• 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
No. That would be crazy, who thinks that. I illustrated that without fences, capital hurts labor!

You would create systems that protect labor from business while hurting business by making it almost impossible to fire an employee who doesn't meet standards. This works better if employees seek employment where they are treated better and businesses compete for the best employees. As it is too many employees stay in what I call "trap jobs" that they don't like and will never be good at because the job offers "security."
 
No. I don't think that anybody can be trusted. Which is why there should be term limits, and non partisan scrutiny. Now there's the rub, but if we could just get Americans to love America first and their party second, that could indeed be repaired. I do however realize that that's a heavy lift.

I definitely agree that too many and maybe most are too loyal to their political party.
 
why do you hate the troops?

I don't see any hate of anybody embodied in my posts. My factual observation that people serve a self interest is not hate, its real. And I would bet that I've spent more time entertaining, feeding, greeting and thanking troops than you or most people ever will.
 
I don't see any hate of anybody embodied in my posts. My factual observation that people serve a self interest is not hate, its real. And I would bet that I've spent more time entertaining, feeding, greeting and thanking troops than you or most people ever will.



Why would you spend time thanking and helping people you distrust?

So you think troops serve for their self interest?

Also you canstick your assumptions.
 
For them? Hmmm

Do you have a source to support that claim?

Hmmm. Well considering that I have NEVER been offered a paying job by a poor person, and every really good job I've ever had in the private sector was provided by somebody who was pretty rich, and it was having those jobs that helped me move into the middle class, I would say rich Republicans help the middle class as much or more than anybody else does. How do you think it would benefit the middle class if we make it unwise or unprofitable for the wealthy Republicans to offer those jobs? Who do you think would pick up the slack and hire all those people?

And isn't that enough reason to think it is a good thing that we have some rich people?
 
All good points. I think a lot of what we are facing is because we have become more of a global community these days, and we are on the end of the stick that has billions of people on the other side. Even the poorest among us are considered wealthy by the rest of the world. It appears that a one-world-government is what some envision as a solution, where everyone has the same advantages. This would raise the standard of living for most on the "other side of the stick," but it would certainly lower ours, because we have set the goal posts as the standard since the end of WW2. Why would anyone be surprised that so many want to live like we do, and immigrate here to enjoy the lifestyle we do? The problem as I see it is that many have not had the background to build on that we have had, and continue to have the same type of thinking that they had in the country they left - "our streets are paved with gold, and it's easy to become wealthy here." That's not true, or we would not have 50 million people on food-stamps here. I don't know what the solution is, but our standard of living is being lowered, slowly but surely, and lots of people here don't know how to deal with living from paycheck to paycheck yet. If that's our future, it looks bleak, IMO.

I don't know who it was, but someone sold Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher on this idea that they could ship manufacturing jobs overseas and create this services based economy. I think you are right, the result is going to be a decline in living standards here until equilibrium is reached with those places to which the jobs have been exported. It used to be the middle class was sustained by a robust manufacturing sector. It's going to be very hard to sustain that class with waiters and burger flippers.
 
What you are asking for is more free handouts. People already retire on liberal handouts.

Really? Where can I get my liberal handout so that I can retire?

Then you want loan forgiveness if a person looses a job. Good one all I have to do it get myself laid off and my debt goes away.

WOW! What is a good one is the tall tale that you just told. You would be good to go camping with. Everyone could gather round the campfire at night and listen to your tall tales! :lamo

It would not possible for workers to have a job unless others took risk with their own capital to start a business that they have in some cases their life savings invested.

It would not be possible for the wealthy to make money if there were not workers to do the work and consumers to buy the products. Remember that. You are a hen philosopher. There was this man who had a hen. So he philosophized that the head was eating and costing him money, but the rear end was making him money because it laid eggs. His philosophy led him to the conclusion that he should cut off the head, but keep the rear end. That is what you are like, a hen philosopher.
 
You would create systems that protect labor from business while hurting business by making it almost impossible to fire an employee who doesn't meet standards. This works better if employees seek employment where they are treated better and businesses compete for the best employees. As it is too many employees stay in what I call "trap jobs" that they don't like and will never be good at because the job offers "security."

Dude, do you want a garment factory with 100 employees working on the fifth floor to have a single exit down a long hallway to a three foot wide stairwell. Are you in favor of health inspectors checking the restaurant kitchen to make sure expired food isn't being served, that the water is hot enough in the dishwasher. I could point you to examples all day, point is, you don't know it, but you do not want to live in a society that does not regulate and monitor business.
 
You claim that this "refinance" program "doesn't cost a damn thing". Apparently Warren doesn't agree with you. She proposed to pay for the program by imposing a 30% minimum tax on a certain group of high income earners. Why would we need a new tax to pay for something that will not cost a damn thing? Your original link cites this new tax as the sticky point.

There is no cost because if a person pays back what they borrowed, they have fulfilled their obligation. For the zillionth time, the purpose of the loans are to facilitate education, not make the government money.

Your thread title concerns Repubs not caring about the middle class. Past your first post, there is little mention of middle class, but instead student loans. Which AFAIK are not wholly a middle class problem, but encompass all income groups.

Being able to refinance student loan debt at lower interest rates would help the middle class. It is not a problem for the wealthy. For everyone else it would help, including the middle class. It is very simple to understand.

Now, 400 posts later, it appears that the real problem might be a personal problem, i.e. a loan you don't want to pay back at the initial terms for whatever reason.

No, the real problem is why you have a need to manufacture this problem of a loan that I don't want to pay back. I have demonstrated why you don't know what you are talking about, but you persist anyway. That is a problem on your part, not mine.

Again, the government is not stopping you from refinancing your loan, any loan. You refer to home mortages, which can and do get refinanced, but no one is asking the government to step in and reduce the interest rate, or increase the terms.

And again the government should have a program that allows student loan consumers to refinance their debt at lower rates. The government is making the loans now, as such they can provide a program to refinance them, especially when the interest rates that they charge are more than the rate at which they borrow. Some have more than a six percent spread.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm. Well considering that I have NEVER been offered a paying job by a poor person, and every really good job I've ever had in the private sector was provided by somebody who was pretty rich, and it was having those jobs that helped me move into the middle class, I would say rich Republicans help the middle class as much or more than anybody else does. How do you think it would benefit the middle class if we make it unwise or unprofitable for the wealthy Republicans to offer those jobs? Who do you think would pick up the slack and hire all those people?

And isn't that enough reason to think it is a good thing that we have some rich people?

Well me I have never been offered a job by a rich person. The job offers that I got were from middle class people working for large corporations.
 
Well me I have never been offered a job by a rich person. The job offers that I got were from middle class people working for large corporations.

I see. And whose money would it be that provided your pay check? Were they taking your salary out of their salaries? Or did your salary come out of the profits of the owners of those large corporations? In short was it the person working for the corporation that made your job possible. Or was that person acting on behalf of the people who did?
 
I see. And whose money would it be that provided your pay check? Were they taking your salary out of their salaries? Or did your salary come out of the profits of the owners of those large corporations? In short was it the person working for the corporation that made your job possible. Or was that person acting on behalf of the people who did?

And the point that you are missing madame is that somebody has to do the work. There would be no rich people if there were not people to do the work and people to buy the products. Don't tell me you are a hen philosopher too. Tell me it ain't so.
 
And the point that you are missing madame is that somebody has to do the work. There would be no rich people if there were not people to do the work and people to buy the products. Don't tell me you are a hen philosopher too. Tell me it ain't so.

Indubitably!

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Abraham Lincoln
 
Really? Where can I get my liberal handout so that I can retire?

With unlimited unemployment insurance

It would not be possible for the wealthy to make money if there were not workers to do the work and consumers to buy the products. Remember that.

Think hard about what you just said.

It would not be possible for the wealthy to make money if their were not workers to do the work. Where in the hell did you ever get that revelation? I agree with your statement is there was no people on this planet. That is how you far leftist think. The trouble is there are people on this planet and the planet is full of people that want to work and those workers are also consumers. DUH

What you refuse to realize, not all people are alike, there are entrepreneurs and worker bees. And they both need each other, however the worker bees don't have the intelligence or work ethic to save money and then risk it to start a business, wich could fail and they loose all they invested and the worker bees then go and find another job, leaving the entrepreneur broke.

You are a hen philosopher. There was this man who had a hen. So he philosophized that the head was eating and costing him money, but the rear end was making him money because it laid eggs. His philosophy led him to the conclusion that he should cut off the head, but keep the rear end. That is what you are like, a hen philosopher.[/QUOTE]

With a stupid analogy such that you have no idea how an economy works.
 
And the point that you are missing madame is that somebody has to do the work. There would be no rich people if there were not people to do the work and people to buy the products. Don't tell me you are a hen philosopher too. Tell me it ain't so.

I didn't miss the point at all, sir. The point is that the middle class needs jobs and they won't have them if there aren't people rich enough to need to hire people to work. It's a two way street. The rich aren't doing you any favor giving you a job--he or she needs the labor. And you aren't doing the rich any favor by working for him or her because you need the job. So the worker and the employer form a contract in which one provides the labor and the other provides the compensation the employee needs. It's a pretty nifty system. And I believe most smart people understand how the system works to the advantage of the middle class and those smart people would include a lot of Republicans. I'm not so sure about some others these days though..
 
I didn't miss the point at all, sir. The point is that the middle class needs jobs and they won't have them if there aren't people rich enough to need to hire people to work. It's a two way street. The rich aren't doing you any favor giving you a job--he or she needs the labor. And you aren't doing the rich any favor by working for him or her because you need the job. So the worker and the employer form a contract in which one provides the labor and the other provides the compensation the employee needs. It's a pretty nifty system. And I believe most smart people understand how the system works to the advantage of the middle class and those smart people would include a lot of Republicans. I'm not so sure about some others these days though..

how in the hell did you come to that conclusion?
Open thread for night owls: Stagnant inflation-adjusted median household income slips in July
A Depressing Look At Income Growth Compared To Health Care And College Cost - Business Insider
Middle Class Jobs, Income Quickly Disappearing (INFOGRAPHIC)


household-income-monthly-median-since-2000.gif


MiddleClass_6.png


chart.gif
 
With unlimited unemployment insurance

I could not retire on that pittance. I want a LIBERAL retirement.

Think hard about what you just said.

It would not be possible for the wealthy to make money if their were not workers to do the work. Where in the hell did you ever get that revelation? I agree with your statement is there was no people on this planet. That is how you far leftist think. The trouble is there are people on this planet and the planet is full of people that want to work and those workers are also consumers.

Like I said, the philosophy of the hen.
 
I didn't miss the point at all, sir. The point is that the middle class needs jobs and they won't have them if there aren't people rich enough to need to hire people to work. It's a two way street. The rich aren't doing you any favor giving you a job--he or she needs the labor. And you aren't doing the rich any favor by working for him or her because you need the job. So the worker and the employer form a contract in which one provides the labor and the other provides the compensation the employee needs. It's a pretty nifty system. And I believe most smart people understand how the system works to the advantage of the middle class and those smart people would include a lot of Republicans. I'm not so sure about some others these days though..

If you understand the point that the rich need and are supported by the middle class then you should understand that the interests of the middle class should also be prioritized and that it is not that you give everything to the wealthy and allow them to trickle down as little as possible.
 
I didn't miss the point at all, sir. The point is that the middle class needs jobs and they won't have them if there aren't people rich enough to need to hire people to work. It's a two way street. The rich aren't doing you any favor giving you a job--he or she needs the labor. And you aren't doing the rich any favor by working for him or her because you need the job. So the worker and the employer form a contract in which one provides the labor and the other provides the compensation the employee needs. It's a pretty nifty system. And I believe most smart people understand how the system works to the advantage of the middle class and those smart people would include a lot of Republicans. I'm not so sure about some others these days though..

That system worked to the advantage of the middle class, only after the New Deal, and the stiff regulation on business and commerce enacted by FDR, which protected the working class, and produced a middle class that (as already demonstrated to you) thrived under those conditions, through the 1970's, until those gains began to reverse with Reagan's deregulation.
 
No. Same goal, different methods of reaching it.
 
If you understand the point that the rich need and are supported by the middle class then you should understand that the interests of the middle class should also be prioritized and that it is not that you give everything to the wealthy and allow them to trickle down as little as possible.

If you understood the point that the middle class need and are supported by the risk taking entrepreneurs, etc. then you should understand that the interest of the entrepreneurs should also be prioritized. They are the ones that create innovation and rick taking to create jobs. This is not that hard to understand
 
Back
Top Bottom