[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Who Will Speak For The Long-Neglected Middle Class? On almost every left-right issue that divides Democrats and Republicans — as well as Republicans themselves — there is a neglected populist constituency. The result is that populist politics are largely caricatured as Tea Party extremism — and a voice for the middle class is largely absent. The problem with ObamaCare is that its well-connected and influential supporters — pet businesses, unions and congressional insiders — have already won exemption from it. The rich will always have their concierge doctors and Cadillac health plans. The poor can usually find low-cost care through Medicaid, federal clinics and emergency rooms. In contrast, those who have lost their preferred individual plans, or will pay higher premiums and deductibles, are largely members of the self-employed middle class. They are too poor to have their own exclusive health care coverage but too wealthy for most government subsidies. So far, ObamaCare is falling hardest on the middle class. Consider the trillion-dollar student loan mess. Millions of young people do not qualify for grants predicated on either income levels, ancestry or both. Nor are their parents wealthy enough to pay their tuition or room-and-board costs. The result is that the middle class — parents and students alike — has accrued a staggering level of student loan debt. Universities are of no help. Their annual tuition costs have usually gone up faster than the rate of inflation. On too many campuses, vast increases in well-paid administrators and lower teaching loads for tenured professors — as well as snazzy new campus recreation facilities — were all predicated on students obtaining more federal loans and going into astronomical debt to pay for those less accountable and better off. Illegal immigration also largely comes at the expense of the middle class. The supporters of amnesty tend to be poor foreign nationals who desire amnesty. Corporate employers and the elites of the identity-politics industry do not care under what legal circumstances foreign nationals enter the United States. Instead, the two kindred pressure groups seek cheap and plentiful labor and plenty of ethnic constituents. Lost in the debate over "comprehensive immigration reform" are citizen entry-level job seekers of all different races who cannot leverage employers for higher wages when millions of foreign nationals, residing illegally in the U.S., will work for less money. Likewise, few worry about would-be legal immigrants without political clout who have played by the rules and are still waiting in line for a chance at citizenship. Middle-class taxpayers are most responsible for providing parity in subsidized housing, legal costs, health care and education for those who entered the country illegally, especially once corporate employers have let their undocumented older or injured workers go. There is a populist twist to proposed new federal gun-control legislation as well. The wealthy or politically influential, who often advocate stricter laws for others, usually take for granted their own expensive security details, many of them armed. In contrast, new gun-control initiatives would mostly fall on the law-abiding who hunt and wish to defend their own families and homes with their own legal weapons. Energy policy has become a boutique issue for the wealthy who push costly wind, solar and biofuels, subsidized mostly by the 53% of Americans who actually pay federal income taxes and are most pressed by the full costs of higher fuel, electricity and heating costs. Yet the best friends of the middle class have been frackers and horizontal drillers taking their own risks on private lands. They — not the government, and not environmentalists that oppose such exploration — are mostly responsible for the recent drops in gasoline, natural gas and propane costs to the consumer. The Federal Reserve's policy of quantitative easing and de facto zero interest rates have stampeded investors desperate for even modest returns from the stock market — to the delight of wealthy Wall Street grandees. The poor are eligible for both debt relief and cheap (and often subsidized) mortgage rates that remain near historic lows. The real losers are frugal members of the middle class. For the last five years they have received almost no interest on their modest passbook savings accounts. In other words, we are punishing thrift and reminding modest savers that they might have been better off either borrowing or gambling on Wall Street. In the last election, Republican Mitt Romney was caricatured as a voice of the wealthy pitted against Barack Obama, a redistributionist railing for more subsidies for the poor. But millions of Americans in between are not so worried about capital gains cuts on stock sales, or more food stamps and free phones. And no one in Washington seems to be listening to them. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#2. To: X-15 (#0)
Not me. The middle class did NOT come down from the upper crust of society. They came UP from the lower class, usually via hard work and personal ingenuity. That is indeed the American way. However, once settling into the comfortable confines of middle class, far too many lost their way.
???
As I said, the MIDDLE CLASS did not come down in the social strata, the vast majority CLIMBED UPWARD from the lower class. The majority after WWII. Sadly,far too many of the new arrivals have forgotten their roots, plus, they fail to acknowledge that few will rise higher, the many will fall back into the lowest layer.
They won't fall back, they'll be pushed back by .gov programs and interventions into their lives.
Sir Lod... "Wealth Distribution " As you can see, the U.S. population consists of a variety of different income classes, which is quite normal for any nation, but that doesn't change the fact that the American income median is at its lowest since 1996, and that there is something definitely wrong with that. The middle-class incomes have stayed neutral or have been declining while the wealthier classes have been getting richer. In fact, in 1988, the average American taxpayer was earning around $33,400. In 2008, that average had fallen to $33,000. The richest 1% of Americans, on the other hand, saw their incomes rise about 33% in the same time period"..... As the wealth flows upwards, there is a gross imbalance that has appeared. Imagine what would happen if the government stopped pumping money into the middle and lower classes????? Cease SS, welfare, medicare, medicaid, student loans on and on, do it tomorrow, stop the welfare state. In six months Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot and the other big box stores would be on their backs. The majority of the middle class would be out in the streets. We are in one hell of a fix with but two ways out. Total financial collapse and or war.
#9. To: Cynicom (#8)
I fear that we have already collapsed and are just staggering backward until we fall flat on our collective asses.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||