View New Posts
  1. #1

    Middle Class RIP

    Paul Begala: Middle Class in Free Fall From the Bush Depression

    The latest casualty of the Bush depression.

    by Paul Begala | June 18, 2012 1:00 AM EDTI have a wealthy friend who lives in a wealthy neighborhood. One day he was in his front yard, chatting with his next-door neighbor, a Republican, who asked him why he’s a Democrat. My friend said he’d grown up poor but had gotten a good public education, worked his tail off, and made it. Then he pointed to a gardener working across the street. “Don’t you want that gardener’s son to live the same American Dream we have?” my friend asked. His neighbor shot him down, sniffing, “That gardener’s son will be my son’s gardener.”


    And so dies the American Dream. Have we reached a point where rich people no longer want to extend the winner’s circle? Has it gotten so bad that poor people cannot plausibly aspire to success? Are we moving toward Third World economics, where a few have it all and most have nothing? Are we witnessing the death of the great American middle class?

    We define “middle class” as much by values as we do by economics. It means working hard, playing by the rules, and getting ahead. It means saving up to buy a home, making payments on a new car, seeing your kid graduate from high school—and even college. It means retiring with some dignity and security.

    In terms of income, six in 10 Americans earn between $25,000 and $100,000 a year. They’re the heart of the middle class. And yet as many as a third of those making more than $150,000 and 40 percent of those making less than $20,000 also describe themselves in the same way. So in all, three fourths of Americans think of themselves as middle class—which means that three fourths of Americans (more, actually) are getting screwed.


    John Avlon and Robert Zimmerman take a look inside SuperPACs and their influence on this election.

    A recent report from the Federal Reserve documents the collapse of the middle class. Between 2007 and 2010 median wealth dropped a staggering 40 percent. As ever, the rich did fine, actually seeing their wealth increase as everyone else’s disappeared. That’s because those on top have less of their wealth tied up in real estate and more in investments like stocks and bonds, which have done better in the Bush Depression than home prices.

    The birth of the American middle class was the product of policy decisions—and the same is true of its death. After the Second World War, America had a debt crisis. It’s expensive to save the world, which is why, as a percentage of gross domestic product, debt in 1945 was far larger than today. The Greatest Generation made some tough choices. President Eisenhower raised the top marginal tax rate to 91 percent (that commie), and America invested in education (the GI Bill), housing, and technology. And the great American middle class led the boom that paid off the debt. In just 17 years the debt was back down to its pre-war level.

    Cat Gwynn / Corbis
    Turns out that investing in middle-class consumers makes rich people even richer. That’s what President Clinton thought. He raised taxes (modestly) on the rich—up to 39.6 percent—trimmed the federal workforce and invested in middle-class education, emerging technologies, and biomedical research. Once again, a middle class–focused economic policy lifted all boats, including the yachts.

    Today we again face a debt crisis. And to their credit, American elites are worried about it. Panicked is more like it—and for good reason. But where are the blue-ribbon commissions on the decline of the middle class? Our president rightly describes this era as “a make-or-break moment for the middle class,” but across America governors and mayors are forced to lay off teachers, cops, and firefighters—the kinds of people who serve, protect, and educate the middle class, and who can help poor people lift themselves up into the middle class, and members of the middle class lift themselves into prosperity.

    No, despite what the president said in his famous flub, the private sector is not doing fine. But at least the private sector has generated 4.3 million new jobs since the recovery began, whereas the public sector has shed 600,000. But we didn’t get into our current mess because we had too many teachers, cops, and firefighters. We got into it because we cut taxes, mostly for the rich, waged two wars on the national CC, and deregulated Wall Street. We will never cure the debt if we don’t address its true causes.

    None of this is easy. Of course we have to cut spending. And, obviously, we need more tax revenue. But we have to do it in a way that protects the promise of opportunity for all. The key to paying off our crushing debt, ultimately, is economic growth. And the key to growth is an expanding middle class.


    Tags:



    ©2011 The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC
    Points Awarded:

    golfrulz gave dante1 1 SBR Point(s) for this post.

    Nomination(s):
    This post was nominated 1 time . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: golfrulz

    SBR Founder Join Date: 10/31/2005


  2. #2
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 25,092
    Message Me

    Republicans lay out their plan to destroy the middle class and the poor


    Who is taking bets on whether the Democrats will show any backbone at all and fight this legislation? My money is that they’ll roll over as soon as it’s introduced. No fight.
    The Editor

    House GOP’s ‘Radical’ Plan For Medicare, Medicaid
    If anything will make it easier for House conservatives to back off on shutting down the government this week, it’s the prospect of a different, and much larger fight over the federally funded social safety net. House Republicans are preparing to introduce a 10-year budget Tuesday that will eliminate Medicare and replace it with a private insurance system that closely resembles the new health care law, and end Medicaid as an entitlement program all together.
    This plan, which also will include major restructuring of the tax code and cap discretionary spending, will reduce the deficit by over $4 trillion in 10 years, according to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.
    Here’s what this means if you’re elderly, disabled, or poor.
    Low-income Medicaid beneficiaries will lose their guaranteed benefits altogether. Currently, Medicaid is jointly financed by the federal government and states, which are required to provide comprehensive health care benefits to people in poverty. Ryan’s plan turns the program into block grants for the states — states get a bunch of cash from the feds and have to make the best of it. For many states, that will mean severe benefit rollbacks.
    Seniors, and others on Medicare, would be in a slightly different predicament. Currently seniors 65 and over are guaranteed a defined benefit program: taxpayers finance the system, and the government agrees to pay for seniors’ health care services (though seniors have to pitch in too). Ryan’s plan would leave that system intact for anybody currently on Medicare, or expecting to be on Medicare within 10 years. For everyone else the program would be radically overhauled. Future beneficiaries would no longer have a single payer system to rely on. Rather, they’d be given a menu of private insurance plans to pick from, and subsidies to help pay their premiums. If those premiums skyrocket, that’s on them. If the insurers themselves aren’t required to pay for whatever the doctor orders, then the guaranteed benefits will erode.
    Recently Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt — a respected health care expert — described the plan this way: “Under the defined contribution approach envisaged by the Rivlin-Ryan plan, most of the risk of future health-care cost increases would be shifted onto the shoulders of Medicare beneficiaries. This feature makes the proposal radical.”
    But it’s structured an awful lot like the new health care law, which means the GOP’s position on health care is about to become Obamacare for seniors, but not for anybody else.
    That’s where the fight over this budget, and indeed the 2012 elections will be fought. Ryan’s plan will also propose tax reforms that lower corporate and upper-income tax rates, while eliminating certain loopholes. The details of that part of his plan are unclear, but if they adhere to his Roadmap for America’s Future, the GOP budget will propose to overhaul the tax code in a way that reduces the burden on the wealthy and increases it on the poor and middle classes.
    Read more at TPM


  3. #3
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 25,092
    Message Me

    Obama’s Plan to Destroy the Middle Class

    By Ed Randazzo
    Obama, the self-anointed champion of the middle class, will actually destroy the middle class with his regressive socialist “budget” plan.

    Using the old class warfare mantra, that the rich need to pay their “fair share,” his tax plan is nothing but catastrophe for the average American.

    His proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends is nothing but a sham to appear to be attacking the bogey-man, the corporations, but is actually an attack on all.

    Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%.

    Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8% (nearly three times today’s 15% rate).

    Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%.

    Of course, the White House wants everyone to believe that this new rate would apply only to those filthy rich individuals who make $200,000 a year, or $250,000 if you’re a greedy couple. We’re all supposed to believe that no one would be hurt other than rich folks who can afford it.

    The truth is that the plan gives new meaning to the term collateral damage, because shareholders of all incomes will share the pain.

    Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees that depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.

    But all American shareholders would lose. Higher dividend and capital gains taxes make stocks less valuable. Stock prices would fall over time to adjust to the new after-tax rate of return.

    How does this help the middle class? It doesn’t.

    According to the Investment Company Institute, about 51% of adults own stock directly or through mutual funds, which are more than 100 million shareholders. Tens of millions more own stocks through pension funds. Why would the White House endorse a policy that will make these households poorer?

    Welcome to Obama’s brand of destruction of the middle class to lessen the threat of revolt against his desire to destroy America from within.



    ***Ed Randazzo, is a nationally syndicated author. He has been a conservative activist and consultant for over 30 years and is currently the Chief News Editor of Life and Liberty Media***


  4. #4

  5. #5

    Here's a brilliant idea: why don't we look at the economic policies that created the middle class and earned America the nickname "the land of opportunity"? Turns out it wasn't high taxes, social programs, and central planning of the economy, it was the opposite.

  6. #6

    Quote Originally Posted by dante1 View Post
    Paul Begala: Middle Class in Free Fall From the Bush Depression


    The latest casualty of the Bush depression.

    by Paul Begala | June 18, 2012 1:00 AM EDTI have a wealthy friend who lives in a wealthy neighborhood. One day he was in his front yard, chatting with his next-door neighbor, a Republican, who asked him why he’s a Democrat. My friend said he’d grown up poor but had gotten a good public education, worked his tail off, and made it. Then he pointed to a gardener working across the street. “Don’t you want that gardener’s son to live the same American Dream we have?” my friend asked. His neighbor shot him down, sniffing, “That gardener’s son will be my son’s gardener.”


    And so dies the American Dream. Have we reached a point where rich people no longer want to extend the winner’s circle? Has it gotten so bad that poor people cannot plausibly aspire to success? Are we moving toward Third World economics, where a few have it all and most have nothing? Are we witnessing the death of the great American middle class?

    We define “middle class” as much by values as we do by economics. It means working hard, playing by the rules, and getting ahead. It means saving up to buy a home, making payments on a new car, seeing your kid graduate from high school—and even college. It means retiring with some dignity and security.

    In terms of income, six in 10 Americans earn between $25,000 and $100,000 a year. They’re the heart of the middle class. And yet as many as a third of those making more than $150,000 and 40 percent of those making less than $20,000 also describe themselves in the same way. So in all, three fourths of Americans think of themselves as middle class—which means that three fourths of Americans (more, actually) are getting screwed.


    John Avlon and Robert Zimmerman take a look inside SuperPACs and their influence on this election.

    A recent report from the Federal Reserve documents the collapse of the middle class. Between 2007 and 2010 median wealth dropped a staggering 40 percent. As ever, the rich did fine, actually seeing their wealth increase as everyone else’s disappeared. That’s because those on top have less of their wealth tied up in real estate and more in investments like stocks and bonds, which have done better in the Bush Depression than home prices.

    The birth of the American middle class was the product of policy decisions—and the same is true of its death. After the Second World War, America had a debt crisis. It’s expensive to save the world, which is why, as a percentage of gross domestic product, debt in 1945 was far larger than today. The Greatest Generation made some tough choices. President Eisenhower raised the top marginal tax rate to 91 percent (that commie), and America invested in education (the GI Bill), housing, and technology. And the great American middle class led the boom that paid off the debt. In just 17 years the debt was back down to its pre-war level.

    Cat Gwynn / Corbis
    Turns out that investing in middle-class consumers makes rich people even richer. That’s what President Clinton thought. He raised taxes (modestly) on the rich—up to 39.6 percent—trimmed the federal workforce and invested in middle-class education, emerging technologies, and biomedical research. Once again, a middle class–focused economic policy lifted all boats, including the yachts.

    Today we again face a debt crisis. And to their credit, American elites are worried about it. Panicked is more like it—and for good reason. But where are the blue-ribbon commissions on the decline of the middle class? Our president rightly describes this era as “a make-or-break moment for the middle class,” but across America governors and mayors are forced to lay off teachers, cops, and firefighters—the kinds of people who serve, protect, and educate the middle class, and who can help poor people lift themselves up into the middle class, and members of the middle class lift themselves into prosperity.

    No, despite what the president said in his famous flub, the private sector is not doing fine. But at least the private sector has generated 4.3 million new jobs since the recovery began, whereas the public sector has shed 600,000. But we didn’t get into our current mess because we had too many teachers, cops, and firefighters. We got into it because we cut taxes, mostly for the rich, waged two wars on the national CC, and deregulated Wall Street. We will never cure the debt if we don’t address its true causes.

    None of this is easy. Of course we have to cut spending. And, obviously, we need more tax revenue. But we have to do it in a way that protects the promise of opportunity for all. The key to paying off our crushing debt, ultimately, is economic growth. And the key to growth is an expanding middle class.


    Tags:




    ©2011 The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC
    And Obama is the answer?

  7. #7

    Far left loons are brained washed...poor bastards!

  8. #8
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 25,092
    Message Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Balco10 View Post
    Far left loons are brained washed...poor bastards!
    So are the right the far right and the left,,,,,,,,,,

  9. #9

    Paul Begala is a die-hard liberal hack journalist who spends every minute of his pathetic existence bashing every republican he can find.

    He has NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER so its not surprising that Dante is copying and pasting his worthless liberal hatchet jobs.

    Google Paul Begala and its easy to see that anything he says can be safely IGNORED.

    I can copy and paste 100's of articles written by Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck and what they say has a whole lot more truth than the likes of Paul Begala but whats the point?

    Quote Originally Posted by dante1 View Post
    Paul Begala: Middle Class in Free Fall From the Bush Depression


    The latest casualty of the Bush depression.

    by Paul Begala | June 18, 2012 1:00 AM EDTI have a wealthy friend who lives in a wealthy neighborhood. One day he was in his front yard, chatting with his next-door neighbor, a Republican, who asked him why he’s a Democrat. My friend said he’d grown up poor but had gotten a good public education, worked his tail off, and made it. Then he pointed to a gardener working across the street. “Don’t you want that gardener’s son to live the same American Dream we have?” my friend asked. His neighbor shot him down, sniffing, “That gardener’s son will be my son’s gardener.”


    And so dies the American Dream. Have we reached a point where rich people no longer want to extend the winner’s circle? Has it gotten so bad that poor people cannot plausibly aspire to success? Are we moving toward Third World economics, where a few have it all and most have nothing? Are we witnessing the death of the great American middle class?

    We define “middle class” as much by values as we do by economics. It means working hard, playing by the rules, and getting ahead. It means saving up to buy a home, making payments on a new car, seeing your kid graduate from high school—and even college. It means retiring with some dignity and security.

    In terms of income, six in 10 Americans earn between $25,000 and $100,000 a year. They’re the heart of the middle class. And yet as many as a third of those making more than $150,000 and 40 percent of those making less than $20,000 also describe themselves in the same way. So in all, three fourths of Americans think of themselves as middle class—which means that three fourths of Americans (more, actually) are getting screwed.


    John Avlon and Robert Zimmerman take a look inside SuperPACs and their influence on this election.

    A recent report from the Federal Reserve documents the collapse of the middle class. Between 2007 and 2010 median wealth dropped a staggering 40 percent. As ever, the rich did fine, actually seeing their wealth increase as everyone else’s disappeared. That’s because those on top have less of their wealth tied up in real estate and more in investments like stocks and bonds, which have done better in the Bush Depression than home prices.

    The birth of the American middle class was the product of policy decisions—and the same is true of its death. After the Second World War, America had a debt crisis. It’s expensive to save the world, which is why, as a percentage of gross domestic product, debt in 1945 was far larger than today. The Greatest Generation made some tough choices. President Eisenhower raised the top marginal tax rate to 91 percent (that commie), and America invested in education (the GI Bill), housing, and technology. And the great American middle class led the boom that paid off the debt. In just 17 years the debt was back down to its pre-war level.

    Cat Gwynn / Corbis
    Turns out that investing in middle-class consumers makes rich people even richer. That’s what President Clinton thought. He raised taxes (modestly) on the rich—up to 39.6 percent—trimmed the federal workforce and invested in middle-class education, emerging technologies, and biomedical research. Once again, a middle class–focused economic policy lifted all boats, including the yachts.

    Today we again face a debt crisis. And to their credit, American elites are worried about it. Panicked is more like it—and for good reason. But where are the blue-ribbon commissions on the decline of the middle class? Our president rightly describes this era as “a make-or-break moment for the middle class,” but across America governors and mayors are forced to lay off teachers, cops, and firefighters—the kinds of people who serve, protect, and educate the middle class, and who can help poor people lift themselves up into the middle class, and members of the middle class lift themselves into prosperity.

    No, despite what the president said in his famous flub, the private sector is not doing fine. But at least the private sector has generated 4.3 million new jobs since the recovery began, whereas the public sector has shed 600,000. But we didn’t get into our current mess because we had too many teachers, cops, and firefighters. We got into it because we cut taxes, mostly for the rich, waged two wars on the national CC, and deregulated Wall Street. We will never cure the debt if we don’t address its true causes.

    None of this is easy. Of course we have to cut spending. And, obviously, we need more tax revenue. But we have to do it in a way that protects the promise of opportunity for all. The key to paying off our crushing debt, ultimately, is economic growth. And the key to growth is an expanding middle class.


    Tags:
    ©2011 The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC

  10. #10

    Quote Originally Posted by Balco10 View Post
    Far left loons are brained washed...poor bastards!
    left is right and right is wrong pal.

  11. #11
    stevenash's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-17-11
    Posts: 15,962
    Betpoints: 13605
    Message Me

    Here's Obama's plan to win reelection.

    Don't blame me for doing nothing, Bush's fault.

  12. #12
    jbart28's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 04-16-11
    Posts: 3,149
    Message Me

    Obama's plan is to pretend like he cares about the middle class but in reality he wants EVERYONE except the top 1 or 2% on the government nipple.

    the more people on gov't assistance, the better for Obamao. This is where the left and right have huge fundamental differences. Big gov't and deficit spending is not a winning formula. It never has been and if this country has to go through 4 more years of this obamination the country will have a civil war.

    A Call to Action will happen

  13. #13

    Sorry buddy, everyone including the 1-2% is on the nipple. Whether it's welfare, corps, middle class and
    even you and me. Everyone is getting tax breaks, deductions and free money, which is why the govt doesn't
    have any money.

    Another reason the govt doesn't have money is because of squandering our money.
    Giving money to nations who hate us, building new court houses, empty govt buildings, business' going
    over budget on govt contracts, the list goes on.

    Until they show more responsibility with OUR money, they should not get more!

  14. #14
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 25,092
    Message Me

    the 1% are above law, they are not sucking any tit,they own the tit.they are titty fukking both of em, while the 99% is trying to draw milk from the nipples to no avail.................

  15. #15

    Quote Originally Posted by golfrulz View Post
    left is right and right is wrong pal.
    history says otherwise

  16. #16

    A day late and a dollar short ... 9/11/01 marked the start of the assault on the middle-class. It was dubbed, " the war on terror "...

Top