5 Way the Middle Class Is Getting Screwed!

[Wyatt earp]

. Get a free checkup under O-Care. No more freeloaders!

with capitalist health care prices would be 80% lower and our life spans would be lengthened 5-20 years.

Why? What for to live another 5~20 years?

 

[Billy000]

5 Ways the Middle Class Is Getting Screwed - John Hawkins - Page full

The article is written by a conservative, however he sees it as both parties selling the middle class out.

1. Obamacare
2. College Loans
3. Immigration
4. Free Trade
5. Exploding Debt

I have been saying this for a long time, the two parties keep us fighting, so the real issues are ignored. The middle class needs to start demanding more from the government.

LOL I love how not one of those items refers to stagnant wages. Where is the blame on the 1% and the job creators themselves? They are doing better now more than ever because they are investing less and less money.

ObamaCare has had only a minor affect on the economy in general.

Immigration has not. Not even close. Illegal immigrants don't have middle class jobs lol.

College loans certainly do affect wages.

Besides over spending, the other chief reason for the debt is insane tax cuts insisted by republicans.

Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts is his only contribution to this problem. Admittedly, it's a significant one, but he at least tried to raise the minimum wage which of course republicans blocked. They also blocked his attempt to invest in community college job training programs.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you can't do it all in 50 years, what makes you think you can do it all in 70 years?

 

[Wyatt earp]

5 Ways the Middle Class Is Getting Screwed - John Hawkins - Page full

The article is written by a conservative, however he sees it as both parties selling the middle class out.

1. Obamacare
2. College Loans
3. Immigration
4. Free Trade
5. Exploding Debt

I have been saying this for a long time, the two parties keep us fighting, so the real issues are ignored. The middle class needs to start demanding more from the government.

LOL I love how not one of those items refers to stagnant wages. Where is the blame on the 1% and the job creators themselves? They are doing better now more than ever because they are investing less and less money.

Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts is his only contribution to this problem. Admittedly, it's a significant one, but he at least tried to raise the minimum wage which of course republicans blocked. They also blocked his attempt to invest in community college job training programs.

Fyi it is not an extension its permanent where have you been

 

[Billy000]

Demand more from the Government.

Which of course for you people means more revenue-gouging tax cuts that only drive up the debt even more.

 

[Mr. H.]

Demand more from the Government.

Which of course for you people means more revenue-gouging tax cuts that only drive up the debt even more.

Spending drives up debts, Brotch.

 

[Billy000]

Demand more from the Government.

Which of course for you people means more revenue-gouging tax cuts that only drive up the debt even more.

Spending drives up debts, Brotch.

You're right it does. It's even worse when there isn't sufficient revenue. Even if Bush and Obama didn't over spend, we would still be trillions in debt from Bush's tax cuts. The latest republican tax cuts will add 440 billion in debt.

 

[Mr. H.]

Demand more from the Government.

Which of course for you people means more revenue-gouging tax cuts that only drive up the debt even more.

Spending drives up debts, Brotch.

You're right it does. It's even worse when there isn't sufficient revenue. Even if Bush and Obama didn't over spend, we would still be trillions in debt from Bush's tax cuts. The latest republican tax cuts will add 440 billion in debt.

Tax cuts don't create debt. Spending over and above revenues does.

 

[Billy000]

Demand more from the Government.

Which of course for you people means more revenue-gouging tax cuts that only drive up the debt even more.

Spending drives up debts, Brotch.

You're right it does. It's even worse when there isn't sufficient revenue. Even if Bush and Obama didn't over spend, we would still be trillions in debt from Bush's tax cuts. The latest republican tax cuts will add 440 billion in debt.

Tax cuts don't create debt. Spending over and above revenues does.

If you understand that spending above revenue creates more debt than why don't you understand less revenue means more debt?

 

[Mr. H.]

Demand more from the Government.

Which of course for you people means more revenue-gouging tax cuts that only drive up the debt even more.

Spending drives up debts, Brotch.

You're right it does. It's even worse when there isn't sufficient revenue. Even if Bush and Obama didn't over spend, we would still be trillions in debt from Bush's tax cuts. The latest republican tax cuts will add 440 billion in debt.

Tax cuts don't create debt. Spending over and above revenues does.

If you understand that spending above revenue creates more debt than why don't you understand less revenue means more debt?

So you argue for tax increases because spending is out of control. Or maybe disallow ordinary business expensing as a way of increasing government revenues. You can't take people's money from them and expect commerce to continue on its merry way.

As an example, if I hire a geologist to do a study before I drill a well then that's called an "intangible drilling cost". Obama wants to do away with that. If you hire an architect before you build an apartment building, that's also an "intangible cost", but you get to deduct it as a business expense whereas I would not get to deduct my "intangible". Does that seem fair and reasonable?

 

[Billy000]

Which of course for you people means more revenue-gouging tax cuts that only drive up the debt even more.

Spending drives up debts, Brotch.

You're right it does. It's even worse when there isn't sufficient revenue. Even if Bush and Obama didn't over spend, we would still be trillions in debt from Bush's tax cuts. The latest republican tax cuts will add 440 billion in debt.

Tax cuts don't create debt. Spending over and above revenues does.

If you understand that spending above revenue creates more debt than why don't you understand less revenue means more debt?

So you argue for tax increases because spending is out of control. Or maybe disallow ordinary business expensing as a way of increasing government revenues. You can't take people's money from them and expect commerce to continue on its merry way.

As an example, if I hire a geologist to do a study before I drill a well then that's called an "intangible drilling cost". Obama wants to do away with that. If you hire an architect before you build an apartment building, that's also an "intangible cost", but you get to deduct it as a business expense whereas I would not get to deduct my "intangible". Does that seem fair and reasonable?

I argue for tax increases regardless of whether or not spending is high. Like I said, even if over-spending isn't a problem (I agree it is - It's called defense spending), we would still be several trillions in debt. The revenue generated from business doesn't do shit to offset the revenue lost from big tax cuts. It's too small. Right now revenue is 16% of the GDP which is near the historic low. In 2000, it was at 20%. Raising taxes actually helps the economy if raised responsibly. Take the 1950s. That was a time of great economic growth but the tax rate percentage on the wealthy was much higher than it is now.

 

[SwimExpert]

Get a free checkup under O-Care. No more freeloaders!

What. The. ****. ?

 

[SwimExpert]

No, I've outed mylsef as someone who lives in the real world.

In the real world $100,000 is alot of money. As a yearly income, would put a person in the 82nd percentile. Congressional pay of $174,000 a year puts a person in the 92nd percentile.

You live in a fantasy land of entitlement bullshit, where you think the world just gives you whatever you want, because you want.

 

[francoHFW]

Get a free checkup under O-Care. No more freeloaders!

What. The. ****. ?

Included. DUH.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Economic policies rooted in class envy and demonization of corporations will not enable all to have the opportunity to prosper.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Economic policies rooted in class envy and demonization of corporations will not enable all to have the opportunity to prosper.

As long as they pay their taxes. I support corporations...But they do use our roads, send their children to our schools and depend on our fda, fdc and nws to get through life. Not to even get into the cost of the police! The only one I truly disagreed about is the student loans. I feel education is very important.

 

[francoHFW]

Nobody's demonizing corporations in general, just lying, cheating, bullying, greedy, polluting ones who don't pay their share.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Spending drives up debts, Brotch.

You're right it does. It's even worse when there isn't sufficient revenue. Even if Bush and Obama didn't over spend, we would still be trillions in debt from Bush's tax cuts. The latest republican tax cuts will add 440 billion in debt.

Tax cuts don't create debt. Spending over and above revenues does.

If you understand that spending above revenue creates more debt than why don't you understand less revenue means more debt?

So you argue for tax increases because spending is out of control. Or maybe disallow ordinary business expensing as a way of increasing government revenues. You can't take people's money from them and expect commerce to continue on its merry way.

As an example, if I hire a geologist to do a study before I drill a well then that's called an "intangible drilling cost". Obama wants to do away with that. If you hire an architect before you build an apartment building, that's also an "intangible cost", but you get to deduct it as a business expense whereas I would not get to deduct my "intangible". Does that seem fair and reasonable?

I argue for tax increases regardless of whether or not spending is high. Like I said, even if over-spending isn't a problem (I agree it is - It's called defense spending), we would still be several trillions in debt. The revenue generated from business doesn't do shit to offset the revenue lost from big tax cuts. It's too small. Right now revenue is 16% of the GDP which is near the historic low. In 2000, it was at 20%. Raising taxes actually helps the economy if raised responsibly. Take the 1950s. That was a time of great economic growth but the tax rate percentage on the wealthy was much higher than it is now.

God damn you liberals are like a brain dead Parrot you dont have a clue what it was like in the 50s with the tax loop holes, tax code, lack of regulations that we have today, europe in ruins

And the lack of civil.rights

Why do liberals always want to bring us back to the 50s ?

Do they secretly want darkies back in the bus?

 

[ScienceRocks]

You're right it does. It's even worse when there isn't sufficient revenue. Even if Bush and Obama didn't over spend, we would still be trillions in debt from Bush's tax cuts. The latest republican tax cuts will add 440 billion in debt.

Tax cuts don't create debt. Spending over and above revenues does.

If you understand that spending above revenue creates more debt than why don't you understand less revenue means more debt?

So you argue for tax increases because spending is out of control. Or maybe disallow ordinary business expensing as a way of increasing government revenues. You can't take people's money from them and expect commerce to continue on its merry way.

As an example, if I hire a geologist to do a study before I drill a well then that's called an "intangible drilling cost". Obama wants to do away with that. If you hire an architect before you build an apartment building, that's also an "intangible cost", but you get to deduct it as a business expense whereas I would not get to deduct my "intangible". Does that seem fair and reasonable?

I argue for tax increases regardless of whether or not spending is high. Like I said, even if over-spending isn't a problem (I agree it is - It's called defense spending), we would still be several trillions in debt. The revenue generated from business doesn't do shit to offset the revenue lost from big tax cuts. It's too small. Right now revenue is 16% of the GDP which is near the historic low. In 2000, it was at 20%. Raising taxes actually helps the economy if raised responsibly. Take the 1950s. That was a time of great economic growth but the tax rate percentage on the wealthy was much higher than it is now.

God damn you liberals are like a brain dead Parrot you dont have a clue what it was like in the 50s with the tax loop holes, tax code, lack of regulations that we have today, europe in ruins

And the lack of civil.rights

Why do liberals always want to bring us back to the 50s ?

Do they secretly want darkies back in the bus?

You're the one that don't have a clue. One parent could own a house, car and feed his family based on just his income alone. The middle class was the largest in American history and wealth gap the smallest. Your parties tax policies have successful fucked over the middle class, while granting the top 1% all the profits. congrats!

Also, blacks were better off in the 50's as they had their families and a successful economy. Unlike today. Learn something or shut up.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nobody's demonizing corporations in general, just lying, cheating, bullying, greedy, polluting ones who don't pay their share.

Tax cuts don't create debt. Spending over and above revenues does.

If you understand that spending above revenue creates more debt than why don't you understand less revenue means more debt?

So you argue for tax increases because spending is out of control. Or maybe disallow ordinary business expensing as a way of increasing government revenues. You can't take people's money from them and expect commerce to continue on its merry way.

As an example, if I hire a geologist to do a study before I drill a well then that's called an "intangible drilling cost". Obama wants to do away with that. If you hire an architect before you build an apartment building, that's also an "intangible cost", but you get to deduct it as a business expense whereas I would not get to deduct my "intangible". Does that seem fair and reasonable?

I argue for tax increases regardless of whether or not spending is high. Like I said, even if over-spending isn't a problem (I agree it is - It's called defense spending), we would still be several trillions in debt. The revenue generated from business doesn't do shit to offset the revenue lost from big tax cuts. It's too small. Right now revenue is 16% of the GDP which is near the historic low. In 2000, it was at 20%. Raising taxes actually helps the economy if raised responsibly. Take the 1950s. That was a time of great economic growth but the tax rate percentage on the wealthy was much higher than it is now.

God damn you liberals are like a brain dead Parrot you dont have a clue what it was like in the 50s with the tax loop holes, tax code, lack of regulations that we have today, europe in ruins

And the lack of civil.rights

Why do liberals always want to bring us back to the 50s ?

Do they secretly want darkies back in the bus?

You're the one that don't have a clue. One parent could own a house, car and feed his family based on just his income alone. The middle class was the largest in American history and wealth gap the smallest. Your parties tax policies have successful fucked over the middle class, while granting the top 1% all the profits. congrats!

Also, blacks were better off in the 50's as they had their families and a successful economy. Unlike today. Learn something or shut up.

No shit dumb ass and what happend? LBJ and his model city Detroit , just look at it today

Flint and Detroit were the richest cities upto 30 years ago

You sit.down and shut the **** up and learn something