Reviving the Middle Class

1. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   How can this be done? No wonder there are rioting, angry people who topple statues, destroy buildings and light things on fire when given the slightest reason to do so.
   
   They don't know how to get what their parents and the previous generations had: The American dream! Is it too much to ask for?
   
   Redistribution of wealth in this great country is not the answer.
   
   This robs the middle class through high taxes. This topples their ambitions, goals and dreams for a happy life. This destroys their enthusiasm and joy of life. This lights fires of rage and frustration where accomplishments and success should be.
   
   This redistribution in one word is UNFAIR.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah right?  How about studying economics, and then argue academically.
      
      FYI, cutting taxes does not necessarily mean economic growth, it can have the reverse effect.
      
      There are plenty of books on the subject of economics, and videos on YouTube; these links for example might give you some insight:-
      
      •    Do tax cuts stimulate the economy?  https://youtu.be/wCLP3djiKvM
      
      •    Rise Up Vs. Trickle Down Economics:  https://youtu.be/mybOUF6DOyo
      
      •    Does Trickle-Down Economics Actually Work?  https://youtu.be/srJZHQHHT8g

      replyreport
      1. 99

         DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         For every Jonathon Smith arguing on Youtube there are plenty of econonomists on other sites that argue the exact opposite. His opinion of the facts may or may not be true.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, Conservatives (right wing) politics will support the 'trickle down' method, and left wing politics will support the 'trickle up' model - In economic theory they are both valued models; but which one you support depends on your politics.  But it doesn't alter the fact that the 'trickle down' policy doesn't work as Conservatives make out, in practice it does tend to make the top 10% of the population richer, while contributing very little to the economy - So naturally it is an economic theory that is favoured by Conservative Governments (that should go without saying); but that doesn't mean that it's a policy that best suits the other 90% of the population.

            replyreport
            1. 99

               DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               There are plenty of economists that point out that it does help everyone whereas the position that you support leads tô less production but more money in the economy, which as all sides agree leads to more inflation.

               replyreport
               1. 92

                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  No on both counts.  Firstly you can use economic theory to argue that the top-down approach benefits all; and that is the argument often used by right-wing Conservative Governments.  In theory, governments give the wealthy people the money in the belief that they will pass it down in the form of higher wages and employing more staff, sounds great:  But in practice, that tends not to happen, give the wealthy more money and they tend to save it rather than paying higher wages; which is counter productive e.g. it has little impact on economic growth.
                  
                  Whereas, the bottom-up approach, is guaranteed to have an impact on the economy  because poor people can't afford to save, any money they get will get spent; which stimulates economic growth, and generates jobs:  Classical economics.
                  
                  What you are talking about in your statement above e.g. inflationary pressures from the bottom-up approach:  FYI the inflationary pressures are linked directly to the bottom-up approach, as you are suggesting.  It's linked directly to 'supply and demand'.   If supply is greater than demand then you get inflation; if supply is lower than demand then deflation - neither of which is good for the economy if they are excessive.  However, it is recognised worldwide that that low inflation e.g. 2% is a sign of a healthy economy in good economic growth;  and generally governments will use 'Monetary policy' to control inflation and keep it close to 2% e.g. by higher interest rates to put downward pressure on inflation, and lowering interest rates to stimulate growth.
                  
                  Whether a government injecting more money into the economy by the bottom-up approach is inflationary or not depends on the state of the economy.  If the economy is flagging, then giving poorer people more money is certainly an effective way to stimulate growth, and create jobs.  Give too much too quickly, then certainly its inflationary, because increasing supply to meet increased demand can't happen at a stroke, it takes time to employ more people to produce more goods to meet increased demand - standard economics (if you've ever studied it at college or university, which I assume you haven't from the way you've responded).
                  
                  BTW Your last sentence is propaganda, not economics e.g. in the bottom up approach the poor can't afford to save money (they struggle to pay the bills with what little they get) so any money they do get they will spend; and spending money in shops will stimulate growth and increase employment;  that is standard economics. 
                  
                  Whereas, give rich guys money (top-down approach) and they're more likely to save rather than spend the money, which does little good to the economy - it just helps to make the rich richer.

                  replyreport
                  1. 99

                     DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     No, I did not study economics. I have read many who have though and some of them agree with you and others do not. That last paragraph is just your opinion.

                     replyreport
                     1. 92

                        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        I did study economics at college, microeconomics, macroeconomics and economic history; and passed the exams, and the qualifications helped me to further my career in the civil service.  My wife subsequently also studied economics at degree level at university, so I was able to mentor her at home.
                        
                        The last paragraph isn't just my opinion, it's an observation that is well studied and is a view point that is given as part of the course e.g. highlighting the pros and cons of the various economic theories.  If you don't understand what the pros and cons are of each aspect of economics then you'll not pass your exam, and not get your qualifications.

                        replyreport
                        1. 99

                           DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           Homeopathic medicine does not work. I can cite thousands of studies to show this quack medicine does not help people or animals. That is my OPINION.
                           
                           There are plenty of people out there that will tell you that homeopathic medicine is better than a placebo. That is their opinion.
                           
                           I do not think they are worried about passing an exam.

                           replyreport
                           1. 92

                              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              I didn’t say anything about “Homeopathic medicine” - but as you’ve brought up the subject, I think for once we are in ‘full agreement’, and FYI neither does the NHS (National Health Service) support Homeopathic medicine, on the grounds that “homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos (dummy treatments).”
                              
                              Sorry for not responding earlier but I’ve been on holiday (vacation).

                              replyreport
                              1. 99

                                 DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yes, I noticed you were gone after I posted this. I hope you had a good vacation. It is warming up in this part of the world so it is probably cooling down to a decent temperature in your area.
                                 
                                 I just used homeopathic medicine as an example of opinion. Opinions can be, but are not necessarily, backed up with facts. I know the facts are there in the case of homeopathic medicine but there are still people that have the opinion that I am wrong.
                                 
                                 And, as I mentioned, they are not the sort of people who are worried about passing an exam. Neither were the economists that convinced Reagen and Thatcher all about the trickle down theory.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 92

                                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yeah, Homeopathy is a pseudoscientific, so it’s not going to be taken seriously by the mainstream medical professional in countries like the UK without compelling scientific evidence, which is lacks.
                                    
                                    As regards ‘Economic Advisors’ to the UK Government, FYI even the most staunch right-wing UK Governments, including Thatcher, do reply heavily on the advice of professional economists; often professional economists who got their qualifications at Oxford or Cambridge Universality – the trickledown theory and trickle-up theory are two equally valid theories, one which suits the likes of right-wing capitalist governments, and the other which is favoured by Socialist governments:  So what’s the issue?
                                    
                                    FYI:  Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s Chief Economic Advisor was Sir Alan Arthur Walters; born in England in 1926 who got his University Degree in Economics at Oxford in 1951 – Need I say more!

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 99

                                       DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                       Now it sounds like you are arguing for the trickle downs! No issue, I was just pointing out that your view was your opinion and those economists that supported Thatcher and Reagen had other opinions. They have the same facts and just interpret them in different ways.
                                       
                                       Your vacation sounds great. I live that isolated lifestyle every day (ducks, sheep, dogs, horses), so when we get away it is to the city!

                                       report
                                 2. 92

                                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yep we had a great holiday, thanks.  Spent the week in North Norfolk, England; the heart of Tory (Conservative/upper-crust) land e.g. our holiday farm cottage was just a few miles from Sandringham, which we passed most days on our travels; and being in such a posh area there were few areas (pubs/restaurants/cafes) that did just ordinary food (that to our taste) most menus’ were just too posh for our taste; but other than that we had a great time: 
                                    
                                    The holiday cottage was fantastic, a cottage with its own large grounds, adjoining a duck pond, on a working farm estate, with a 2 mile drive along country lanes to get to the main roads – So well isolated, and tranquil.
                                    
                                    We visited a lot of historic buildings, quaint little villages, market towns and coastal towns – The Highlight of our visit was watching the ‘variety performance’ at Cromer Pier Pavilion Theatre at 8pm on Thursday 8th September, the show was laid on in ‘Commemoration of the Platinum Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II’; we walked onto Cromer Pier at 6:30pm (in plenty of time to be at the theatre at the end of the pier an hour later to get seated).  Little did we know at that time that the Queens death had been officially announced at 6:30pm, so we were oblivious to the news until 8pm when from stage the sad announcement was made with a request for everyone to stand in silence for 1 minute before the show (which was excellent).

                                    replyreport
                                 3. 92

                                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    Not at all, I just recognise that the ‘trickle down’ theory is a legitimate economic theory, just as the ‘trickle up’ theory is - I suggest you go back and carefully re-read all my comments above.  Having been professionally taught economics at college I KNOW that in ‘theory’ both economic theories are equally valid – I’ve stated that a number of times above.
                                    
                                    And even in economics we touched on the politics by having it highlighted to us why right-wing capitalist governments tend to prefer the trickledown theory and why socialist governments tend to prefer the trickle up theory:  It’s not rocket science.
                                    
                                    But theory doesn’t mean reality; in reality government injecting the money at the top, in the hope that the wealthy will use the money to stimulate economic growth, doesn’t tend to pan-out that well simply because ‘wealthy’ people at the top have a tendency to ‘save’ not ‘spend’; and saving doesn’t stimulate economic growth.  Whereas poor people can’t afford to save, the need to spend every penny they get to survive, and thus trickle-up is more effective at stimulating economic growth e.g., the money spend by the poor soon ends up in the hands of shop keepers, suppliers and manufacturers, and the shareholders and wealthy owners of those businesses:  Simple economics.
                                    
                                    Just because an economic theory isn’t effective doesn’t stop governments from using it e.g., it’s natural for right-wing capitalist governments to think of capitalists first and make policies that favour capitalists in preference to the lower classes; just as socialist governments tend to use economic theories to make government policies that tend to favour the poor in preference to the wealthy – That’s politics. 
                                    
                                    Yeah, when I was a kid, we lived like that to, in a small Cotswold village of Uley, our nearest neighbour being a farmhouse at the end of the dirt track – It was a great time.
                                    
                                    Below is an old picture of the home where I lived as a kid: -
                                    
                                    

                                    replyreport
   2. 82

      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Teach accountability.  Have a tough love ethic for America applied especially to the lower classes who expect other more affluent classes to carry them socioeconomically.  Cut welfare & other social assistance programs from 75% to 90%.  It is those $%$% welfare & other social assistance programs which are taxing the middle class to near death.  What is needed is tough love- those who work eat while those who won't or don't work, just starve.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      divyamillerposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Deleted
      1. 74

         Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         I've manage to live middle class all my life. With only a one time down fall,  during covid plandemic.  So I'll speak from self entrepreneur and personal experience. Forget the corrupted Government or centroism bankter top scammers to pull us out. Be your own government,  best doctor and  be a team leader of like minded with a collective consciousness together.  Had only 2 bad years out 50 years of loving my work. That is  a wiggle, not a struggle through life.  There is probably only 2% of people who truly think individualsism and independent enough. Tiny houses, urban farming and self substantiable communities is one great solution for most. Or hit on the head lessons from centroism is alway the narrative favorite self suffering way.

         replyreport
2. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   after all,
   
   Owning a home is great if it can be done within one's means.
   
   If the means are not there, heaven help them.
   It's okay if you don't want to raise children. Owning a home and all that goes with it, back yards, garages, schools, neighbors, communities, libraries, bowling alleys, movie theaters, YMCAs, kids' sports teams, community colleges, state colleges, etc. is the ideal way to go. As in, the best way to live in the modern age.

   replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   - home owning is the highest way to go: private, calm, secure, independent,
   safe and sound. Did I mention secure?

   replyreport
4. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   Bring Back Jobs to the United States!
   
   Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple should not have so much influence and power,
   China should not have so much influence and power,
   The Middle East should not have so much influence and power,
   Illegal aliens should not have so much influence and power
   Corrupt DAs    ''         "     "      "    "          "             "      "    .
   
   OVER US!
   
   Presidents signing executive orders willy nilly should be stopped.
   (Might as well have a king.)
   
   Wars being fought and taking sides wherever and whenever the president so chooses should cease!
   (Why even have a congress?)
   
   Changing the Constitution whenever and wherever some see fit should be curtailed.
   (Why even have a constitution if changing it is what they want more than anything?)

   replyreport
5. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   - do we want beyond sky-high taxation?
   - do we want to pay for Biden's taxation of our oil, natural gas, coal, small businesses and student loan debts?
   - do we want the ever-increasing costs of gas, food, rent, mortgage, construction supplies, etc. due to high inflation caused by continually printing trillions of dollar bills?
   - do we want to ignore the growing list of failures? Including the 200 executive orders this president has passed, such as opening the border, shutting down our energy independence, etc., etc.?
   
   No. We want to own homes!

   replyreport
6. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   The return of small business would also be helpful.
   https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/yelp-da … anent.html

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lovetherainposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      definitely

      replyreport
7. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   Q. Do we have illegal monopolies in the United States?
   
   "... monopolies are illegal if they are established or maintained through improper conduct, such as exclusionary or predatory acts. This is known as anticompetitive monopolization."
   From
   https://www.classlawgroup.com/antitrust … /monopoly/
   
   The DOJ enforces federal antitrust laws along with the Federal Trade Commission. The DOJ uses a variety of tools to investigate and prosecute criminal antitrust violations:
   From:
   https://www.classlawgroup.com/antitrust … f-justice/

   replyreport
8. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   i'm afraid we are already dinosaurs. We are going to go extinct. What will replace us lovetherain?
   What do your think?
   PS Welcome back.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lovetherainposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      a humanoid with a larger liver to better process the toxins in the environment.

      replyreport
9. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   Give citizens more freedom.
   Enable them to start small businesses by removing over-restrictive fees, requirements and regulations. Enable them to provide the best schools and educations for their children through school-choice. Enable them to own homes through well-paying jobs and employment opportunities. Enable them to afford homes by making them smaller, simpler and less expensive. Don't take away their gas burning stoves and their gas-propelled vehicles. Stay out of the way of their freedom, their ability to manage life and their self-guided freedom of will-POWER. "Leave them people alone!"
   
   https://www.tastingtable.com/887832/the … stove-ban/

   replyreport