, easier to root out corruption, and to structure laws which better serve the people of the state and the community, then government 3000 miles away.

regulations are meant sure rights and to protect the health and safety of the public, and those are the only reasons to have them...regulations are never meant to be used for social engineering of people.
 
yes... if you mean states, because state government is closer to the people and is always better government, easier to root out corruption, and to structure laws which better serve the people of the state and the community, then government 3000 miles away.

regulations are meant sure rights and to protect the health and safety of the public, and those are the only reasons to have them...regulations are never meant to be used for social engineering of people.

State government isn't always a better government, look at our history and "social engineering" how so?
 
State government isn't always a better government, look at our history and "social engineering" how so?

government which is closer to the people is always better government.

government is not here to make you the sort of person they desire, government is here to secure rights, that is governments purpose only.
 
They may be employed but,can they pay back their loans?

They obviously struggle, the minimum wage can't substantiate debt and cost of living.
 
They obviously struggle, the minimum wage can't substantiate debt and cost of living.

That was exactly my point to begin with. A great number can't find employment in their field of study much less a good paying job.
 
government which is closer to the people is always better government.

government is not here to make you the sort of person they desire, government is here to secure rights, that is governments purpose only.

And at least if a state screws up, it only screws things up for the people of that one state and not 49 others. When the federal government screws up, it screws everybody and there is no escape.

And those complaining how Republicans 'hate the middle class' don't seem to realize that the one thing that has hurt the middle class most is more and more power taken by the federal government leaving less and less power to the middle class. The very rich can go elsewhere to advantage themselves and the poor are largely in favor of the federal government forcing the middle class to serve them. And those in government don't seem to notice or care how the middle class is being hurt.

So who hates the middle class most? The Republicans who at least recognize the problem? Or the Democrats who argue to not only keep such a system but to make it bigger and stronger?
 
Not from looking at the normal people that frequent public forums I'm not. If the Democrats in congress are making voting decisions that favor corporate interests over those of the middle class then they're not representing our values.

Good luck exposing those democrats for who they are.Because when we conservatives expose republicans who do not represent conservative values we tend to get called extremists, teabaggers, and other epithets by the liberal media.
 
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?

The middle class should be paying their own way. Only brilliant kids might be given stipends. But why from the government?
 
Good luck exposing those democrats for who they are.Because when we conservatives expose republicans who do not represent conservative values we tend to get called extremists, teabaggers, and other epithets by the liberal media.

If I were to track down the list of every democrat in Congress who voted for NAFTA, who do you expect would call me out as an extremist?
 
And at least if a state screws up, it only screws things up for the people of that one state and not 49 others. When the federal government screws up, it screws everybody and there is no escape.

That is not correct because quite frequently people move across interstate boundaries. If people were confined to the state of their residence what you said would be true. But today especially, because of advances in transportation and communication, what states do have an effect nationwide.

And those complaining how Republicans 'hate the middle class' don't seem to realize that the one thing that has hurt the middle class most is more and more power taken by the federal government leaving less and less power to the middle class.

No that is not true. That is what people like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, and Glenn Beck have fooled people into believing. Now what is true is that the erosion of civil liberties due the policies of the Republican administration of George Bush and continued under Barack Obama have hurt the middle class in terms of civil liberties, but that is a different matter than economically speaking.

The very rich can go elsewhere to advantage themselves and the poor are largely in favor of the federal government forcing the middle class to serve them.

The poor can't force anyone to do anything in this country. That is a very inaccurate statement.

So who hates the middle class most? The Republicans who at least recognize the problem? Or the Democrats who argue to not only keep such a system but to make it bigger and stronger?

Republicans have brainwashed people into believing that, but in reality, their policies have been hostile to middle class interests.
 
So you don't think regulated capitalism can be a benefit to everyone?

This is the type of thing I am talking about. Even when its regulated it ends up with the wealthy having so much power that they can make people believe this

the poor are largely in favor of the federal government forcing the middle class to serve them.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/220088-republicans-against-helping-middle-class-35.html#post1064468378

That is dangerous.
 
That's the beauty of capitalism, it inevitably favors the wealthy.

That is too much power to have. What that example illustrates is how the wealthy have been able to demonize the poor in the minds of the middle class to distract their attention from the fact that the wealthy are actually working them to death and giving them very little in return relative to the benefits that the wealthy are getting from their labor. It is truly remarkable.
 
Back
Top Bottom