Is being "for the Middle Class" the same as being "for America"?

[Ernie S.]

Is being "for the Middle Class" the same as being "for America"?

Some might say "We are all Americans", but while that might be true in a broad sense, the major political parties have certainly taken sides in a struggle for what some consider what is good for the country.

Some consider a strong and vibrant middle class with upward mobility with access to healthcare and education what is best for the country.

Some consider a wealthy upper class who are best fit to lead the country simply because of their great wealth which is evidence of their fitness to lead and the more wealth they have the more fit they are.

One of those groups feel the poor should be helped so they too can move into the middle class which would make the country even stronger.

The other group feels the poor are weak and should be left alone and helping them is "socialism". They made their choice and so helping them puts a drain on the country and drags it down from the great heights that supporting the super wealthy will lead us to.

So the question boils down to, "Is being "for the Middle Class" the same as being "for America"?"

For AMERICA is what being for America means. That includes ALL Americans.

What I see is more class warfare here. The premise behind this class warfare is the fallacy that the middle class is shrinking, while according to the standards of the '50's, the American middle class is actually doing quite well.
The problem is, the goal posts have been moved. The poverty line has been artificially raised to buy more votes for the Progressives, while at the same time, the upper limits of what we used to call the middle class has been raised in order that Progressives can jack up tax rates to pay for the bribes they pay for the undying gratitude of the "poor".
My youth could be described as "middle class", but these days, my family would qualify for EITC, free school lunches, food stamps, etc.
My friends' family that had both mother and father working and 4 children would be in the "evil rich" class today although they were really no better off at the end of the day than my family.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, if Democrats were really for the middle class or America, they would introduce initiatives to get people off of welfare and into a job. But I don't see that. Keep people poor to keep them voting for you!

They do introduce such initiatives. You sit in front of Google. Look some up. Or, maybe you don't know how? Let me know and I will help you. If you don't mind a little "socialism" that is.

I do sit in front of Google, I did look it up. Welfare and Foodstamps do not count.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is being "for the Middle Class" the same as being "for America"?

Some might say "We are all Americans", but while that might be true in a broad sense, the major political parties have certainly taken sides in a struggle for what some consider what is good for the country.

Some consider a strong and vibrant middle class with upward mobility with access to healthcare and education what is best for the country.

Some consider a wealthy upper class who are best fit to lead the country simply because of their great wealth which is evidence of their fitness to lead and the more wealth they have the more fit they are.

One of those groups feel the poor should be helped so they too can move into the middle class which would make the country even stronger.

The other group feels the poor are weak and should be left alone and helping them is "socialism". They made their choice and so helping them puts a drain on the country and drags it down from the great heights that supporting the super wealthy will lead us to.

So the question boils down to, "Is being "for the Middle Class" the same as being "for America"?"

No....we don't have "Classes" in America.....we are all simply Americans who make different incomes....how much you make is mostly up to you....as long as we have a fair playing field....

if BO would stop strangling business things could get better for all...

Business is making the most money in history. How is it being "strangled"?

Do you think the Republican leadership recognizes the "middle class"?

You want all the classes to be the poor classes. That's pretty lame.

 

[kaz]

Is being "for the Middle Class" the same as being "for America"?

Being for all Americans is being for America. This is the nonsense that justifies your wealth envy motivated war on the rich bastards who have more than you do.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

I do not think we can have a viable democratic republic without a healthy middle class.

Boy does that nail it.

A middle class with leisure time built and maintained the strongest economy in history until as Kruschev predicted, the United States was betrayed from inside the fort. It took NeoConRon's voodoo policies less than thirty years to destroy a vibrant economy that was the envy of the world. The America that won two world wars is gone.

Fake liberals cheer because now all manner of questionable behaviors and lamos are "equal" while the filthy god damned white trash scum of the earth cheer their own destruction in one of the most appalling periods of mass hysteria in recorded history.

And yet I am amused. Possibly because none of that affects me a lot.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Is being "for the Middle Class" the same as being "for America"?

Some might say "We are all Americans", but while that might be true in a broad sense, the major political parties have certainly taken sides in a struggle for what some consider what is good for the country.

Some consider a strong and vibrant middle class with upward mobility with access to healthcare and education what is best for the country.

Some consider a wealthy upper class who are best fit to lead the country simply because of their great wealth which is evidence of their fitness to lead and the more wealth they have the more fit they are.

One of those groups feel the poor should be helped so they too can move into the middle class which would make the country even stronger.

The other group feels the poor are weak and should be left alone and helping them is "socialism". They made their choice and so helping them puts a drain on the country and drags it down from the great heights that supporting the super wealthy will lead us to.

So the question boils down to, "Is being "for the Middle Class" the same as being "for America"?"

Neither party has any interest in a healthy, vibrant middle class. No party that supports sycophant groups like insurance companies, government unions, corporate personhood and never ending military adventurism cares about people outside the top third of wage earners except maybe as cannon fodder or people to bleed for tax receipts.

Nope. The only use either party has for people outside the top third of income earners is as filler. Placeholders for the people committed to growing government and corporate power. That explains why both parties want open borders, corporate personhood, and little people doing as they are told or else.

 

[rdean]

No, being "for the middle class" is being for a certain economic group.

Being "for America" is being for everyone in the country.

Romney said he wouldn't represent 47% of the country. Republicans shouted out "let him die" at their convention when discussing the uninsured.

When did Republicans suddenly become "for all Americans"?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

if BO would stop strangling business things could get better for all...

How EXACTLY is the Pres, strangling business?

I know they say it on FOX every 10 minutes, BUT how exactly?

I will bet you have NO ANSWER, silly conservative parrot.

"Every single day an average of 68 new regulations or rules are posted by the federal government. According to an analysis by the American Action Forum, President Obama’s first-term regulations have resulted in $518 billion in unnecessary costs. These costs have burdened large and small businesses alike, stifling economic growth and hampering job creation.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, with The Associated Press recently reporting that “regulations giving force and detail to [Obama’s] health care law have gushed out by the hundreds of pages.” Now that Obamacare is finally being implemented, a regulatory storm is quickly approaching. This wave of new regulations could be a death sentence to the many American businesses that are struggling to hold on. This regulatory regime is feared by our job creators, so much so that a January 2013 survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that 21 percent of respondents cited “regulations and red tape” as their single biggest problem tied with “taxes.”"

RealClearPolicy - Obama's Regulations Are Strangling America

 

[rdean]

if BO would stop strangling business things could get better for all...

How EXACTLY is the Pres, strangling business?

I know they say it on FOX every 10 minutes, BUT how exactly?

I will bet you have NO ANSWER, silly conservative parrot.

"Every single day an average of 68 new regulations or rules are posted by the federal government. According to an analysis by the American Action Forum, President Obama’s first-term regulations have resulted in $518 billion in unnecessary costs. These costs have burdened large and small businesses alike, stifling economic growth and hampering job creation.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, with The Associated Press recently reporting that “regulations giving force and detail to [Obama’s] health care law have gushed out by the hundreds of pages.” Now that Obamacare is finally being implemented, a regulatory storm is quickly approaching. This wave of new regulations could be a death sentence to the many American businesses that are struggling to hold on. This regulatory regime is feared by our job creators, so much so that a January 2013 survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that 21 percent of respondents cited “regulations and red tape” as their single biggest problem tied with “taxes.”"

RealClearPolicy - Obama's Regulations Are Strangling America

Most regulations come from court order. Try to figure out why.

 

[rdean]

I bet every single USMB Republican is middle class. And yet they seem to hold the middle class in such disdain. Why?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How EXACTLY is the Pres, strangling business?

I know they say it on FOX every 10 minutes, BUT how exactly?

I will bet you have NO ANSWER, silly conservative parrot.

"Every single day an average of 68 new regulations or rules are posted by the federal government. According to an analysis by the American Action Forum, President Obama’s first-term regulations have resulted in $518 billion in unnecessary costs. These costs have burdened large and small businesses alike, stifling economic growth and hampering job creation.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, with The Associated Press recently reporting that “regulations giving force and detail to [Obama’s] health care law have gushed out by the hundreds of pages.” Now that Obamacare is finally being implemented, a regulatory storm is quickly approaching. This wave of new regulations could be a death sentence to the many American businesses that are struggling to hold on. This regulatory regime is feared by our job creators, so much so that a January 2013 survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that 21 percent of respondents cited “regulations and red tape” as their single biggest problem tied with “taxes.”"

RealClearPolicy - Obama's Regulations Are Strangling America

Most regulations come from court order. Try to figure out why.

No shit Sherlock....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JyJHga4G_k]Obama's Job-Killing Regulations - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is being "for the Middle Class" the same as being "for America"?

Some might say "We are all Americans", but while that might be true in a broad sense, the major political parties have certainly taken sides in a struggle for what some consider what is good for the country.

Some consider a strong and vibrant middle class with upward mobility with access to healthcare and education what is best for the country.

Some consider a wealthy upper class who are best fit to lead the country simply because of their great wealth which is evidence of their fitness to lead and the more wealth they have the more fit they are.

One of those groups feel the poor should be helped so they too can move into the middle class which would make the country even stronger.

The other group feels the poor are weak and should be left alone and helping them is "socialism". They made their choice and so helping them puts a drain on the country and drags it down from the great heights that supporting the super wealthy will lead us to.

So the question boils down to, "Is being "for the Middle Class" the same as being "for America"?"

How about we treat everyone exactly the same and stop worrying about catering to one sector of the population or another.

That way you fucking crybabies won't have any reason to whine anymore and THAT would be good for America.

 

[editec]

Denial of the existence of class (in a political science venue like this place is) is form of denial so audacious that when you read or hear somebody say it, know that further discussion with that liar (or honest ignoramous ) is pointless.

The denial of something so fundamental to discussion of society as CLASS is the stuff of Orwellian propagandists.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Denial of the existence of class (in a political science venue like this place is) is form of denial so audacious that when you read or hear somebody say it, know that further discussion with that liar (or honest ignoramous ) is pointless.

The denial of something so fundamental to discussion of society as CLASS is the stuff of Orwellian propagandists.

I'm not denying it. I'm saying it is not the government's concern.

 

[rdean]

Denial of the existence of class (in a political science venue like this place is) is form of denial so audacious that when you read or hear somebody say it, know that further discussion with that liar (or honest ignoramous ) is pointless.

The denial of something so fundamental to discussion of society as CLASS is the stuff of Orwellian propagandists.

I'm not denying it. I'm saying it is not the government's concern.

What is the purpose of Government?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Denial of the existence of class (in a political science venue like this place is) is form of denial so audacious that when you read or hear somebody say it, know that further discussion with that liar (or honest ignoramous ) is pointless.

The denial of something so fundamental to discussion of society as CLASS is the stuff of Orwellian propagandists.

I'm not denying it. I'm saying it is not the government's concern.

What is the purpose of Government?

To protect the rights of individuals.

It is not the purpose of government to institute ham handed social engineering experiments via taxation.

 

[rdean]

I'm not denying it. I'm saying it is not the government's concern.

What is the purpose of Government?

To protect the rights of individuals.

It is not the purpose of government to institute ham handed social engineering experiments via taxation.

To protect the rights of individuals. The right to live after a disaster? The right to live without starvation? The right to marry who you want? The right to learn enough to hold a job? What "rights" are you talking about?

Oh, and a government that will protect those rights costs money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What is the purpose of Government?

To protect the rights of individuals.

It is not the purpose of government to institute ham handed social engineering experiments via taxation.

To protect the rights of individuals. The right to live after a disaster? The right to live without starvation? The right to marry who you want? The right to learn enough to hold a job? What "rights" are you talking about?

Oh, and a government that will protect those rights costs money.

And what does that have to do with class and the special treatment of some over others?

If every individual was treated exactly the same then we would be much better off.

Right now we are nowhere near that.

And I have never been against taxes just unfair taxes.

 

[Mac1958]

.

How about the right to food? That's more basic than anything. The government should pay for that for sure.

Underwear. Underwear's important.

Socks.

I have a right to water. Free bottled water for all.

Hey, this is fun!



.

 

[rdean]

To protect the rights of individuals.

It is not the purpose of government to institute ham handed social engineering experiments via taxation.

To protect the rights of individuals. The right to live after a disaster? The right to live without starvation? The right to marry who you want? The right to learn enough to hold a job? What "rights" are you talking about?

Oh, and a government that will protect those rights costs money.

And what does that have to do with class and the special treatment of some over others?

If every individual was treated exactly the same then we would be much better off.

Right now we are nowhere near that.

And I have never been against taxes just unfair taxes.

I have to agree with you there. Romney making 22 million and paying 13% in Taxes?

Bush getting jumped over thousands to get into Harvard because he daddy pulled strings?

McCain getting into the Academy and graduating 5th from the bottom out of 899 cadets just because his father and grandfather were admirals?

Yep, if only people were treated "equally".