YAWotMC thread (War on the Middle Class)

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The most important issue our society faces is the war on the middle class, IMO.

This article is pretty clear and strong in laying out the issue.

It’s Official: Rich Declare War on the Middle Class
by Robert Freeman

For the past thirty years the rich have been waging war on the middle class. It’s been astonishingly effective, partly because it has been undeclared. But even that pretense is now being abandoned. The President’s National Deficit Commission has effectively declared that the rich will now go after what is left of working and middle class wealth and will take whatever steps are necessary to seize it. If allowed to succeed, their plan will reduce Americans to a state of serfdom.

Ronald Reagan began the war on the middle class with his “supply-side” economics. Its very purpose, according to David Stockman, Reagan’s Budget Director, was to transfer wealth and income upwards. It cut the marginal tax rate on the highest income earners from 75% to 35% while dramatically expanding spending for war. The results were two-fold: massive federal debt and an astonishing rise in the share of income and wealth going to those who were already the wealthiest people in the world.

The national debt quadrupled between 1980 and 1992. George W. Bush would repeat Reagan’s policies and double it again between 2000 and 2008. Meanwhile, the share of national income going to the top 1% more than doubled, from 9% to 24%. The share going to the top one-tenth of 1% of income earners more than tripled. We now have the most unequal distribution of income in the developing world and the inequality is growing rapidly.

Shifts of this magnitude over such short periods of time have never been seen in American history. With the rich getting much, much richer, its means that everybody else is getting poorer. And in fact, real wages for median workers are lower today than they were in 1973. Indeed, while the inflation-adjusted income of the bottom fifth of workers fell by $6,900 between 1979 and 2007, the top 1% saw its annual income increase by $741,000!

To try to keep up with living standards Americans resorted to debt. They increased their personal debt-to-income ratio from 62% in 1980 to 130% in 2008. When housing prices fell 35% nationwide in the recent collapse it left Americans with a smaller share of equity in their homes, 48%, than at any time since the Great Depression. The share they have lost has been taken by the banks.

In other words, all of the income and wealth gains for middle Americans from the “golden years” between 1945 and 1975 have now been wiped out. Or more accurately, have now been transferred to the very rich. The top 1% holds 34% of the nation’s wealth while the bottom 50% holds just 2.5%. The bottom 40% owns absolutely nothing.

These effects and numbers can be numbing, even dizzying. But it’s important to understand that they have not been the result of random events or impersonal market forces. Rather, they have followed as the intended consequences of the relentless application of a wide array of government and industry policies.

The massive run-up in debt is one such policy. The wealthy are net lenders. This means that massive public and private debt transfers interest income to them from the rest of the economy. Another method for effecting massive wealth transfer: Beginning in 1981 the Reagan administration effectively stopped enforcing anti-trust laws, allowing monopolies to gouge everyone who had to buy their products.

The government actually provided tax subsidies so that corporations could eliminate jobs in the industrial heartland and ship them to Mexico and later, China, India, and other low-wage countries, reducing wages and pitting American workers against each other for those jobs remaining.

The bank deregulation that began in the early 1980s reached its apex with the repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act in the late nineties. This set up the “casino capitalism” of the next decade that would spawn massive criminality and mortgage fraud by the nation’s leading banks—none of which has been prosecuted. The result was the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression.

But even as more than five million homeowners have lost their homes, the wealthy had their losses covered by the Bush and later Obama administrations. Bloomberg news estimates that the transfer to the banks through the financial bailout comes to some $13 trillion dollars.

We could go on and on and on with the roster of ways the wealthy have used the government to transfer national wealth to themselves. Environmental and health laws that are not enforced. Deals with the pharmaceutical industry so they don’t have to compete with foreign manufacturers. Health care “reform” that forces tens of millions of Americans to buy questionable insurance products, even as insurers continue to kick legitimate claimants off their rolls. Give-aways of the telecommunication spectrum worth hundreds of billions of dollars to media monopolies that ladle out state propaganda as if were news and never, ever challenge official narratives.

In these and a thousand other ways, the rich have conspired with the government they largely control to shift more and still more of the nation’s wealth away from the working and middle classes, to themselves. It amounts to the most insidious class warfare and the most rapacious looting of public and private resources in the history of the world.

The result is vast impoverishment, demoralization, and the destruction of the American middle class. One out of eight Americans are on food stamps. One out of five people are in official poverty. One out of four children are raised in poverty. Twenty five million people cannot find enough work, while their skills atrophy and their families and communities are destroyed. These are not figures describing a banana republic, a disaster-stricken region, or a third world country. They describe the United States of America after three decades of plunder by the rich. And now they want to go in for the kill.

Not satisfied with the staggering wealth they have already siphoned away, the ultra-rich are now using Barack Obama’s National Deficit Commission to propose even more brazen plunder. And the looting is no longer taking place behind closed doors or under the cover of arcane public policies.

The commission proposes to cut the federal government’s budget deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. But 75% of the “savings” will come from gutting programs that help stabilize the middle class and their communities. None of it comes from policies that would harm the rich.

For example, the commission proposes cutting the tax deduction for mortgage payments. Not only will this render housing much less affordable for millions of prospective home buyers, it will reduce housing prices, perhaps substantially, for without the tax writeoff, buyers will be able to afford much less house. This will decimate the sole source of wealth of tens of millions of Americans.

It is housing wealth that undergirds retirement security for the middle class. Or, at least it did until one out of four homeowners went underwater on their mortgage in the recent bank-triggered collapse. Then, even as the Commission plans to decimate home prices and owner equity, it proposes cutting back benefits to Social Security recipients.

It would lower Social Security cost-of living adjustments while raising the minimum retirement age. And this is being proposed at the very moment that the bank-owned Federal Reserve Board is beginning to print hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the banks from what’s left of their toxic assets still held from the housing crash.

The ensuing inflation is going to destroy the value of retirement incomes at exactly the moment that 77 million baby boomers head off into retirement. It was exactly this process of money printing and bankrupting of retirees that destroyed the German middle class in the early 1920s, giving rise to Adolph Hitler.

The Commission’s proposals would increase co-pays and deductibles for Medicare, making it unaffordable to millions. It proposes taxing as income the health insurance benefits millions receive from their employers. The Child Tax Credit would be eliminated as would 10% of all federal government jobs. This, at a time when more than 20% of the workforce is already underemployed and there are five workers trying for every available job.

We should be crystal clear: these policies amount to a mortal assault on what remains of middle class solvency and the democracy that a vibrant middle class makes possible.

But even as it girds up for this assault, the Commission barely touches the ultra-rich on whose boards they serve and who have gained so much over the past 30 years. And it cannot go without being said that it was these same professional predators who actually wrecked the economy, pitching it into its greatest collapse since the Great Depression.

The Commission’s proposals would actually lower the maximum tax on the highest income earners, from 35% to 24%. The nominal tax rate on corporate income would fall as well, from 35% to 26%. There is nothing proposed to raise taxes after so many decades of steadily amassed wealth. No financial transactions tax (as the IMF recommends) to stanch the kind of tsunami of speculative buying and selling that brought down the economy. Such a tax would raise over $700 billion over the next decade.

Of course, there will be no claw-backs of the trillions of dollars transferred to the rich under the phony duress of “saving the system” during the height of the financial crisis. No proposal that the cap on earnings subject to Social Security withholding should be removed. That proviso alone would raise more than half a trillion dollars over the next decade.

In fact, it is in comparison with other give-aways to the rich that the take-aways from the middle class by the Commission can be seen as so one sided and venal. Remember, they propose to save $4 trillion over 10 years.

But the war in Iraq, which we now know was entirely premised on lies, will cost more than $5 trillion, according to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz. It has proven a huge boon to the rich weapons makers, bankers, logistics companies and oil companies that Bush used to coddle as his “base.”

As mentioned above, Bloomberg news estimates that the financial bailout cost some $13 trillion, all of it going to the very richest people on the planet. There is not a syllable in the Commission’s report proposing getting any of that back to help reduce the deficit.

Or consider the notorious Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 where fully 40% went to the top 1% of income earners. Obama once promised to overturn them but, as is his typically cowardly pattern, is now folding. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that they will cost the government more than $18 trillion over their lifetime—four times what the Deficit Commission claims it will achieve in savings. But God forbid we should ask for even a penny of that back to help battle the deficit.

In other words, there are many, many substantial and just ways that the savings the Commission proposes to create could be secured via small contributions from those who have gamed the system and gained the most over the past three decades. But that is not the Commission’s plan. And it is in that omission that its true intent is revealed.

There is no more time for stealth, no more need for subtlety. Western capitalist economies are declining at a pace that is frightening their elite stewards and compelling such desperate, slovenly measures as the wholesale printing of money to postpone the inevitable. While Obama sings lullabies of “hope” and “change” to tranquillize the suckers out front, the rich are backing the truck up to the vault in the back, no longer even deigning to disguise the heist. And of course, why should they? They have the additional diversion of the moronic Tea Party vigilantes (“Keep the government out of my Medicare”), ever ready to cut other people’s throats to cure their own nosebleeds.

The Commission’s proposal is the most naked, undisguised declaration of class warfare possible. Its agenda is not to reduce the deficit but rather to reduce what is left of the American middle class and American workers, to a condition of servitude, of feudal peonage. Their poverty will make them docile and subservient. This will make possible the final looting of America by those whose sociopathic greed has brought it so low already. The battle over this proposal is the last bulwark against the devastation and final destruction of America. It must be fought and won or our freedom and security ceded forever. There is no other choice.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,031
10,359
136
As mentioned above, Bloomberg news estimates that the financial bailout cost some $13 trillion, all of it going to the very richest people on the planet. There is not a syllable in the Commission’s report proposing getting any of that back to help reduce the deficit.

Hey, they railed against bailouts!

Well I suppose you want merit given to the rest of it. I will say it is a fascinating view point. People ARE struggling compared to the early 70s. The conservatives blame government expansion for this woe, liberals blame rich people.

This article of yours is worthy of attention. It's an important and articulate entry.

You want Barack Obama’s National Deficit Commission opposed as a first step? I think we can do that, but where do we go from there?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
The President’s National Deficit Commission has effectively declared that the rich will now go after what is left of working and middle class wealth and will take whatever steps are necessary to seize it. If allowed to succeed, their plan will reduce Americans to a state of serfdom.

Link?

I *did* find this however (since youre fond of blog pieces):

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/11/michael-hiltzik-the-deficit-commissions-war-on-the-middle-class.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UpToSpeed+(Up+to+Speed)

Michael Hiltzik: The deficit commission's war on the middle class

Turn on CNBC at any hour of the day, and you'll hear mouthpieces for Wall Street explaining that wealthy individuals and big corporations need more tax breaks so they can "create jobs."
Of course, they have it completely backwards. What creates jobs in the economy is demand. And nothing has sapped demand in the U.S. economy more than the squeeze on the middle class.
Which brings us to the recommendations for reducing the federal deficit released Wednesday by the co-chairs of the National Committee on Fiscal Reform, the egregious Alan Simpson and the Wall-Streeter-in-Democrats'-clothing Erskine Bowles.

hmmmm
 
Last edited:

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
Good article. Class warfare at its finest...


Current trends in regards to wages is the most troubling long term. How are people supposed to buy goods if they cannot afford them, the basis of our economy is demand and as demads dries up so does our prosperity.

I run a small business on the side selling granite to builders. There has been a small uptick in demand but long term who is going to be able to afford my products and services?

I could not find the statistics but what percentage of new jobs is service related? My nephew is 3 years out of college and was layed off his job, he took at job at Best Buy and makes 10 bucks an hour...he says he gets payed more because he works in the Geek Squad.....how does one support a family or consume the goods the drive our economy when food is barely an option?

Pretty soon we will be saying remember when we had a middle class?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
The article does actually make some decent points but the true villains are the banksters who are in the "rich" category but in no way are they the entirety of that category. I am glad that the article has stated what some of us have been screaming for a while now, the fact that both parties have been completely complicit in this looting of the US people, US taxpayers, pension funds, and even foreign entities. Even worse is the fact that the looting is continuing as we speak. The banksters stand to make billions from QE2 while the rest of us get hosed, again. We now have admissions of fraud by executives of large financial institutions during the 07-08 years, untold counts of perjury, bribery, etc. and still not a single indictment. Not only no indictments but the people who profited from their illegal actions have been allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains. To make matters even worse, we supposedly had to bail the assholes out because they were "too big to fail" so what did we do about that? We allowed them to get even bigger some of which was done with OUR money. Oh yeah, all the assholes whose job it was to prevent this from happening still have their jobs and in a few cases got raises. This is from both Republican controlled government and recently the Democrat controlled government.

The reason the middle class has been losing ground over the long term is very simple, primarily a huge increase in housing costs (which the government is intentionally keeping artificially high and your article contradicts itself on) and to a lesser extent increased medical costs. As I said, it is a rather simple concept "housing costs can not rise faster than income forever".

Tax issues have very little to do with the middle classes slide. We have just recently started seeing the effects of our exporting whatever labor we can to China and importing a ton of cheap labor from Mexico.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,404
8,575
126
using 1976 as the starting point seems a bit suspect. according to this source, it was well down from the % wealth held by the top 1% from the previous decade.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fp...q=wealth distribution in america 1975&f=false

as you can see, from 1962 to 1972, the % fluctuated around the upper 20s and lower 30s, averaging 28.65%. by 1976 it had fallen precipitously to 19.2%. that is, the share of household wealth held by the top 1% had fallen by a third. that's probably more due to losses in value of held assets than any redistributive government policy. in fact, the DJIA fell 50% over 1973-74. it recovered a bit, and then started falling again starting in 1976 and remained depressed until 1982
source

so basically the 1976 to 2010 period is going from an abnormally low share of household wealth held by the top 1% to what is probably an outlier in 2010 of the top 1% holding a larger share than trend (because the wealth of the middle class fell due to home value losses, while the stock market is back up quite a bit over the lows seen the last couple years.) whether 2010 represents a new trend or not, i don't know.
 
Last edited:

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
There are several levels of denial about this:

1. There's the people who don't think wages have stagnated or inequality has increased - they think statistics and numbers are bunk because their own experiences might not reflect the general trends. It's useless arguing here (or anywhere where you have to establish reality and fact first)
2. There's the people who see the stagnating wages and shrinking middle class but think there's some kind of inevitability to the whole thing. As if having a globalized world somehow precludes having a strong middle class.
3. There's the people that think doing anything will ruin the economy.


I think the whole thing is mistimed though - people will not do anything or change their minds unless they absolutely have to. Given another 20 years of stagnating wages, massive healthcare increases and rising inequality (essentially, the same thing that has been happening for the last 20 years) I think people will be ready to admit there is a problem.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
From the very article he posted:

We could go on and on and on with the roster of ways the wealthy have used the government to transfer national wealth to themselves.

Of course the "liberals" answer to this is more government rather than less. /facepalm
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,390
29
91
using 1976 as the starting point seems a bit suspect. according to this source, it was well down from the % wealth held by the top 1% from the previous decade.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fp...q=wealth distribution in america 1975&f=false

as you can see, from 1962 to 1972, the % fluctuated around the upper 20s and lower 30s, averaging 28.65%. by 1976 it had fallen precipitously to 19.2%. that is, the share of household wealth held by the top 1% had fallen by a third. that's probably more due to losses in value of held assets than any redistributive government policy. in fact, the DJIA fell 50% over 1973-74. it recovered a bit, and then started falling again starting in 1976 and remained depressed until 1982
source

so basically the 1976 to 2010 period is going from an abnormally low share of household wealth held by the top 1% to what is probably an outlier in 2010 of the top 1% holding a larger share than trend (because the wealth of the middle class fell due to home value losses, while the stock market is back up quite a bit over the lows seen the last couple years.) whether 2010 represents a new trend or not, i don't know.

Uh oh......Craig is going to call you and idiot and a liar.......
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
In my opinion the three biggest problems arent necessarily stagnant wages, but rather rapid rising of 3 major expenses: healthcare, housing, and education. My problem with most of the left's answer is....raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans will do NOTHING in regards to these expenses. NOTHING. All it will do is shift that money from the private sector to the public, without addressing those rising costs. Even if the wealth of the top .5% was cut by 20% and given to the feds, the middle class still will struggle with those costs, and 60+% of all bankruptcies will STILL be due to medical expenses. Government having that additional money wont aleviate the problem at all.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
You need to take a step back and look at reality. Taxes have been going down for lower middle class so far the that the average American pays little or no federal tax. So start by telling the truth. A lot of this is a result of increases in the kinds of deductable items and credits and other miscellaneous items like increases in benefits. So what we need to do first is ditch the current tax system and start over. When almost 50% of people pay no tax at all, then something is wrong. It is time for a do-over flat tax model.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,404
8,575
126
You need to take a step back and look at reality. Taxes have been going down for lower middle class so far the that the average American pays little or no federal tax. So start by telling the truth. A lot of this is a result of increases in the kinds of deductable items and credits and other miscellaneous items like increases in benefits. So what we need to do first is ditch the current tax system and start over. When almost 50% of people pay no tax at all, then something is wrong. It is time for a do-over flat tax model.
most people are paying ~14% of their income in fica taxes. i know, the employer has a 'share' but the economic burden is on the employee, for the most part.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
taxing the rich over the middle class is just trying to shift wealth.

The government is not going to take those taxes and cut spending. They will increase spending by taking the extra $ fromt he uber rich (they thaey say donot need it) and give it to those that choose to not improve themselves.

If you are going to tax the rich, do not spend the extra $$.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
As usual a Craig234 post brings out all the bleating right wing sheep.

17 replies so far and the best you guys can come up with is "bad guboment" and "them liberuls"

The sad part is you guys are on the same "butt sore" end of the argument as the so called liberals you blame for everything, but either you haven't woke up and realized it yet or you just like taking it in the ass.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
The rich aren't destroying the middle class. The government is doing that all by itself, by making sure that the middle class must be reliant on the government.

Problem with that, though, is that a middle class that is reliant on the government is not really a middle class at all.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
As usual a Craig234 post brings out all the bleating right wing sheep.

17 replies so far and the best you guys can come up with is "bad guboment" and "them liberuls"

The sad part is you guys are on the same "butt sore" end of the argument as the so called liberals you blame for everything, but either you haven't woke up and realized it yet or you just like taking it in the ass.

You and Craig ARE the sheep. You believe that if we just give government a little more, that then everything will be better. We've been giving the feds more and more and more and more for decades, and things have gotten worse, not better. Do you honestly still believe the problem is that government doesn't have enough power and money?
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
You need to take a step back and look at reality. Taxes have been going down for lower middle class so far the that the average American pays little or no federal tax. So start by telling the truth. A lot of this is a result of increases in the kinds of deductable items and credits and other miscellaneous items like increases in benefits. So what we need to do first is ditch the current tax system and start over. When almost 50&#37; of people pay no tax at all, then something is wrong. It is time for a do-over flat tax model.


How about YOU start by telling the truth?

Effective Federal Tax Rates, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Nice chart on Page 18. $40K~ish income is the Middle Quintile, and the answer is 16%, climbing to 17% next year, and 18% by 2014. Now - I don't know what kind of cloud kookoo land you are living in, but that is not "No Taxes Paid". And don't forget State Taxes (avg 11% in NJ), Sales taxes, Local taxes, and Property Taxes.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf


Oh - You don't like that? How about the Lower Middle Class at 12%, climbing to 14%? Is that somehow "No Taxes"??

What we need to do is STOP spewing lies about how much taxes people pay.

I don't mind discussing budgetary priorities, or whatever. But this asinine idea that somehow nobody pays taxes!?!? Where the hell do you get this nonsense??
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
How about YOU start by telling the truth?

Effective Federal Tax Rates, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Nice chart on Page 18. $40K~ish income is the Middle Quintile:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf


What we need to do is STOP spewing lies about how much taxes people pay.

I don't mind discussing budgetary priorities, or whatever. But this asinine idea that somehow nobody pays taxes!?!? Where the hell do you get this nonsense??

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25962.html
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Do you know what a quintile is? Their data from 2008 shows nearly 35&#37; with zero or less federal tax liability.