• 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
Of course, that doesn't actually happen nearly as often as you guys claim. But hey, cool story.

Happens quite often...especially as elections approach.
 
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?

Are democrats against helping the middle class? Because the national Democratic Party is blocking legislation to increase timber harvesting, which would employ many people in rural towns across the country, they've blocked construction projects like the keystone pipeline, and are now trying to block the shell drilling fleet from basing in the port of seattle.

So they're really not much better.
And it's clear what it's about anyway, warren wants to court college voters for a 2016 run. It's not about truly helping them. There's more college students then loggers, or construction workers, so if you're not In a special interest group warrens interested in, keep struggling because she has a big cold **** you with your name on it

I'm against refinancing the student loans, student loans are a bad deal all around, allowing refinancing only prolongs the problem, what we need is a collapse of the student loan system, so many defaults the private bankers step out of the system and the government stops backing them
 
Last edited:
Are democrats against helping the middle class? Because the national Democratic Party is blocking legislation to increase timber harvesting, which would employ many people in rural towns across the country, they've blocked construction projects like the keystone pipeline, and are now trying to block the shell drilling fleet from basing in the port of seattle.

So they're really not much better.

I'm against refinancing the student loans, student loans are a bad deal all around, allowing refinancing only prolongs the problem, what we need is a collapse of the student loan system, so many defaults the private bankers step out of the system and the government stops backing them

Wait really? Timber harvesting is destructive to the environment and creates temporary jobs, it should be discouraged. The keystone pipeline? You mean the pipeline that would create 35 permanent jobs? The Shell drilling fleet? Disgusting, the last thing we need is to encourage environmental destruction.
 
Wait really? Timber harvesting is destructive to the environment and creates temporary jobs, it should be discouraged. The keystone pipeline? You mean the pipeline that would create 35 permanent jobs? The Shell drilling fleet? Disgusting, the last thing we need is to encourage environmental destruction.

No timber harvesting is destructive to the environment as pictured by yuppies who's view of environmental science comes from Bambi. Harvesting creates new environment where there is adequate food for animals such as deer and thus cougars coyotes wolves etc. this romanticized view of old-growth forest is missed placed, Big trees are nothing but big weeds.

Furthermore the jobs are not temporary, because if you use a responsible forestry policy there will always be trees to harvest.

A pipeline that long will create more than 35 jobs by the way, there will be many thousands employed in the construction, not to mention any repairs a pipeline will need will take more than 35 people.

When you give up all modern life and go live in a hovel then I'll consider your gripe about the Arctic drilling fleet to be legitimate
 
No timber harvesting is destructive to the environment as pictured by yuppies who's view of environmental science comes from Bambi. Harvesting creates new environment where there is adequate food for animals such as deer and thus cougars coyotes wolves etc. this romanticized view of old-growth forest is missed placed, Big trees are nothing but big weeds.

Furthermore the jobs are not temporary, because if you use a responsible forestry policy there will always be trees to harvest.

A pipeline that long will create more than 35 jobs by the way, there will be many thousands employed in the construction, not to mention any repairs a pipeline will need will take more than 35 people.

When you give up all modern life and go live in a hovel then I'll consider your gripe about the Arctic drilling fleet to be legitimate

I guess if it was done correctly, I can agree on the timber harvesting point.
Wait "Big trees are nothing but big weeds?" :shock:
I agree, we do need a responsible forestry policy, where is it?
Will Keystone XL pipeline create 42,000 ‘new’ jobs? - The Washington Post - Consider the cost, the environmental impact... doesn't add up.
Really? Arctic drilling has many risks, and any mistakes would be catastrophic. If we're going to do it, do it with strict regulations.
Look at the exxon tanker spill. Going Green: Remembering the Lessons of the 'Exxon Valdez' - TIME
 
No timber harvesting is destructive to the environment as pictured by yuppies who's view of environmental science comes from Bambi. Harvesting creates new environment where there is adequate food for animals such as deer and thus cougars coyotes wolves etc. this romanticized view of old-growth forest is missed placed, Big trees are nothing but big weeds.

Furthermore the jobs are not temporary, because if you use a responsible forestry policy there will always be trees to harvest.

A pipeline that long will create more than 35 jobs by the way, there will be many thousands employed in the construction, not to mention any repairs a pipeline will need will take more than 35 people.

When you give up all modern life and go live in a hovel then I'll consider your gripe about the Arctic drilling fleet to be legitimate

Wait, amazon rainforest? Malaysia? I agree, with strict regulations to make sure it's actually done right.
 
For them? Hmmm

Do you have a source to support that claim?

Greetings, MildSteel. :2wave:

If Forbes and Wiki are acceptable sources, here is what they say.

Walton family - Wal-Mart employs over 2.1 million people.

Koch Brothers - Koch Industries employ over 50,000 people in the US alone, and employ more union people than Nancy Pelosi.

Cargill family - Cargill employs over 140,000 people

Johnson family - Fidelity employs over 140,000 people

Hearst family - unknown amount employed by this communications giant

There are probably more, but there's a start.

In addition, small business owners are the Republicans largest demographic.
 
Our government has no defined roll of regulating business. I wish you were as well versed on capitalism as you seem to be on socialism/communism. If you were I think you would see how capitalism is supposed to work and why regulation makes it something other than capitalism. I agree that men are not angels. But that applies to all men rather they work for the government or private enterprise. When we understand that and when we understand that we all serve our self interest then we should understand that people in government have more power than people in the private sector and so should be feared more than the private sector.

Everybody sucks. So, you have to have regulation with the regulators out of the loop.
 
The people who came to power in that era, and many now, did so as a result of government support. To my reading the circumstances of employment were changed to to the work of unions. Politicians then piggybacked on those accomplishments.

Are you really saying that someone has a right to claimed damages without having to prove the damages?

No. That would be crazy, who thinks that. I illustrated that without fences, capital hurts labor!
 
You must think that people in government can be trusted to do the right thing. LOL. What I think is that we all serve our self interest and that people in government have more power to pursue those interests, at our expense, if we choose to give them that power, which you do.

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.
 
Greetings, MildSteel. :2wave:

If Forbes and Wiki are acceptable sources, here is what they say.

Walton family - Wal-Mart employs over 2.1 million people.

Koch Brothers - Koch Industries employ over 50,000 people in the US alone, and employ more union people than Nancy Pelosi.

Cargill family - Cargill employs over 140,000 people

Johnson family - Fidelity employs over 140,000 people

Hearst family - unknown amount employed by this communications giant

There are probably more, but there's a start.

In addition, small business owners are the Republicans largest demographic.

Hi Polgara! Thanks for the list!

That said, that is quite a list there! No wonder Republicans are against the middle class! :lamo

Take for example Wal Mart. They may employ that many people, but you can beat your bottom dollar not half of them are middle class. In fact they are so hostile to the middle class that they are on record for opposing a even a modest living wage.

On Tuesday, a Walmart executive rebuked the D.C. Council in an op-ed in the Washington Post, declaring that the company would scuttle plans for three stores if the city enacted a living-wage law targeted at big-box retailers. The bill, which passed a council vote on Wednesday, would require a $12.50 minimum wage for workers at companies with more than $1 billion in global sales.
....

Walmart Living Wage Dispute In D.C. Undermines Company's Murky Pay Claims

Not only that but they pay so poor that some Walmart workers have to rely on food stamps.

Anthony Goytia, a Walmart store worker in California who spoke on Capitol Hill Wednesday, said he earns $9.60 per hour after working a year for the company. Given his hours, Goytia said he's on a schedule to earn about $12,000 this year. He said his family relies "off and on" upon food stamps, as well as their state-run health insurance program for the poor, and he's gone so far as to donate blood plasma and volunteer in clinical trials to make ends meet.

"No one who works at the world's largest private employer should have to rely on food stamps," Goytia said. "I make so little at Walmart I'm forced to get payday loans to pay my rent."
.....

Most Walmart Store Workers Didn't Earn $25,000 Last Year

Dang!! Is that what you call helping the middle class???

And don't start me on the Koch brothers. Even the very name invokes hostility to workers interests.
 
Last edited:
I think Walmart was shamed into a moderate wage increase most recently.
 
What you just put forward is very stupid and here's why. You are saying that I borrow more than I can afford to pay? Exactly how much have I borrowed? I want to dollar amount. Exactly how much do I make? I want the dollar amount. Furthermore, I am a taxpayer, and I have a right to say that the government should allow people to refinance their student loans.



No that is not the argument at all. What you have made is another very stupid statement. I said the government should allow people to refinance their student loan debt. That does not mean that the government is preventing them from doing so. It means that the government should have a program that allows people the opportunity to refinance their debt at lower rates. It does not cost the government any money to refinance a loan at a lower rate, except maybe some administrative costs, that could be covered with a fee. The point of the government making student loans is to facilitate people getting an education, not to make money by gouging student loan customers with interest rates that are far in excess than what the government pays to borrow money.

I can't decide how much is the amount that you are unable or unwilling to pay back. That is between you and your lender. The short answer is one dollar more than the amount your able to pay. The unwilling rests solely on your shoulders. It's your choice whether you choose to eat steak and not pay off your debts, or eat bean tacos and fulfill your obligations. It's also your choice whether you choose to use the loan to pursue a program of study that provides an entry into a high paying field, or into a search for one of the ten low paying jobs available to the thousands who chose that field.

I don't get your second point. You now admit that the government does not prevent you from refinancing your loan, but now you add the modifier at a lower rate. Then you claim that this costs the government nothing. Getting back 50 cents when you anticipated a dollar costs someone something. Many if not most those loans were borrowings on the open market and guaranteed by the government. Either the bank or the taxpayer gets the shaft.

I'm a taxpayer too. During my working life a rather large one. I want the government to pursue those who owe them money. Just like the IRS, pursue until the bill is paid, or until you die, than pursue the estate. Why is this obligation any different?
 
Last edited:
Hi Polgara! Thanks for the list!

That said, that is quite a list there! No wonder Republicans are against the middle class! :lamo

Take for example Wal Mart. They may employ that many people, but you can beat your bottom dollar not half of them are middle class. In fact they are so hostile to the middle class that they are on record for opposing a even a modest living wage.



Walmart Living Wage Dispute In D.C. Undermines Company's Murky Pay Claims

Not only that but they pay so poor that some Walmart workers have to rely on food stamps.



Most Walmart Store Workers Didn't Earn $25,000 Last Year

Dang!! Is that what you call helping the middle class???

And don't start me on the Koch brothers. Even the very name invokes hostility to workers interests.

Fair enough. I don't know what any of the people listed pay their employees, but once an employee is hired, they usually do have the opportunity to advance in almost any area. With those entry-level jobs, they did get their foot in the door - after that it's up to them to show an employer they were capable of more responsibility and higher pay, don't they? Most of us who started working at a young age knew we weren't likely to be paid $100,000 dollars a year to start, but it was a start.

Perhaps I grew up in a different era, but we were told to show up on time, work hard, and get extra schooling if necessary. I doubt if anyone from the companies I listed above, with the possible exception of WalMart, are paid minimum wage, and even there, their store managers earn at least $80,000 a year. Plus, WalMart has no problem with hiring entry-level people...they always have more applicants for jobs than there are openings.

I did answer your question to the best of my ability, so it's your turn to tell me what Democrats have done for the middle class as far as job opportunities are concerned - and I am excluding jobs in government, since both parties have to follow the rules in that area as far as Civil Service is concerned, as an example. Companies have to be competitive, or they don't stay in business long - government doesn't have that handicap.
 
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?

I think the best way to help the "middle class" is to pass laws that benefit all Americans. The idea that there should be policies designed to target specific groups makes me think we now have an official caste system in place.
 
I can't decide how much is the amount that you are unable or unwilling to pay back. That is between you and your lender. The short answer is one dollar more than the amount your able to pay. The unwilling rests solely on your shoulders. It's your choice whether you choose to eat steak and not pay off your debts, or eat bean tacos and fulfill your obligations. It's also your choice whether you choose to use the loan to pursue a program of study that provides an entry into a high paying field, or into a search for one of the ten low paying jobs available to the thousands who chose that field.

What? You can't decide? Well since you have come here in this forum and accused me of being stupid and borrowing more than I can afford to pay without saying neither how much I make, nor how much I owe, I can damn sure decide. What I decide is that you are engaging in arrogant, right wing Republican condescension, to relieve yourself of some sort of arrogant filth. Since that is the case, here's what you can do. Go and wipe your filthy ass somewhere else, I am not your toilet paper.

I don't get your second point. You now admit that the government does not prevent you from refinancing your loan, but now you add the modifier at a lower rate.

No you don't get it because your own arrogance has you bewildered. You can't get it because you have this need to put someone whose views that you don't agree with and/or find uncomfortable, down below you so that you can wipe your feet like a door mat. There is no "now admit" nothing. Its just that you don't have enough sense to understand what was put forward or take the time to read the thread to understand what was meant. My position has been consistent all along. The government should have a program to let people refinance their student loan debt. This would allow borrowers, who are paying off their loans in good faith, the opportunity to do so at lower rates.

Then you claim that this costs the government nothing. Getting back 50 cents when you anticipated a dollar costs someone something.

No it doesn't cost a damn thing and that is the point. The point is that the government should not be trying to make money by gouging student loan consumers. The point of the making the loans is to facilitate education, not make money. As such, it doesn't cost the government a damn thing.

Many if not most those loans were borrowings on the open market and guaranteed by the government. Either the bank or the taxpayer gets the shaft.

People refinance home loans and other debt all the time. No one gets the shaft. If that were the case, no one would be able to refinance loans. Again, the purpose of the loans is to facilitate education, not make money.

I'm a taxpayer too. During my working life a rather large one. I want the government to pursue those who owe them money. Just like the IRS, pursue until the bill is paid, or until you die, than pursue the estate. Why is this obligation any different?

Well you are not the only one who is a taxpayer. I pay thousands of dollars every year, one year I paid over $20,000 and that is a lot of money to me. As such, hell I get the right to voice my opinion about what I think the government should do.
 
Fair enough. I don't know what any of the people listed pay their employees, but once an employee is hired, they usually do have the opportunity to advance in almost any area. With those entry-level jobs, they did get their foot in the door - after that it's up to them to show an employer they were capable of more responsibility and higher pay, don't they? Most of us who started working at a young age knew we weren't likely to be paid $100,000 dollars a year to start, but it was a start.

Perhaps I grew up in a different era, but we were told to show up on time, work hard, and get extra schooling if necessary. I doubt if anyone from the companies I listed above, with the possible exception of WalMart, are paid minimum wage, and even there, their store managers earn at least $80,000 a year. Plus, WalMart has no problem with hiring entry-level people...they always have more applicants for jobs than there are openings.

I did answer your question to the best of my ability, so it's your turn to tell me what Democrats have done for the middle class as far as job opportunities are concerned - and I am excluding jobs in government, since both parties have to follow the rules in that area as far as Civil Service is concerned, as an example. Companies have to be competitive, or they don't stay in business long - government doesn't have that handicap.

I am going to make two points here. First of all, we should always remember that it takes three things to provide jobs:

1. Capital/Raw Materials
2. Labor
3. Consumption

As such capitalists need to remember that their luxurious lifestyle would not be possible without workers and consumers to support such a lifestyle. Therefore they all should help one another. It is not that the wealthy are exclusively important and the people who do the work should be treated like dirt and beat down in the ground. Rather, their interests need to be taken into consideration. It is not that you give everything to the wealthy and let them trickle down as little as possible. That is one point.

The next point is that although Democrats have glaring flaws, it appears that compared to Republicans, they will at least make some attempt at trying to do concrete things that would make it possible for the middle class to improve their condition. I have made mention of three things, proposing legislation that would give student loan consumers the opportunity to refinance their loans at a lower rate, proposing free community college, and proposing an extension of unemployment benefits to workers displaced by the recession. All three of those things would help the middle class, and all three have been opposed by Republicans. While they have opposed these things, they have led the effort to pass legislation that allows creditors to garnish the wages of debtors who owe them money. There are people who have lost better paying jobs through no fault of their own, and who have had to accept lower paying jobs, that have been affected adversely by this measure that Republicans made strong efforts to have enacted into law. Therefore, when these things are taken into consideration, one can make the case that Republicans appear to be hostile to the interests of the middle class.
 
I am going to make two points here. First of all, we should always remember that it takes three things to provide jobs:

1. Capital/Raw Materials
2. Labor
3. Consumption

As such capitalists need to remember that their luxurious lifestyle would not be possible without workers and consumers to support such a lifestyle. Therefore they all should help one another. It is not that the wealthy are exclusively important and the people who do the work should be treated like dirt and beat down in the ground. Rather, their interests need to be taken into consideration. It is not that you give everything to the wealthy and let them trickle down as little as possible. That is one point.

The next point is that although Democrats have glaring flaws, it appears that compared to Republicans, they will at least make some attempt at trying to do concrete things that would make it possible for the middle class to improve their condition. I have made mention of three things, proposing legislation that would give student loan consumers the opportunity to refinance their loans at a lower rate, proposing free community college, and proposing an extension of unemployment benefits to workers displaced by the recession. All three of those things would help the middle class, and all three have been opposed by Republicans. While they have opposed these things, they have led the effort to pass legislation that allows creditors to garnish the wages of debtors who owe them money. There are people who have lost better paying jobs through no fault of their own, and who have had to accept lower paying jobs, that have been affected adversely by this measure that Republicans made strong efforts to have enacted into law. Therefore, when these things are taken into consideration, one can make the case that Republicans appear to be hostile to the interests of the middle class.

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.
 
This isn't about needs or priorities. This is about one group of people being abused so that another group of people can have something.

By this I assume you do mean internet users who would pay more due to the loss of net neutrality so that internet cable providers can make more money, or people who lost their jobs to practically free labor overseas so that the corporations could make more money, right?
 
I am going to make two points here. First of all, we should always remember that it takes three things to provide jobs:

1. Capital/Raw Materials
2. Labor
3. Consumption

As such capitalists need to remember that their luxurious lifestyle would not be possible without workers and consumers to support such a lifestyle. Therefore they all should help one another. It is not that the wealthy are exclusively important and the people who do the work should be treated like dirt and beat down in the ground. Rather, their interests need to be taken into consideration. It is not that you give everything to the wealthy and let them trickle down as little as possible. That is one point.

The next point is that although Democrats have glaring flaws, it appears that compared to Republicans, they will at least make some attempt at trying to do concrete things that would make it possible for the middle class to improve their condition. I have made mention of three things, proposing legislation that would give student loan consumers the opportunity to refinance their loans at a lower rate, proposing free community college, and proposing an extension of unemployment benefits to workers displaced by the recession. All three of those things would help the middle class, and all three have been opposed by Republicans. While they have opposed these things, they have led the effort to pass legislation that allows creditors to garnish the wages of debtors who owe them money. There are people who have lost better paying jobs through no fault of their own, and who have had to accept lower paying jobs, that have been affected adversely by this measure that Republicans made strong efforts to have enacted into law. Therefore, when these things are taken into consideration, one can make the case that Republicans appear to be hostile to the interests of the middle class.

What you are asking for is more free handouts. People already retire on liberal handouts.

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.

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.

Workers are not treated like ****, in this country everyone has the opportunity to QUIT if you don't like your job. Further there are all kinds of laws that protects employees.
 
What? You can't decide? Well since you have come here in this forum and accused me of being stupid and borrowing more than I can afford to pay without saying neither how much I make, nor how much I owe, I can damn sure decide. What I decide is that you are engaging in arrogant, right wing Republican condescension, to relieve yourself of some sort of arrogant filth. Since that is the case, here's what you can do. Go and wipe your filthy ass somewhere else, I am not your toilet paper.



No you don't get it because your own arrogance has you bewildered. You can't get it because you have this need to put someone whose views that you don't agree with and/or find uncomfortable, down below you so that you can wipe your feet like a door mat. There is no "now admit" nothing. Its just that you don't have enough sense to understand what was put forward or take the time to read the thread to understand what was meant. My position has been consistent all along. The government should have a program to let people refinance their student loan debt. This would allow borrowers, who are paying off their loans in good faith, the opportunity to do so at lower rates.



No it doesn't cost a damn thing and that is the point. The point is that the government should not be trying to make money by gouging student loan consumers. The point of the making the loans is to facilitate education, not make money. As such, it doesn't cost the government a damn thing.



People refinance home loans and other debt all the time. No one gets the shaft. If that were the case, no one would be able to refinance loans. Again, the purpose of the loans is to facilitate education, not make money.



Well you are not the only one who is a taxpayer. I pay thousands of dollars every year, one year I paid over $20,000 and that is a lot of money to me. As such, hell I get the right to voice my opinion about what I think the government should do.

Personal attacks aside, I'll attempt to adress a couple of your statements:

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.

(2) 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. 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. This in spite of the claim that you pay $20K in taxes. Again, I don't know, nor care, your personal finances, but a tax bill in general of 20K indicates an income north of 100K. If that's issue, so state, as I am only speculating at this point. You are right, I know nothing of your personal situation.

(3) 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.

(4) When I used the pronoun you a while back, I was not referring to you personally. Perhaps I should have used the Southern term - You'all.

The rest of your post is just personal attacks. I don't address personal attacks. Only issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom