How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?

Um, no, stupid, Thomas Jefferson was an agricultural landowner. He was a farmer who, instead of hiring laborers to work his land, purchased human beings to do so for free, and kept the profits that resulted from their uncompensated labor.Thomas Jefferson is exactly the example of a parasite who lives off the labor and utility of other people. That's what slavery means, you incredible gob-shite. Jefferson didn't "seek" handouts, he took them at the point of a sword - via the institutionalized brutality and labor-theft of slavery. Do you think before you say anything at all? Do you do any research on the subjects you spout off about or are you just making it up as you go? The notion that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves as a "luxury" is moronic and offensive - it's not a luxury to own and enslave another human being as though they were chattel, it's a crime against humanity. And Thomas Jefferson's lifestyle was based entirely on it. He owned hundreds of human beings to work his 5000-acre plantation. Thank you for announcing that you'll allow me to refute your points without any argument from you.

Funny thing. When I think of the programs that are "taxpayer supported", I think they are good for the public. NPR, for example. NPR actually is a good news source. If you ever listen to it, you will notice how, in a news piece, the interviewer or journalist does NOT take a side in the opinion. Rather, they are there to let the listener hear what is going on. I've read your posts on science threads, so I won't say anything about PBS and NOVA and the good it does for our youth.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

He didn't even know that NPR was on the radio. He's not ever going to listen to it. Why would he do that, when it's easier and simpler for him to simply assume that NPR is all liberals, all the time?Never mind, of course, that the way that you "pander to liberals" via news reporting is with good, accurate reporting. The guys who want the news skewed to privilege their pre-existing ideology are called "conservatives."

So far as I can tell, pretty much everything that you've written here and subsequently has been, in a word, wrong. No, I that that back. Two words - self-serving and deluded. I'm tempted to go to three and add evil, but I'll reserve judgement for now. I can't take the time to address every bit of nonsense, and others have done so already quite well. I just thought that I'd point out one particularly egregious item. Possibly the biggest lie that you've attempted to foist on this forum. The rich keep what they take. Why do you think that they're rich? The middle class put a lot more of their earnings back into the system.Look at it this way. Bob the CEO takes home $50,000,000 in stock options and bonuses this year. How much of that is he actually going to spend? How many cars and homes and boxes of Pop-Tarts can he actually buy in one lifetime?Your average middle class guy, making 1/000 of what Bob does, is putting a lot more of his $50,000 back into the economy. You know, buying things like haircuts, groceries, and shoes, so that other middle class people can keep their jobs and keep the money flowing.Money is a flow. My purchases are someone else's income. The rich, on the other hand, are stagnant swamps.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonWhat's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven DutchI never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill

I hate to play devils advocate, but can you not say that the rich can buy/purchase MORE of what the middle class do in the same argument?

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Maybe they CAN in theory, but look again at my argument. Really, how many gardeners can you hire? How many boats can you buy? Do the rich really put that much of what they make back into circulation?1000 guys making $50,000 are spending a lot more of what they make than one guy making $50,000,000.{ABE} And is Bob the CEO going to buy one thousand times as much food or clothes or gas than the middle class guys are? Yacht manufacturers can only hire so many workers, after all. Who's really keeping the money flowing amongst the most people?Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonWhat's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven DutchI never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill

Ok, I get what you mean. In that, there are more middle class personnel to spend the money.{abe} forgive me, I'm half a bottle of rum in the drink and I can't pontificate and elaborate on the subjugate.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Close, but not precise.What he's saying is that middle-class Americans spend a larger percentage of their income than wealthy people do. Part of that is because there are more of them, and so 1000 people will consume more food, will need more cars, etc.But the real point is that a person making 50,000 is likely to spend 90% of his income, circulating that money back into the economy.A person making 50,000,000 will not spend or invest 90% of his income. Sure, he'll buy some expensive houses, some cars, a yacht, and so on, and he'll invest a lot of his money so that he can increase his wealth without doing any work. But a large percentage of his money will not be recirculated - it will go into bank accounts and so on. While it's true that Americans in general need to save more, money saved is not money spent, and doesn;t continue to circulate.1000 middle-class Americans making 50k and spending 90% of their income will circulate far more money than a rich person making 50mil and spending only 60% of his income.Inheritance continues that trend. The wealthy horde large percentages of their money, and that money stagnates instead of circulating. That money will not be spent to buy a product from a company that employed an individual and paid him a salary which he then spends and continues the cycle. It's a break in the chain.

How does that help the middle class? Fifty years ago, how many two income families were there? Fifty years ago, how many people had to choose between healthcare and bankruptcy? Fifty years ago, how many kids had to take out a student loan that was equal to 3 years pay when they left the state funded university? Fifty years ago, healthcare took up 5% of GDP, now it takes up 15%. This is just a few examples of the cost of living that strongly affects the middle class. That is a very weak argument. So you are saying that rivers and lakes choked with cyanide from gold leeching fields is worth the trade off for wealthy mining companies getting to keep more of their money? From everything I have heard, the reduction in deisel sulfur has been a ringing success. The cost of healthcare has outpaced wages. So too has the cost of education if you want to look at that as well. At one time all you needed was catastrophic coverage which is way cheaper. Now you need complete coverage because even a simple visit is a lot to pay for. This increase does not affect the wealthy that much, but it hits the middle class very hard. Countries with universal health coverage and single payer spend a lot less as a percentage of GDP as we do. Private healthcare isn't working, and yet this is the system the GOP wants to support. That doesn't make sense to me.

Do you have evidence to back up any of the stuff you are saying?

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Back in reality, the rest of the world does not find Americans quite so awesome wonderful that they will let any American who pleases emigrate into their countries; immediately confer on them all the privileges of citizenship such as access to national healthcare; and ensure that they automatically walk straight into a middle-class job equivalent to the one that they left behind.I know that taking reality into account is not in your modus operandi, but to the rest of us this might partly explain why those Americans who find foreign systems admirable try to import those systems over here rather than themselves going over there.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But that is investment. The days when banks just put your money in a large box are long gone.

I prefer the HAL9000 model to this marc9000 one.Perhaps someone can save the marc9000 from the pod people, but I doubt it. I wish I could find out how all these broken people are being created. Brainwashing from their own families? Our nation is being emasculated and stupified by them. We see better nations across the pond. We love our country and choose not to move to those better countries because, damn it, we are NOT deadbeat dads. Perhaps it's time for some of that Tough Love on these broken humans?marc9000 we love you, but you have to do time for your crime of Insensitivity. If ya can't do the time, quit doing the crime.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Do Berserker Mass Murderer families have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do? (See the Silver People.)Do Fascist families who love Hitler have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?Do those weird peculiar religious sects have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?Do Republican families have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?Does any family have the right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?Is there a line?
Where is it? Why?I'm thinking "NO!" to ALL and I'm trying to make the best effort that I can to let my children decide for themselves in a manner they came up with by themselves. If they conclude I'm an asshole, fine - so be it. They'd have to get in line behind me.Isn't it a duty of parents to teach their children how to detect bullshitters, charlatans, scammers, liars, brainwashers and such as best they can? They need to know not only how to see, but how to quantify the relative egregious activities in this country. There is no one on earth who has not at one time bullshitted, performed some kind of charlatan act, scammed, lied and such. The question is who has been the most egregious at it.But - ALAS! - "most egregious" is something that is unique to each family.To answer your question, Taq, my answer is an emphatic NOT IN ANY WAY AT ALL.Edited by xongsmith, : fix answer to Taq's OP

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

I'm not saying that the rich - or the uber-rich, really, the 0.1% - are like Scrooge McDuck sitting on stacks of dollar bills and bags of gold coins in their vaults. (Well, not much anyway.) However, I have yet to be convinced that the majority of what they're "investing" in really has any value other than to themselves. So many financial products these days are just numbers based on make-believe, being swapped around and doing nothing to benefit society.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonWhat's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven DutchI never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill