Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

Dovkan · Mar 27, 2015

MildSteel said:
That is too much power to have. What that example illustrates is how the wealthy have been able to demonize the poor in the minds of the middle class to distract their attention from the fact that the wealthy are actually working them to death and giving them very little in return relative to the benefits that the wealthy are getting from their labor. It is truly remarkable.

Indeed it is.
Here is something I've found and expanded on to describe the capitalist system.
Worth in capitalism is abstract human labour. That means, a commodity is worth as much as the standard way of making it costs in term of human labour time. This means that businesses in capitalism don't exist in order to produce some defined amount of useful goods, but rather to extract as much labour out of the workers as possible. This means long working hours, as few holidays as possible, machines to make production easier only if it is profitable.
Also, capitalism is about getting the most of this abstract human labour (worth) produced for the business, instead of the worker. This is a goal that most capitalists have for themselves, although even if you don't have the goal to exploit as much as possible, the forces of competition kind of get you to do it. This means low wages for the workers in absolute terms (less bucks) and even less in relative terms (smaller percentage of total wealth produced).
Also, a source of income for capitalists are natural resources. You can take things from nature for free, resources and so on. Capitalists, since they are about profit, and only can reproduce themselves for long times if they are only about profit, are ruthless in the way they treat nature. Considerations like sustainability, health damages and so on have to take the back seat to making a profit by exploiting nature as much as possible, with all the bad consequences we witness today.

MildSteel · Mar 27, 2015

Dovkan said:
Indeed it is.
Here is something I've found and expanded on to describe the capitalist system.
Worth in capitalism is abstract human labour. That means, a commodity is worth as much as the standard way of making it costs in term of human labour time. This means that businesses in capitalism don't exist in order to produce some defined amount of useful goods, but rather to extract as much labour out of the workers as possible. This means long working hours, as few holidays as possible, machines to make production easier only if it is profitable.
Also, capitalism is about getting the most of this abstract human labour (worth) produced for the business, instead of the worker. This is a goal that most capitalists have for themselves, although even if you don't have the goal to exploit as much as possible, the forces of competition kind of get you to do it. This means low wages for the workers in absolute terms (less bucks) and even less in relative terms (smaller percentage of total wealth produced).
Also, a source of income for capitalists are natural resources. You can take things from nature for free, resources and so on. Capitalists, since they are about profit, and only can reproduce themselves for long times if they are only about profit, are ruthless in the way they treat nature. Considerations like sustainability, health damages and so on have to take the back seat to making a profit by exploiting nature as much as possible, with all the bad consequences we witness today.

That was a good analysis.

Again what is amazing is that the wealthy have made the middle class believe it is the poor that are trying to get the middle class to serve them!!! WOW!!!!

Truly amazing!!!

Dovkan · Mar 27, 2015

MildSteel said:
That was a good analysis.

Again what is amazing is that the wealthy have made the middle class believe it is the poor that are trying to get the middle class to serve them!!! WOW!!!!

Truly amazing!!!

Indeed it is. I look at things from the perspective of marxism,

A worldview and a method of societal analysis that focuses on class relations and societal conflict, that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, and a dialectical view of social transformation.

, although my initial entry into this forum confounded me to lie about what I actually agree with in order to avoid a witch hunt, but I'm prepared now.

MildSteel · Mar 27, 2015

Dovkan said:
Indeed it is. I look at things from the perspective of marxism, , although my initial entry into this forum confounded me to lie about what I actually agree with in order to avoid a witch hunt, but I'm prepared now.

Well it is surely an interesting perspective, and although I can't say I agree totally with everything I have read by Marx, it most certainly has some very strong points and provides an excellent framework for analysis of some of the problems that exercise mankind today. I think that people could certainly benefit from a least making some attempt at understanding things from that perspective.

Dovkan · Mar 27, 2015

MildSteel said:
Well it is surely an interesting perspective, and although I can't say I agree totally with everything I have read by Marx, it most certainly has some very strong points and provides an excellent framework for analysis of some of the problems that exercise mankind today. I think that people could certainly benefit from a least making some attempt at understanding things from that perspective.

Absolutely, but most people are prone to denounce and refuse discussion/insult those who mention "marxism, karl, marx, communist, communism.."

MildSteel · Mar 27, 2015

Dovkan said:
Absolutely, but most people are prone to denounce and refuse discussion/insult those who mention "marxism, karl, marx, communist, communism.."

It is because how we brainwash people. I remember I was in high school when someone actually really tried to explain some Marxist principles to me outside of the typical brainwashed version that is taught in school and seen in the media. I was shocked. I'm not kidding. Even up to that late of an age I thought it was about some sort of totalitarian tyranny.

Dovkan · Mar 27, 2015

MildSteel said:
It is because how we brainwash people. I remember I was in high school when someone actually really tried to explain some Marxist principles to me outside of the typical brainwashed version that is taught in school and seen in the media. I was shocked. I'm not kidding. Even up to that late of an age I thought it was about some sort of totalitarian tyranny.

That's essentially how it is, I've found another great observation that hopefully helps put forth my thoughts.
There is some popular wisdom (in some places) that we live in some sort of "corporatism" or an "impure" kind of capitalism - something other than what was intended.
On the contrary, it seems that capitalism by its nature leads to concentration of capital, monopoly-building, imperialism, growing alienation, consumerist culture, and so on. See Marx's Capital for a rather thorough description of these forces. If you accept this, then it becomes rather hard to justify removing restrictions on capital and capitalists.
Communism becomes a convincing alternative once you rid yourself of the strawman version of communism that your textbook probably described. The point is to eliminate class society - when the economic interests of all the people are united, democracy can truly exist. Until then, the ruling class has nearly complete control over the state.

joG · Mar 28, 2015

MildSteel said:
Refinancing a loan is paying your own way.

It is certainly better than having the state make a grant.

AlbqOwl · Mar 28, 2015

MildSteel said:
That is not correct because quite frequently people move across interstate boundaries. If people were confined to the state of their residence what you said would be true. But today especially, because of advances in transportation and communication, what states do have an effect nationwide.

No that is not true. That is what people like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, and Glenn Beck have fooled people into believing. Now what is true is that the erosion of civil liberties due the policies of the Republican administration of George Bush and continued under Barack Obama have hurt the middle class in terms of civil liberties, but that is a different matter than economically speaking.

The poor can't force anyone to do anything in this country. That is a very inaccurate statement.

Republicans have brainwashed people into believing that, but in reality, their policies have been hostile to middle class interests.

I'm pretty sure I can support my arguments, and just saying something isn;t true without explaining why it isnt true is really bad debate form. So is suggesting your opponent said something she didn't say at all. A good debate judge takes a lot of points off for that offense.

MildSteel · Mar 28, 2015

Dovkan said:
That's essentially how it is, I've found another great observation that hopefully helps put forth my thoughts.
There is some popular wisdom (in some places) that we live in some sort of "corporatism" or an "impure" kind of capitalism - something other than what was intended.
On the contrary, it seems that capitalism by its nature leads to concentration of capital, monopoly-building, imperialism, growing alienation, consumerist culture, and so on. See Marx's Capital for a rather thorough description of these forces. If you accept this, then it becomes rather hard to justify removing restrictions on capital and capitalists.
Communism becomes a convincing alternative once you rid yourself of the strawman version of communism that your textbook probably described. The point is to eliminate class society - when the economic interests of all the people are united, democracy can truly exist. Until then, the ruling class has nearly complete control over the state.

Those are some good thoughts and I totally agree with your conclusion that

If you accept this, then it becomes rather hard to justify removing restrictions on capital and capitalists.

Having said that, where I diverge with Marx is the notion that the elimination of class in society is the solution. I don't think that is possible. People are just different. The problem is that the capitalist class has far too much power relative to the value that they contribute to the upliftment of human society. One possible way to deal with this may be to tax wealth very heavily.

MildSteel · Mar 28, 2015

joG said:
It is certainly better than having the state make a grant.

Therefore the government should allow student loan customers to refinance their loans.

MildSteel · Mar 28, 2015

AlbqOwl said:
I'm pretty sure I can support my arguments, and just saying something isn;t true without explaining why it isnt true is really bad debate form. So is suggesting your opponent said something she didn't say at all. A good debate judge takes a lot of points off for that offense.

OK. I'm going to go back over it again.

AlbqOwl said:
And at least if a state screws up, it only screws things up for the people of that one state and not 49 others.

That is not true because people are not confined to state boundaries due to the large amount of interstate travel and communication. As a result of that what one state does can have a large effect on the people of other states.

AlbqOwl said:
And those complaining how Republicans 'hate the middle class' don't seem to realize that the one thing that has hurt the middle class most is more and more power taken by the federal government leaving less and less power to the middle class

That is not true. It is a deception that people like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, and Glenn Beck have propagated to demonize government in the minds of the middle class because they know that the only thing that is keeping the wealthy of this country from exploiting the middle class to death is government. Now what is true is that since the presidency of George W Bush, the government has assumed power that has eroded the civil liberties of everyone and that is disturbing. However that is something that has been supported by Republicans and Democrats as well. No, what has hurt the middle class the most is the outsourcing of jobs overseas which is something that Republicans have championed, and people like Bill Clinton as well. Over and above that, Republicans have opposed things like allowing people to refinance their student loans, extending unemployment benefits to middle class workers displaced due to the recession, and free community college. All three of these things would actually help the middle class, and Republicans have opposed all three.

AlbqOwl said:
the poor are largely in favor of the federal government forcing the middle class to serve them.

That is not true. The poor want better jobs and better opportunities to get themselves out of poverty. Government can play a role in facilitating such. That does not mean that the poor want to middle class to serve them. Again, this is a distortion that has been placed into the minds of the middle class by people like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, and Glenn Beck. They have done this to distract the middle class from the fact that the capitalist class is forcing them to work harder simply to make ends meet. By demonizing the poor in this way, the attention of the middle class has been diverted from the real culprits to a class of people who are very easily victimized because they have no power. The poor have no power to make the middle class serve them. The wealthy people can and do exercise the power to force the middle class to serve them. That is the reality of the situation.

Now, there you go. Those are your words verbatim and I have gone through it again, point by point. Here is your chance to shine. Defend your statements.

Papa bull · Mar 28, 2015

MildSteel said:
Refinancing a loan is paying your own way.

Is see no reason why anyone should be forbidden to renegotiate or refinance their education with any lender that agrees to a better deal. Fortunately, there aren't any prohibitions against that, so I don't see the problem.

Stoney · Mar 28, 2015

Dovkan said:
Just look through history before regulations. Hell, capitalism as a whole is a system that inevitably favors a small group of people. I agree with that point about repeating things, but I don't see that happening in regards to this, history shows us what happens, and looking at what capitalism, even when regulated, does.

Again you make unsupported remarks.

Stoney · Mar 28, 2015

Dovkan said:
How is he making an excuse?

"...he did not note the entire process..."

Stoney · Mar 28, 2015

Montecresto said:
That I won't disagree with. But that's a perversion of the real government roll of regulating capitalism to protect all people's involved. Do you not understand the extent men will go in their pursuit of ever greater profits without some restraining mechanism. Again, we don't have to imagine it. Are you familiar with the plight of the American worker during the advent of the Industrial Age, when there was little or no regulation? Men are not angels. Our constitution and the people's bill of rights is regulation!

Our government has no defined roll of regulating business. I wish you were as well versed on capitalism as you seem to be on socialism/communism. If you were I think you would see how capitalism is supposed to work and why regulation makes it something other than capitalism. I agree that men are not angels. But that applies to all men rather they work for the government or private enterprise. When we understand that and when we understand that we all serve our self interest then we should understand that people in government have more power than people in the private sector and so should be feared more than the private sector.

Stoney · Mar 28, 2015

Montecresto said:
The War between Capital and Labor

Because we live in an age in which workers are protected by federal and state laws as well as by sound business practices, it is hard for us to imagine a time when workers—especially unskilled, often immigrant workers—were completely at the mercy of their employers. (The plight of many illegal immigrant workers today may be comparable; however, without legal status, they have little recourse to assistance in case of unfair practices.) As we mentioned above, before the industrial age factories and workplaces were small enough that the owner knew everyone by name and often worked alongside his or her employees. The age of the modern factory and impersonal management changed all that, and the patent unfairness with which workers were treated became scandalous. For example, if a worker was injured on the job by faulty machinery, there was no mechanism for obtaining compensation. If a worker sued, he or she had to prove that it was not his or her own negligence that caused the accident. It is very difficult to prove a negative in such circumstances.

The people who came to power in that era, and many now, did so as a result of government support. To my reading the circumstances of employment were changed to to the work of unions. Politicians then piggybacked on those accomplishments.

Are you really saying that someone has a right to claimed damages without having to prove the damages?

Stoney · Mar 28, 2015

Montecresto said:
You must think that everybody can be trusted to do the right thing, lol. Why do we have contracts, treaties, verification inspections, OSHA. Dude, the pursuit of profits compromises character and ethics, sorry, it is what it is. It blows my mind that you don't see the need for any regulation or restrictions at all.

Before OSHA, workers health in the work place was constantly compromised. A cabinet shop was a terrible place to work, and lung problems were regular. Business didn't decide to spend the money to address this problem, regulation was put in place requiring a business to install ventilation, vacuum, filtration systems that were quite costly initially, but worker safety, health and productivity increased. Just expand that concept across the board.

You must think that people in government can be trusted to do the right thing. LOL. What I think is that we all serve our self interest and that people in government have more power to pursue those interests, at our expense, if we choose to give them that power, which you do.

Stoney · Mar 28, 2015

Dovkan said:
That's the beauty of capitalism, it inevitably favors the wealthy.

Capitalism has made more people wealthy while socialism makes those with the right connections, crony capitalism, wealthy. If you want to work hard and risk resources to be rich you have that opportunity with capitalism. If you want to work forty hours a week and spend time with you family and friends you have that opportunity with capitalism.

LetsGoBrandon · Mar 28, 2015

Zyphlin said:
No, they simply strongly disagree with the Democrats on the methods that best go about helping the middle class, either in the long term or the short term. Undoubtably as well they likely have, in some fashions, different metrics and methods of determining what is "helpful" and what "isn't" in their minds.

The only way to say the Republicans are against helping the middle class is by judging them based off the Democratic view point on the issue as being the only potential way to view it and absolute/singular objective fact.

Agreed. The reality is that it is the Democrats who are harming the middle class. They do so with their class warfare schemes. When they make a big play of socking it to the rich, they simply hope that most cannot workout that every time they sock it to the rich....the extra cost runs downhill and squarely hits the middle class in a higher cost of goods and services.

freeRadical · Mar 28, 2015

ObamacareFail said:
Agreed. The reality is that it is the Democrats who are harming the middle class. They do so with their class warfare schemes. When they make a big play of socking it to the rich, they simply hope that most cannot workout that every time they sock it to the rich....the extra cost runs downhill and squarely hits the middle class in a higher cost of goods and services.

Actually, the reality is that the government defines the middle class as rich.

AlbqOwl · Mar 28, 2015

MildSteel said:
OK. I'm going to go back over it again.

That is not true because people are not confined to state boundaries due to the large amount of interstate travel and communication. As a result of that what one state does can have a large effect on the people of other states.

That is not true. It is a deception that people like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, and Glenn Beck have propagated to demonize government in the minds of the middle class because they know that the only thing that is keeping the wealthy of this country from exploiting the middle class to death is government. Now what is true is that since the presidency of George W Bush, the government has assumed power that has eroded the civil liberties of everyone and that is disturbing. However that is something that has been supported by Republicans and Democrats as well. No, what has hurt the middle class the most is the outsourcing of jobs overseas which is something that Republicans have championed, and people like Bill Clinton as well. Over and above that, Republicans have opposed things like allowing people to refinance their student loans, extending unemployment benefits to middle class workers displaced due to the recession, and free community college. All three of these things would actually help the middle class, and Republicans have opposed all three.

That is not true. The poor want better jobs and better opportunities to get themselves out of poverty. Government can play a role in facilitating such. That does not mean that the poor want to middle class to serve them. Again, this is a distortion that has been placed into the minds of the middle class by people like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, and Glenn Beck. They have done this to distract the middle class from the fact that the capitalist class is forcing them to work harder simply to make ends meet. By demonizing the poor in this way, the attention of the middle class has been diverted from the real culprits to a class of people who are very easily victimized because they have no power. The poor have no power to make the middle class serve them. The wealthy people can and do exercise the power to force the middle class to serve them. That is the reality of the situation.

Now, there you go. Those are your words verbatim and I have gone through it again, point by point. Here is your chance to shine. Defend your statements.

Nope. You continue to mischaracterize what I posted. And the fact that people can leave a state that screws things up is a STRENGTH, not a problem. When the federal government screws up we have nowhere to go without giving up our country. That is a WEAKNESS involved in giving the federal government power that the states should have.

Further, a huge WEAKNESS in law and policy is the assumption that a federal one-size-fits-all law or policy will always do more good than harm. The assumption that those in government will know what is good for us more than the people will decide for themselves what is good for us is not only irrational, but just plain dumb. And because those in government look to their own self interests first, just as most people do, we can pretty well figure out they aren't going to put us first or much care what the consequences are in general just so long as they can keep enough of their base voting for them.

And it is that dynamic that is killing the middle class.

I probably won't respond further to your posts so long as you continue to chop them up as you do. I hate that form of posting because it so often screws up the context intended by the member quoted. Just a personal preference (and pet peeve) of mine.

jamesrage · Mar 28, 2015

Cardinal said:
If I were to track down the list of every democrat in Congress who voted for NAFTA, who do you expect would call me out as an extremist?

Any democrat who wants these chamber of commerce democrats in office.Republicans who would call you a left wing extremist for not supporting so called moderates.

jimbo · Mar 28, 2015

MildSteel said:
Therefore the government should allow student loan customers to refinance their loans.

Where are you coming up with the idea that the government does not allow student loan customers to refinance? That's false. The government has no such regulation, or even policy.

That's been pointed out several times in this thread, but you choose to ignore.

MildSteel · Mar 28, 2015

Papa bull said:
Is see no reason why anyone should be forbidden to renegotiate or refinance their education with any lender that agrees to a better deal. Fortunately, there aren't any prohibitions against that, so I don't see the problem.

The government should have a program that allows student loan customers to refinance their loans. It is simply not practical to expect that the typical borrower will have the means to refinance a typical debt of $27,000. Even refinancing a tangible asset like a home is not simple these days. Ask Bernanke

Despite having served as one of the most central figures in the global economy, even Ben Bernanke has difficulty refinancing his mortgage.

Addressing a the National Investment Center for Seniors Housing and Care conference in Chicago on Thursday, the former Federal Reserve chairman said that "I recently tried to refinance my mortgage and I was unsuccessful in doing so,"
...

Ben Bernanke turned down for mortgage refinancing

Are Republicans against helping the middle class?