what have republicans done to help the middle class?
- Thread starter baddog25
- Start date
We voted out Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for starters
Give tax breaks to the top 1% that trickle down to the poors.
What have the Republican leaders they vote for done for the middle class? Be specific. They have voted in what way to lower everyday costs for middle class Americans?
All the American middle class needs is a level playing field and far less government involvement in their daily lives...
We had the strongest middle class in history because of big government assistance. Then Reagan started demonizing big government and cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations. Trouble for the middle class ever since.
You were good through here,.. the balance of your spew is garbage.
And just how do you think we got there?
We had high taxes on the wealthy and corporations, college was affordable, people were not going bankrupt because of medical expenses.
Big government was helping people get ahead.
Then came Reagan.
Exactly, how exactly have the Republicans, since Reagan, done that? They haven't. Nothing that benefits them...only the upper class. They vote against level playing fields consistently. They almost never vote to lower costs of anything. Costs that help wealthy corporations and don't affect the wealthy because they can afford all of it anyway.
You want a level playing field and vote Republican? That makes no sense.
that depends on what you consider "a level playing field"
is it one where everyone has the same chance at success or one where those with advantages have no obstacles to reap the benefits of those
I'm not pro everyone should have an equal chance at success. I'm saying that the top 1% shouldn't be paying off politicians to put more money in their pockets to the detriment of the working class. The playing field was more even 40 years ago than it is now. When rising costs of whatever gets discussed in Congress, only one party votes to even TRY to lower costs of anything. Republicans vote against lowering costs for everyday Americans regularly. People need to start paying attention to the votes.
I have posted it before but when Democrats were trying to lower insulin costs a Republican Congresswoman argued on the House floor, "What are they going to try to cap the cost of next, food?!?" Yet there is MMM showing ads in Iowa blaming democrats for food prices when there is no way in hell she would ever do anything about it.
List the times and issues where they’ve voted against “level playing fields” and don’t tell us it’s tax break for the wealthy.
By the way the very latest Government statistics show that the Top 1% are paying 67% of all taxes.
And like it or not the vast majority of those people worked their way up or came up with something others decided to buy. In other words they earned it.
I’m not one of them but I’m not a jealous person. I feel sorry for people who are envious.
It is not government's responsibility to assist individuals. Why do you want to give up your freedom to the government, why not take personal responsibility for your life? And no you are wrong about tax breaks, they impacted every tax bracket. Do you think it is right for the government to steal your hard -earned money. You leftists make me sick.
Rs are really struggling with this simple question.
Assisting people and providing services is literally the only thing the government should be doing.
Biden asked them the question...what are you for? They voted against anything to help lower gas prices. Insulin costs. Baby formula costs. Benefits for veterans or 9/11 first responders. That's just off the top of my head. Pay attention to the votes. Do they help with child care costs? Are they for that? How about student loan debt? Are they for helping those people out? Anybody but the wealthy?
Nothing, but I am willing to admit the democrats haven't done that much either.
Yep and most of the dummies eagerly supported their own slide into poverty
I've never seen this in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?
You buy in to all the talking points. Your response when someone gives you a straight answer is a laughing emoji. You and Joes Place are cut from the same cloth. Why torture yourself by creating these kind of threads.
Are you supposed to be posting during the school day?
Reagan was the pied piper of gutting the middle class
Give examples please and thank you.
$100 says you can't and only believe what you hear from the news/commercials.
I'll hang up and listen.
You are the epitome of the phrase, "That's gay".
The majority of my clients would be considered MIDDLE CLASS.
Well over 90% of them have benefited from the 2017 TCJA.
Take your damn rainbow colored sparkled blinders off.
Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.
The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King's College London, examines 18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn't, and then examined their economic outcomes.
Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found.
But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates.
"Based on our research, we would argue that the economic rationale for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak," Julian Limberg, a co-author of the study and a lecturer in public policy at King's College London, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. "In fact, if we look back into history, the period with the highest taxes on the rich — the postwar period — was also a period with high economic growth and low unemployment."
50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says
Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.
www.cbsnews.com
Global economy,.. The American middle class was put into competition with third world labor, and lost a battle that it could never win,.. People who worked for a pay check lost ground, while others who were invested in the market made bank on the backs of cheap foreign labor, and the obscene profits that it generated,.. This ultimately also became the foundation of the current wealth disparity in this country...
Fewer taxes going to DC. Fewer taxes going to Baton Rouge. More money in my pocket. And then there’s a host of cultural issues where the republicans in Louisiana have fought for normal middle class values (and won).
It's like that time when they were asked what the deep state was.
That is so much fvcking horseshit. Unions built the middle class in this country. You think there are enough middle mgmt drones to build that?
So what's the function of government then? Take your money and give you nothing in return?
Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.
The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King's College London, examines 18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn't, and then examined their economic outcomes.
Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found.
But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates.
"Based on our research, we would argue that the economic rationale for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak," Julian Limberg, a co-author of the study and a lecturer in public policy at King's College London, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. "In fact, if we look back into history, the period with the highest taxes on the rich — the postwar period — was also a period with high economic growth and low unemployment."
50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says
Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.
A cut and paste response that doesn't give a concrete example that I asked for.
I bet you a $1,000 you are better off with the 2017 tax cuts.
Once again, the MAJORITY of my clients are MIDDLE CLASS and the MAJORITY of them BENEFITED from REPUBLICAN tax cuts.
Come back with a better argument.
