How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?

Why does the middle class need help (government help) today? It wasn’t getting it, (or asking for it, as far as I know) 50, or 100, or 150 years ago. Why is today different? It trickles down. That phrase has been made to sound evil by the left/Democrats/liberals, but it works. There’s no evidence that increasing taxes/social programs, government impositions on private business, special rights for labor unions, and erosions of morality help anything in the long run. Maybe temporarily for some, but never permanently for all. When productivity is taxed, there is less of it. When non-productivity is rewarded, there is more of it. I believe that’s a Reagan paraphrase. The EPA has possibly done more to destroy the middle class than any other single thing in the U.S. It imposes regulation that someone has to pay for, and the middle class always gets the bill. It destroys business, large and small, putting the middle class out of work. It really shouldn’t be thought of as laws and reforms by Republicans, it should be thought of as an undoing of failed laws and reforms put in place by Democrats in the past, most of it the very recent past.

So you suspect that EvC may not be perfectly representative of the general political opinion, (and political knowledge) all across the U.S.? Very good! They also do so on the basis of the country’s foundation, founding documents, knowledge of U.S. history, and human nature. NPR recently fired Juan Williams, a moderate liberal. I don’t watch NPR, but I wonder if you could name me any right wing extremists who are permitted to debate/share their opinions there. Just one. The percentages of liberal commentators/guests on Fox news may be small, but the list is long. Just off the top of my head; Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckel, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Charles Rangel, Harold Ford. Fox news is loaded with debate and conflicting opinions. The mainstream media is not. You’re absolutely right about that. I usually have ABC World News on after my local news each evening. About all I see there is liberalism, and slanted reporting. I don’t bother with the late night comedians however, a major source of news for many people. Are you a property owner?

You’d have to explain more thoroughly what you mean by trickle up. I don’t see those who are dependent on government being much benefit at all to those who are self sustaining. By trickle down, I mean that when those at the top are permitted to keep more of their earnings, they’re able to buy more things that those below them produce (luxury items like boats),and tend to replace things long before they’re worn out, simply because they’re tired of them. (like cars) Making usable used cars more available to others. The problem is, you’re not referring to useful products and services, the kind that people willingly pay for. You’re talking about work that accomplishes nothing directly marketable, something that must be paid for indirectly/unwittingly. Sure some of it is necessary, but much of it is not. It’s difficult to draw the line between how much safety is too much safety. Every unused safety product/service has to be paid for by someone. There are those who say that if one life is saved, this safety feature is worth it, but of course that’s false. We could lower the speed limits to 5mph and save 30,000 lives every year, but our society couldn’t function. If you believe that handout programs increase productivity, or that taxation on production increases production, it’s just something we have to agree to disagree on. These are emotional talking points put fourth by environmentalist extremists. Some environmentalism is necessary of course, but much of it is not. Many metropolitan areas over recent decades have been mandated by the EPA to perform auto emissions testing. It came and went in my area, as it has in many others. It’s easy to recognize as a power and money grab, far more than showing any concern for the environment. You must completely trust the government officials who administer these programs. I don’t. Obviously, the U.S. founding fathers didn’t either, considering the way the Bill of Rights is worded, or the famous quotes from some of them. Ever hear the phrase, give me liberty or give me death? Can you understand the passion behind that? When I was in school, I couldn’t. 40 years later, I now can. Are you a property owner? In the 1970’s before the EPA was 10 years old, it shut down a U.S. Steel plant in Gary Indiana, putting those steel employees out of work. I remember seeing it in the news at that time (deep in an obscure section in the back page of the newspaper) . There are countless other examples of the EPA destroying business and destroying jobs, but they seldom get much attention in the news. The EPA is a self serving bureaucracy, and corruption is involved.

He's not a conservative, and he wasn't "picked up" by Fox News after that firing. He already worked there, which is a large part of why he was fired. Well I just may have to watch NPR, and see just how fair and balanced they really are. Yes I am, and since you didn't answer my question I suspect you may be a renter. I have little time to discuss liberty with renters. They've never had "untrammeled rights to pollute", even before the EPA was founded. Again, emotional talking points, nothing more.

REPLY TO MESSAGE 158 Haha, my mistake. Public radio / public television, it all tends to run together with me. Both liberal, both taxpayer supported. I actually seriously doubt I’ll ever have the stomach to pay any attention to either one. Michelle Bachman being on NPR does fascinate me however.MESSAGE 159 That’s called free markets. If you don’t know the difference between free markets and government mandated income redistribution, I have about as much time for you as I do for property renters who know or care nothing about liberty. An owner of a plumbing company, or trucking company, with 5 to 10 employess, often falls into the rich classification as set by Democrats. This type of rich person is very much engaged in the production of goods and services, and often has more headaches and risks involved in what he does in one day, than his employees have in a year. If government, or jealous voters believe they know enough about him to help decide how much of his money he can part with to prop up other members of society, he doesn’t have much life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.I know or care little about finance. But I’m not jealous of those who are successful at it. They live much riskier lives than government bureaucrats. I don’t have that belief, you build straw men. I believe private interaction in free markets and free society, with a reasonable legal system, reign in property disputes far better than a self serving government bureaucracy. That’s a real answer. I can identify a couple of lines from the Declaration of Independence, which describe the actions of the British Crown that he was referring to. To quote;

quote:

---

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance

​

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever

---

It’s amazing that today’s EPA was so clearly defined back in 1776. It was almost like the U.S. founders knew something about human nature, about tyrants, about the fragility of liberty. No. They were doing things the way they always did them. The EPA imposed NEW, more stringent regulations, that U.S. Steel found impossible to quickly meet. It wasn’t permanently closed, but it was closed temporarily. Until U.S. Steel finally met them (with their customers footing the bill) or until the union came on too strong, or until the briefcase filled with cash was handed from the proper person to the proper person. How do you know that - do you have something on-line you can prove that with? A quick search didn't turn anything up for me, I'm just going by memory of about 35 years. Property rights yes, conspiracy theories about industrial pollution, not so much.MESSAGE 165 I AM serious, and don’t call me Shirley. I also have little time for those who can’t express themselves without middle school playground talk. No. I just said that I don’t care to have a discussion with them at this time. I also don’t desire a discussion with a new mom on the details of diaper changing. I also don’t desire a discussion with a Wall Street Financial guy about the stock market reports on the Dow Jones big board bulls and bears, whatever that is. It doesn’t mean I don’t consider them a member of my society. I just don’t desire a discussion with them. Given the incredible ignorance in this thread of a wariness of tyranny, the fragility of liberty, etc, I was just thinking I could awaken a thinking process of a property owner who, by some miracle, hasn’t yet had to deal with property taxes, zoning ordinances, building permits, building setbacks, eminent domain, legal issues, jealous neighbors, and other things associated with owning property.MESSAGE 166 They really could do quite well, because I’d bet that not a single one of them expected any of their routine living expenses to paid for by someone else. That’s what would make them completely different from most renters that are using vulgar language on a political thread on a scientific forum.MESSAGE 167 What's the difference in that and left wing extremists who believe in 2 classes, one that's "rich" and therefore should be taxed in a different classification to support the other class?

Fair enough. Yes. By slowing down the socialist policies of the Democrats. There have been problems, mainly concerning health care (which I’ll get to), but overall it’s worked fairly well. 50 years ago, many homes in the U.S. didn’t have a television, most driveways only had one car. Statistics show that the poor in the U.S. have it pretty good, compared to the poor in other countries. Or it could be compared to 100 years ago in the U.S. — many/most poor families in the U.S. today have it better than upper middle class families had it back then. Because a lot of people in the U.S. don’t agree that all the details involved in those things works out for the better in the long run. If middle class living in other countries looks attractive to those on the left in the U.S., we should be seeing a mass exodus in emigration to those countries. It’s not happening. It keeps them from having to foot the staggering bill for all the unnecessary regulation that’s going on today. The auto emissions testing in my area from 1990 to 94 (or 95, whenever it ended) was nothing but a multi million dollar waste. Like any government bureaucracy, the EPA doesn’t seem to be accountable for its mistakes.Forbidden Probably the biggest thing is to try to do something about the unsustainable debt that the Democrats continue to build. Someday the middle class is going to have to pay the fiddler. I don’t know, I don't think they have any magic answers for it. The mess didn’t happen overnight, and it won’t be solved overnight. Did you know that in the 60’s or 70’s, it was not uncommon for just about anyone at any education level to get a job, and automatically have his wife and all 6, 9 or 12 children fully covered? Why not today? I’ll start at the beginning;Much of medical research and development, isn’t, and never has been, a simple producer/buyer transaction. That’s because it involves procedures for treating catastrophic medical issues, the types of issues that people don’t expect or see coming, and certainly don’t have enough money laying around to pay for. That was the reason they had insurance, and in the 50’s and 60’s the procedures were limited enough and defined enough so that the insurance system worked, with little strain on those paying the premiums. But medical research and development never stops, in spite of the fact that there is no demand for it, from anyone able to pay the bill, yet it always must be paid for. In addition to looking for new cures for cancer, heart disease, etc., the technology arrived for cosmetic, and morally troubling medical procedures. (transplanting baboon hearts to humans, etc.) Insurance companies, like any business, will pay for anything, as long as it makes it possible for them to recover that money plus more, with new sales. So in the early 1980’s HMO’s were born! You’re health must be maintained — you’re like a car — you’re oil must be changed! You need to go to the doctor every few months, open your mouth and say ahhh, take your temperature, and WHAM, you’re fine, out the door, that will be $75! But no worries, your insurance company will pay $70, we only need a $5 co-pay from you, and you got to sit in our waiting room all day rather than work at your job! Your employer will pay you for it! It worked for a while, but when the bills started really coming in to the insurance companies, guess what they did with their premiums. Even before the HMO farce got started, insurance companies, and any company offering benefits to employees, often through unions, were beginning to see a benefit to them if they started experimenting with paying some of their customers/employees routine living expenses. That’s something that goes against the spirit of U.S. foundings, for citizens to have any routine living expenses to be paid for by someone else. It was practically unheard of for the first 100 to 150 years of U.S. existence, and today it’s practically a way of life, a way of thinking, for huge blocks of voters. Today it’s routine for many people to expect breast enlargements, birth control pills, Viagra, a prescription for a cold, or a $5000 power chair to be paid for by someone else. Who else? Most of them don’t know and don’t care. Who should pay for it? The top 5%? Or the middle class? Who is actually paying for it? I currently pay $175 a month for a really lousy medical plan. I think I can guess where a lot of that $175 goes.

And the crashfrog crashes, and all his little helpers here will give him a free pass of course. Owning slaves was a luxury for Jefferson, he wasn't using them to prop up a poor, desperate lifestyle! You're comparing Jefferson to today's handout seekers? Do you think before you call people names, o believer in free speech?From here on I'm only replying to Taq in this thread - he seems to be the only one on the Democrat side that's interested in a meaningful discussion.

Sorry, just a few;MESSAGE 181 It’s always interesting how discussions about current events / growth of government / and personal liberty involving liberals of today make a beeline for a few of the U.S. founders that owned slaves, as if the U.S. isn’t really about personal liberty because of it. The U.S. had dozens of founders that didn’t own slaves, and slavery in the U.S. was under attack from the moment the U.S. was created. Did you know that slavery didn’t originate in the western world, that it was a worldwide affliction for centuries before the U.S. was founded? Did you know that western civilization was the first to destroy slavery, and set the tone for it to be destroyed in many other places around the world? It may not have been done by Jefferson, but it was done by the ideology of liberty that he had a hand in promoting.MESSAGE 191 In reality, one of the many unfortunate characteristics of liberals, is that they tend to take for granted what they’re used to in their comfortable lives. Like what the U.S is, what it’s accomplished, and what it’s like to live here, like all that is somehow natural or automatic. In reality, there is nothing automatic about the current way of life achieved in the U.S. A lot of people, with a lot of (often uncomfortable) effort made it possible for you to take it all for granted, to be impressed with those in other countries that belittle it. Your casual acceptance of ideological experimentations aren’t guaranteed to add to add to what’s been achieved in the U.S., but they do have an excellent chance of adding to dismantling much of what’s been achieved. Many countries that have national health care are generally worse off than the U.S. History shows that nations and entire civilizations have fallen from success to complete disintegration. Ever hear of the Roman Empire, ancient Chinese dynasties, or the Ottoman Empire? It’s been estimated that it was 1000 years before Europeans again achieved as high a standard of living as they had in Roman times. In reality, many Romans took their society for granted 1700 years ago, just like you take the U.S. for granted today.MESSAGE 196 YES! Public education is for the only thing not in the above list! For Democrat teachers to brainwash children into liberalism and atheism!

It eases their burden of having to pay for those socialist policies. Despite all the political rhetoric, it’s not all that complicated. Government spending has to be paid for by the productive citizenry of that government. So healthcare wasn’t near the political issue 50 years ago than it is today, we can agree on that. The question is, why? There was no government health insurance then either. Not many, because they didn’t have near the appetite for alcohol and illegal drugs at their fraternity parties as college kids do today. They were raised under Judeo Christian morals to a much greater extent than kids today. Today it’s evolution; if it feels good do it, we weren’t endowed by a creator with any rights. If you can get routine living expenses paid for by someone else, go for it. Cost of living? That sounds so innocent, why does the cost of living go up? Why should it? Here is a link to a few short paragraphs of how U.S. government domestic spending has gone up in the 20th century, several of those little factoids even include adjustments for inflation. Why has it been necessary? Because there are more people — because civilization is more complex? Even so, is the question of affordability not an important one? Because it doesn’t have much detail about the details? The detail is out there, but it’s not going to be found at NPR, or ABC. Here is a link you won't find in the mainstream U.S. media. Choked with cyanide — evidence? Or NPR talking points? One thing we always hear from environmentalists; We have accomplished much! But much remains to be done! Considering any new discoveries or problems, what else do you expect them to ever say? Would they say; Hmm, the problem is way worse than we thought, practically no progress has been made since the EPA was founded in 1970, we have a LOT to do!! The question would then be what have you done with the billions of dollars that you’ve soaked the middle class for, for 4 decades? Or if they say; Our existence is justified, we now have everything all cleaned up! The question to that would be; then why don’t you now unfasten your lips from the sweet flowing breast of the taxpayer and go get a job in the private sector? So anyone who expects reality to change the political activity of the EPA has a far bigger trust in the rich, than anyone who trusts free markets to control the rich in the private sector. Yes, everything you’ve heard from the EPA, or the liberal media. The testing in my area didn’t even include diesels! What doesn’t make sense to me, (and about 150 million other Americans) is how replacing competing insurance companies with one more massive government bureaucracy is going to make health care less costly. Or how the top 5% of wage earners are a bottomless pit to pay for all of it. It takes the economic activity of the middle class to fund the rich, no matter how difficult it is for the general public to understand things like $50,000,000 in stock options that liberals refer to like it’s a common, effortless, crooked thing that most Republicans do.The big difference in what government should and should not pay for is the question; Are a free people able to supply this want or need for themselves, or does it absolutely require some type of municipal organization? Any government spending question can easily be divided into those two catagories. Can people individually deal with things like fire and police protection, foreign relations, bridge and road building? Since the beginnings of the U.S. they never have. Yet they’ve proven over the first 200 years of U.S. existence that health care IS something that free people can and should be able to provide for themselves. Once the government starts providing people with what they can provide for themselves, where does it stop? Should we have food insurance? A single payer food system? If we have single payer health insurance, why not single payer automobiles? Single payer housing? Who will determine who gets a big car vs a small car, a big house vs a small house? The same type of government agency that will soon determine who qualifies for what medical procedure? Have you ever checked into the details of the decision making process of who gets what care, how long waiting periods are etc., of government health care in foreign countries?

You're a rare type of liberal. Even most liberals will grudgingly admit that the U.S. has one of the highest standards of living in the world. It would indicate that the ownership of slaves by some of the U.S. founders wasn't necessarily something they originated as part of U.S. foundings, as is always implied by liberals.

So Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Obama are all conservatives? If you told them that, do you think they'd agree? Sorry, but words have meanings - to effectively communicate they have to be used in ways that society generally accepts them.

Just because it's a three word liberal chant doesn't mean the slippery slope is a "fallacy", it's actually very real. U.S. history is loaded with examples of it, from increased taxation, smoking restrictions, declines in morality, on and on. Today’s entire political discussion about government health care in the U.S. resulted only from past action like Medicare and Medicaid, Social security, and similar government programs of questionable constitutional authority. You expected me to know that? You’re participating in a thread solely about U.S. healthcare, and it says nowhere in your profile where you’re from. So your opinions on why U.S. citizens would want to experiment with foreign systems rather than compare them to the entire history and structure of their own country (that you obviously know little about) isn’t really all that valid, is it?

Okay, so you have one area (elimination of insurance company involvement) where cost would be saved in a government run system. Is that the only one you have? If so, after considering the brand new cost of more government employees to run the new system, do you still see a large enough difference in those two amounts to solve all the problems of medical costs in the U.S.?I’m no big fan of insurance companies, they tend to lobby politicians to pass laws that restrict liberty to promote safety, thereby benefiting insurance companies bottom lines by supposedly reducing the number of injury claims. But the U.S. has higher rates of obesity than people in other western nations that do have government health care. Should addressing this problem be part of government health care? Should the government pass ‘sugar control’ laws? I don’t think so and suspect you might not either, but I think government health czars would be much more likely to impose sugar control, than would insurance company lobbyists. Part of the reason for that is current government involvement. 50 years ago, it was a lot harder (or at least less common) for someone without insurance to go to the emergency room and get free treatment, for the cost to be absorbed by those with insurance. 50 years ago, states didn’t have near as many laws requiring insurance companies to pay for things like fertility treatments, annual checkups, and the latest high tech power chairs. And last but not least, 50 years ago the insurance industry didn’t have anything like todays ambulance chasing lawyers to prop up. I can easily remember when law firms weren’t allowed to advertise on television. You said student loans, not tuition and cost of living. I was merely making the point that amounts of student loans have a lot to do with ‘wants’, rather than needs. The decline of morality in the U.S over the past 50 years includes a decline in financial responsibility — as well as a decline in ethics of those selling students these loans. Evidence that it’s wrong? That was BBC, not some crazed Republican website. Or is it wrong simply because you want it to be? It IS strange, because you don’t seem to like traditional America. James Madison once said; "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." That’s the spirit of U.S. government that Tea Partier’s would like to see restored. That’s not what I was saying. I’m saying that just because life is more complicated than it was in the horse and buggy days, doesn’t mean that government has to grow to unaffordable levels to oversee the new complications. The U.S. government lived within its means for 150 years, though those years were simpler ones. Even in more complex times of today (more people, more technology) affordability should DICTATE that it continue to live within its means. With a few rare exceptions, we got along fine without the EPA until 1970. I admit that the time for it had probably come by then. But like any government agency, it got too big and intrusive. My earlier link about MTBE is proof that it can sometimes do more harm than good. Cleanliness comes second to the EPA, its first priority is its political action. Power and money. The same greed that you believe guides business, without the free markets to help keep it honest. Much of the research and development in medicine comes from the U.S., while Canada and other countries take advantage of it without having to foot the bill. Countries with government run health care don’t have as many high tech medical devices like CAT scans or MRI’s as the U.S. does. The U.S. has one of the highest cancer survival rates in the world. Do you think these characteristics of U.S. medicine will stay the same, or get better, when the government takes it all over? And the government isn’t going to do the exact same thing? Only with no competiton and and EPA style arrogance? If the government allows it. It’s all done by the same doctors and hospitals, how can they buy their way out of a long wait? All those without any type of insurance (the majority with the voting power) are going to have a lot to say about that. What little public transportation that we do have, (compared to all of it) it’s still not single payer. That falls under the classification of something that [most] people don’t have the capability of providing for themselves. Nothing socialist about public roads. Public posting of roads is in the U.S. Constitution. Most effective for what? Curing disease and keeping people out of pain, or running them through the system, keeping everything moving, pacifying doctors and assistants who may not be happy with the allowance the government gives them? Do doctors of different skill levels all make the same money? It’s usually the people themselves through the free market of the insurance company they choose to deal with, or their families that decide in the current U.S. system. It’s true that the system may run more smoothly if a bureaucrat in Washington makes some decisions however. A stranger’s death is much easier to take, isn’t it?

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress to impose a mandatory income confiscation system for a government run retirement system. There's also no evidence that FDR consulted the people about it, which the 10th amendment requires.

A good, civil message Malcolm, I appreciate it. Everyone who requires — with so many medical procedures, it’s not that simple. What is required is often subjective — what is required for some people may not be required for others. When to go to a doctor, what medical issues/symptoms can be lived with - in the U.S. these are all individual decisions as they should be. I find myself wondering if, in a government run health care system, are there requirements for physical exams? If a small medical issue is found during one of these exams, and the patient doesn’t want it treated, is he forced to have it treated? To save the system from more expense later on? I understand, of course there are advantages to a universal program. I think these people who want it in the U.S. are eventually going to get their wish. I just don’t see them thinking through the disadvantages, and the change over process. Since currently in the U.S. not everyone who needs a hip or knee operation will get one, it provides incentive (especially for those who are uninsured, or poorly insured) to live a healthier lifestyle that helps them avoid that problem. Like eating better, and/or getting some exercise. But it’s still a choice. Under universal health care, why would they worry? The government will take care of them. Unless the government mandates eating better, or getting exercise. That’s not liberty, not what the U.S. is about.There’s going to be a world of problems with a changeover to a universal system in the U.S. that’s going to surprise a lot of people. No matter how gradual it’s implemented, some things are going to happen overnight. Much health coverage in the U.S. is paid for partly, or completely by employers. If insurance companies are eliminated from the process, suddenly employers are going to be freed from this burden. What happens to that money? It’s company’s money, it’s earned by them, and it should be theirs to do with as they see fit. Does everyone expect them to hand it all out in raises to employees? Is the government going to find it justifiable to tax it away from them? Also, insurance companies suddenly lose a major source of income. They still insure automobiles, and houses, and much of this coverage is mandated by law (in the case of automobiles) and mortgage holders (in the case of homes) Will those rates skyrocket, as insurance companies attempt to counter their loss of medical insurance business?In some cases in the U.S., medical coverage is an incentive to be involved in organized work. In my area, school bus drivers are part time (average around 4 hrs work per day) and they get medical insurance through that job. For most of them, it’s a supplement to other work they or their spouse does — without medical insurance, they wouldn’t do it. So there’s no question that filling some jobs is going to be harder if medical insurance is suddenly out of the equation.The U.S. health care system has problems, to be sure. But I don’t think the only solution is to turn it all over to our government, which could very well do a far lousier job of administering it that your country’s government does.