• 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
marsden said:
What liberals fail to understand is that the Right wants people from ALL classes to have the opportunity to BECOME rich.

That's part of the American dream.

But the Obama administration seems to want everybdy to be equal. Equally miserable in a lukewarm pile of economic manure called government assistance.

America was not built on the Obama model or the Left wing model or the Progressive model. It was built on the Conservative model.
Click to expand...

If everyone became at least independent and able to pay their own way, the dem party would cease to exist

those sucking on the public teat would no longer have any voting power and those who get rich by using the teat suckers as an argument for democrat party income redistribution would have no "facts" to support their socialism
 
marsden said:
Is there really anyone who believes the Liberals, Progressives or Dems do things without expectation of SOME reward or benefit?

Are there really people who believe there aren't super rich decision makers at the top of both parties and that this hasn't been so for years and years and years?


The bottom line is that your post reflects a steretypical view of things that has been promulgated by the Dems to manipulate you into giving them more power.

They are treating you like a mindless sheeple.
Click to expand...


Like most conservatives you make assumptions based on what you think...and most times your totally wrong of course like you are this time.

I was a registered republican for 43 yrs and voted STRAIGHT GOP all those years up to and including voting for McCain/Palin..I did not vote for Obama.
I am now a registered Independent....what made me change ? The Attacks on Public Workers by Republican Govs for one...Paul Ryan for another...and lastly the overly disgusting teaparty and thier bs rhetoric that the poor rich are downtrodden and being abused by a working class who wants to much waaaaaaa and all the people that dont have anything....we need tax cuts because weve gotten fabulously richer while we stripped the middleclass of health benes and pensions so we could have mOAR and mOAR and we want mOAR...the gop has gone so far to the right...I want nothing to do with them and I will punish them till I take my last breath because of what they are trying to do to the working man..
 
gmeyers1944 said:
You have been watching too much liberal media. ( like MSNBC)
Click to expand...

You are obviously a clueless conservative that has cracked watching too much foxnews
 
lpast said:
Like most conservatives you make assumptions based on what you think...and most times your totally wrong of course like you are this time.

I was a registered republican for 43 yrs and voted STRAIGHT GOP all those years up to and including voting for McCain/Palin..I did not vote for Obama.
I am now a registered Independent....what made me change ? The Attacks on Public Workers by Republican Govs for one...Paul Ryan for another...and lastly the overly disgusting teaparty and thier bs rhetoric that the poor rich are downtrodden and being abused by a working class who wants to much waaaaaaa and all the people that dont have anything....we need tax cuts because weve gotten fabulously richer while we stripped the middleclass of health benes and pensions so we could have mOAR and mOAR and we want mOAR...the gop has gone so far to the right...I want nothing to do with them and I will punish them till I take my last breath because of what they are trying to do to the working man..
Click to expand...


yeah it appears they correctly noted that the public sector unionistas were sucking up too much money from the taxpayers. tax cuts don't cost the middle class anything. It merely means the rich elite dems have less money to buy the votes of the envious
 
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...

Libertarians are the only ones who truly favor the middle class. In a true Libertopia, there would be no corrupt cronyism to favor an ultrarich oligarchy or suppress the poor underclass. In a true Libertopia, everybody would naturally fall someplace between lower middle and upper middle. Libertarianism is the only system that permits the free market and a free market is the only means of achieving equality.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Libertarians are the only ones who truly favor the middle class. In a true Libertopia, there would be no corrupt cronyism to favor an ultrarich oligarchy or suppress the poor underclass. In a true Libertopia, everybody would naturally fall someplace between lower middle and upper middle. Libertarianism is the only system that permits the free market and a free market is the only means of achieving equality.
Click to expand...

in a free society the wealth disparity would be even greater than it is now. There would be no income redistribution to steal wealth from the most talented. There would be no death tax either
 
The left believe in class division. The right believe in equal opportunity for all.

I think the right-wing philosophy is better for the middle class because it gives them the opportunity to get wealthier. The right wants to lower their taxes and grow the economic pie for everyone who is willing to work hard, whereas the left wants to take from the middle class and from the wealthy to empower government.

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...
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah it appears they correctly noted that the public sector unionistas were sucking up too much money from the taxpayers. tax cuts don't cost the middle class anything. It merely means the rich elite dems have less money to buy the votes of the envious
Click to expand...

Nah thing is you cant use volunteers in lieu of PAYING WORKERS when your a pig sucking profits from people because they MUST HAVE ELECTRICITY...see got it yet...understand and oh btw no one wants to be you turtle no one...:)
 
TurtleDude said:
in a free society the wealth disparity would be even greater than it is now. There would be no income redistribution to steal wealth from the most talented. There would be no death tax either
Click to expand...

Hardly. The wealth pools at the top in the current crony capitalist economy in an entirely unnatural way due to the corrupt use of government to serve the needs of the business elite. A true libertarian economy, like medieval Iceland for example, favors income equality.

These are things you learn to understand when you study libertarianism academically instead of going about it in a slipshod, unthinking, half-republican sort of way.:thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Jonsa said:
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?
Click to expand...
Part of the right to self determination is the ability to fail, and hopefully learn from that failure.
Are we smart enough to decide we need health insurance? no mandate it.
Can you decide how much salt to put in your food? clearly not restrict it.
Can you raise your children the way you would like? heaven forbid no!
Both sides, left and right restrict freedoms, and both justify it, loss of freedom is wrong ether way.
 
In reality neither one, but on a rare occasion that something actually happens it is more likely to come from the left than the right.
 
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...

"Left" and "Right" aren't parties. They are positions on a political spectrum.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you really that oblivious as to the foundational nature of the damage an indeological mindset can do, one of either wing?

Those so suffering are often unaware ...

Perhaps this may be of help: The Anti-American Forces That Are Killing America
 
Surtr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning is flawed. FDR & JFK are widely reported to have cared deeply about the poor and middle class but both were wealthy. Mitt Romney is a kind, compassionate, generous man who is widely known by those who have bothered to find out (by ignoring the cartoonish descriptions told about him by his political rivals) cares very much for his fellow man, poor, middle class and rich. But he cares without regard for their income. Those of you who believe the Axelrod created narrative about Romney are merely his tools.

By the way, you do know about Axelrod's Communist background, right?
 
Neither side of the politician group gives a flying **** about the lower or middle classes. They might give a small turd about the upper class, if only because most of them are members of such. And because they pay well.


Individual people might care, but overall...nope.

Now, if we’re talking a general ideology here, as in “left of center” or “right of center”, I think both ideologies care about the same, it’s just the more or less opposing sides have different ideas about what is best for you – and since in many cases those ideas are in direct conflict with each other, well…
 
Jonsa said:
"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.

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


Really? well thank you for the feedback, but I think I'll keep them.
Click to expand...

Stay just the way you are, pal.
 
The Mark said:
Neither side of the politician group gives a flying **** about the lower or middle classes. They might give a small turd about the upper class, if only because most of them are members of such. And because they pay well.

Individual people might care, but overall...nope.

Now, if we’re talking a general ideology here, as in “left of center” or “right of center”, I think both ideologies care about the same, it’s just the more or less opposing sides have different ideas about what is best for you – and since in many cases those ideas are in direct conflict with each other, well…
Click to expand...

Your post is like the second or third I've seen in this thread which seems to wear confusion as a chic fashion statement. Both sides are not the same in their value or effect on society. Both sides views and policies and programs don't just cancel each other out and leave behind a neutral result.

One side is better than the other and you have to be smarter than your friends and family if necessary...you have to be smarter than your co-workers, classmates and cultural icons and you have to be smarter than those courting your vote, your disposable income and your viewership. You have to be smart enough to figure out which side that is.

We can't take another four years of this.

One side IS better than the other.
 
The Right. It's a no brainer. The Left cares only about sticking it to wealthy Conservatives.
 
lpast said:
Nah thing is you cant use volunteers in lieu of PAYING WORKERS when your a pig sucking profits from people because they MUST HAVE ELECTRICITY...see got it yet...understand and oh btw no one wants to be you turtle no one...:)
Click to expand...

massive psychobabble alert
 
Guy Incognito said:
Hardly. The wealth pools at the top in the current crony capitalist economy in an entirely unnatural way due to the corrupt use of government to serve the needs of the business elite. A true libertarian economy, like medieval Iceland for example, favors income equality.

These are things you learn to understand when you study libertarianism academically instead of going about it in a slipshod, unthinking, half-republican sort of way.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I have yet to see anything in your posts that really demonstrate that you can teach real libertarians about the philosophy. Most libertarians on this forum have constantly taken your posts to task for being faux-libertarian positions or downright contradictory to the philosophy
 
Dooble said:
The Right. It's a no brainer. The Left cares only about sticking it to wealthy Conservatives.
Click to expand...

the left believes in keeping the masses in poverty and dependent on rich elites who are rich through government rather than by creating anything of value
 
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...

It is only a threat if people like you fail to recognize how morally bankrupt and unworkable it is and how unfair it is to those not in the ruling class. It doesn't take human nature into consideration and doesn't value the freedoms you obviously take for granted. Communist govenments are responsible for more than 100 Million deaths in the 20th Century. That's more than Hitler killed.


When you take a casual view of Communism you help pave the way for others to try to make it popular.

It's like introducing a very small amount of poison into someone's food thinking it can't hurt anything.
 
marsden said:
Your post is like the second or third I've seen in this thread which seems to wear confusion as a chic fashion statement. Both sides are not the same in their value or effect on society. Both sides views and policies and programs don't just cancel each other out and leave behind a neutral result.

One side is better than the other and you have to be smarter than your friends and family if necessary...you have to be smarter than your co-workers, classmates and cultural icons and you have to be smarter than those courting your vote, your disposable income and your viewership. You have to be smart enough to figure out which side that is.

We can't take another four years of this.

One side IS better than the other.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they canceled each other out - what I meant was that each side has its own ideas, and in many cases the two side's ideas about a given issue conflict.

One side MAY be right. But the question is....which one? Personally I lean towards the right when it comes to fiscal issues, but to the left when it comes to social issues. Of course some issues are both social AND fiscal, and in those cases I usually give the fiscal aspect more weight.
 
Jonsa said:
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.

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?
Click to expand...

As I said in a previous post, he says he took those dreams as his own. And he also says when he went to college he actively and exclusively sought the companionship and counsel of Communists and revolutionaries. Why? Because he felt a kinship with them. A kinship based on a similarity between his ideas and their ideas. We choose our friends and associates based on what we have in common.

His mother left Barack senior because he wasn't sufficiently radical. His grandparents chose as a mentor to young Barack a card carrying Communist, Frank Marshall Davis. So, it's natural he'd find Communists to associate with.

It's not guilt by association. He actively espoused the same dreams as his father.
 
Last edited:
What were his father’s dreams? Obama’s dad left Hawaii to do graduate work at Harvard University and then took his book learning back to Africa. In 1963 he wrote an article for the East Africa Journal called “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” where he made the case that high taxes are morally and practically good if the government uses them to provide for the people.

And how high could tax rates rise? “Theoretically,” he wrote, “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 percent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”

That is not a typographical error. President Obama’s father, whose dreams he adopted, argued in a scholarly journal that a 100 percent tax rate could actually work.
Click to expand...

Reality Check vs. Fact Check - Lee Habeeb - National Review Online
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom