2 hours ago, TedG said:

Lower taxes are good.

Not if they destroy the economy they not.

1 hour ago, TedG said:

Nope....FDR New Deal failed.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-fdrs-new-deal-harmed-millions-poor-people

The Cato institute, Neo liberal central.

Are we measuring "class" by income?

Class is class; income is income. I've met some classless people with money for whom no amount of money would buy class. Some Pattaya inbound come to mind.

Real class has to do with upbringing and education, et al. It is not a single generation thing.

5 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Are we measuring "class" by income?

Class is class; income is income. I've met some classless people with money for whom no amount of money would buy class. Some Pattaya inbound come to mind.

Real class has to do with upbringing and education, et al. It is not a single generation thing.

In the U.S. ‘Class’ is defined by income/wealth, education and occupation.

No. The quality of life in America has diminished so dramatically in the past 30 or 40 years there is no turning back. Trump's effort to bring manufacturing back to America has failed miserably. And in the process he has become Mr. Trumpflation. Things are so ridiculously expensive back there and we all know how difficult it is to bring down prices once they rise.

For anyone in America who does not own a home it is very difficult to get by. Buying a home at this point in time, or renting in most metro areas is overpriced to the point of being stupid.

Our analysis shows that there is no major city in the country where 100% of the middle class can afford basic necessities. Affordability, therefore, is not only an issue in the largest or richest cities such as New York or San Francisco, but extends to 160 metro areas covering every state.

Leading a comfortable life and leaving a foundation for future generations—is not materializing for today’s middle class. The impact of this disconnect between middle class incomes and the cost of living leaves ripple effects on everyday Americans’ ability to live and build wealth for their future and family. Those who cannot afford basic necessities are more likely to go into debt and are unable to save or invest, making them more vulnerable to economic shocks. Meanwhile, racial disparities in income make middle-class families of color disproportionately vulnerable. Both local and national policymakers need to act boldly to help average Americans live and prosper.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/in-every-corner-of-the-country-the-middle-class-struggles-with-affordability/

The conventional wisdom is that the middle great American middle class was spawned in the aftermath of WW II with the utter destruction of Europe and Japan. Europe was in shambles and Japan was an occupied country. China was still an agricultural backwoods, so to speak. In short, America had no real competition and became the manufacturing base of the world.

What happened to derail it all? A number of things, including the usual culprits. The military/industrial complex and the foreign policy establishment couldn't help themselves. They needed war after war, and that's what we got. First it was the Korean war. Then, by the 60s, we had the "Domino Theory" and the insertion of US forces into the Vietnamese civil war. More money spent on a foreign war the country could not really afford. LBJ pursued both the welfare state and the war in Vietnam, and the world was flooded with dollars. France decided they'd rather have their gold and eventually, Nixon closed the gold window in 1971 to preserve what was left of America's gold. And so Bretton Woods II followed Bretton Woods I. The Petrodollar became the world reserve currency and, for a number of years, that worked, more or less.

Schemes were concocted and tales were woven. Nixon opened the door to China, and the rest is history. America didn't need all those pesky factories and high priced workers. Let the peons overseas do all the work. Keep costs low. Keep the public happy. Little by little, the American manufacturing base was gutted. Shipped overseas, never to return. The rise of the multinational corporation. Countries were a thing of the past. America became nothing more than the totality of its multinational corporations and the insatiable need for quarter after quarter of profits. Keep the shareholders happy.

What followed was more war, more foreign adventurism, and more and more government borrowing at rates that remained low because of all the cheap overseas labor. But shipping all those jobs overseas came with a cost: the rise of the multipolar world and the decline of the American empire. No Empire lasts forever, and the American Empire will be no exception. Dropping bombs on people will not reverse the course of history. Someone should so advise President Trump.

Not with Trump in the White House.
Nobody since the Gilded Age under McKinley has arguably done more to transfer America's wealth to the ultra-rich than Donald Trump.
During his first term, this included the 2017 tax cuts, deregulation, and policies that benefited corporations and the very wealthy—like allowing full tax write-offs for private jets.
In his second term, the approach has continued through measures like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, resisting higher taxes on the wealthiest, and massive deregulation.
Examples include rolling back environmental rules, reducing financial oversight, and easing restrictions affecting fossil fuel industries.

Around 60% of Republicans are middle-income, yet fewer than 1% are ultra-rich. Why do most MAGA support these seemingly self-harm policies—or do they all own a private jet?

The Largest Upward Transfer of Wealth in American History - The Atlantic https://archive.md/niUee

Edited July 14Jul 14 by LosLobo

3 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Not with Trump in the White House.
Nobody since the Gilded Age under McKinley has arguably done more to transfer America's wealth to the ultra-rich than Donald Trump.
During his first term, this included the 2017 tax cuts, deregulation, and policies that benefited corporations and the very wealthy—like allowing full tax write-offs for private jets.
In his second term, the approach has continued through measures like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, resisting higher taxes on the wealthiest, and massive deregulation.
Examples include rolling back environmental rules, reducing financial oversight, and easing restrictions affecting fossil fuel industries.

Around 60% of Republicans are middle-income, yet fewer than 1% are ultra-rich. Why do most MAGA support these seemingly self-harm policies—or do they all own a private jet?

The Largest Upward Transfer of Wealth in American History - The Atlantic https://archive.md/niUee

How is letting someone keep their money a wealth transfer?

7 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

Are we measuring "class" by income?

Class is class; income is income. I've met some classless people with money for whom no amount of money would buy class. Some Pattaya inbound come to mind.

Real class has to do with upbringing and education, et al. It is not a single generation thing.

By Income (The Pew Standard): The Pew Research Center defines middle-income households as those making between two-thirds and double the national median income. Given that the U.S. median household income is roughly $83,730, this means a standard middle-class income spans from about $55,820 to $167,460

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/16/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Cato institute, Neo liberal central.

Anything you dislike you call NeoLiberal. Frankly the left is the wrecking ball of the USA.

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Les it’s lie.

Money doesn’t trickle down.

I'm still waiting for you to defend trickle down.

12 hours ago, TedG said:

Can you define "trickle down"?

Back to Ronald Reagan: In short = make rich people richer, something will "trickle down" to the peasants. Based on an economist named Laffer. Him developped the "Laffer Curve". Reagan went by it. Only problem: The "Laffer Curve" diden't work.

tons of money poring into AI so its all vapor wear and data centres in future accross the land

so everyone sitting at home knitting jumpers for eternity

Edited July 14Jul 14 by 3NUMBAS

12 hours ago, TedG said:

Do you want to know what gutted the working class? Globalization.

Absolutely right. Globalization was sold as "everybody will profit from it". This was the lie of the century.

Ever since, there is a "vacuum cleaner" at work, that sucks "the wealth of people" upwards to people that already own 90% of all global assets that can be measured in Dollars and Cents.

2 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

tons of money poring into AI so its all vapor wear and data centres in future accross the land

so everyone sitting at home knitting jumpers for eternity

No need for jumpers if global warming continues at this present rate.

11 minutes ago, swissie said:

Back to Ronald Reagan: In short = make rich people richer, something will "trickle down" to the peasants. Based on an economist named Laffer. Him developped the "Laffer Curve". Reagan went by it. Only problem: The "Laffer Curve" diden't work.

GDP growth increased after the tax cuts, and real family income increased.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf

Occasionally, it helps to simplify.

If an Empire spends more money to pay interest of it's dept than the defense budget tells a tale. The defense budget is awesome (as a reminder).

So, a conclusion of this lively debate can only be: Empires rise and fall. Mostly by geographical and financial overextention. Nothing new, Amen.

4 minutes ago, swissie said:

Occasionally, it helps to simplify.

If an Empire spends more money to pay interest of it's dept than the defense budget tells a tale. The defense budget is awesome (as a reminder).

So, a conclusion of this lively debate can only be: Empires rise and fall. Mostly by geographical and financial overextention. Nothing new, Amen.

This is the reason I favor pulling out of NATO.

3 hours ago, TedG said:

How is letting someone keep their money a wealth transfer?

But you’re not just ‘keeping your money.’
Trump’s tax-break pie gives the biggest slices to the 1%.
That leaves less for everyone else — you pay more tax, keep less money.
And wealth shifts upward.

Edited July 14Jul 14 by LosLobo

Just now, LosLobo said:

But you’re not just ‘keeping your money.’
Trump’s tax-break pie gives the biggest slices to the 1%.
That leaves less for everyone else — meaning you pay more tax, keep less money.
And wealth shifts upward.

If I earned it, is it my property? Correct?

33 minutes ago, TedG said:

This is the reason I favor pulling out of NATO.

General De Gaulle was never "pro Nato" (too many coutries not agreeing when it comes down to it). Instead: Every country builds up nuclear capabilities to destroy an equal amount of territory of an "attaker".

NATO went the other way. Attack one of the member states and WW3 is assured. To think that Russia "nibbles" at one of the Baltic states could therefore cause a 3rd world war.

No sure, if an American GI from Oklahoma or a french fishermen would be willing to help defend a miniature Baltic State, knowing that this would be the beginning of a 3rd world war.

Long live General De Gaulles vision of a "individual defence strategy".

Rats! He died a long time ago.

9 minutes ago, TedG said:

If I earned it, is it my property? Correct?

I could explain the US Internal Revenue Tax Code to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

9 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

I could explain the US Internal Revenue Tax Code to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

I'm up to date on the IRS code that pertains to my situation. Looking at this as a philosophical matter, whose money is it when someone earns it? The person who earned the money? Or the governments?

22 minutes ago, swissie said:

To think that Russia "nibbles" at one of the Baltic states could therefore cause a 3rd world war.

If Russia nibbles at a Baltic state, how many countries in Europe will have the intestinal fortitude to respond? Putin knows the answer.

19 hours ago, bannork said:

A new opinion article argues that rising economic pressures are reshaping American politics, with frustration over the cost of living becoming a powerful force across both major political camps. The author contends that recent Democratic primary victories, including Zohran Mamdani's election as New York City mayor, reflect growing public demand for policies aimed at making everyday life more affordable.

The piece opens by contrasting two events that occurred at the start of the new year. While Mamdani took office after campaigning on making New York "a city we can afford," enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies expired after Republicans declined to extend them, according to the article. The author argues these simultaneous events symbolized two competing political visions over affordability and economic priorities.

The article says economic anxiety has become a defining issue in American politics, noting that Newsweek highlighted similarities between the cost-of-living concerns that helped return Donald Trump to the White House in 2024 and those that fuelled Mamdani's local election victory. It argues that voters across the political spectrum are responding to the same underlying financial pressures, even if they support very different political movements.

Drawing on personal family history, the author compares today's economy with the post-Second World War era, describing a time when a single union wage could support a middle-class lifestyle. The article argues that declining union strength, stagnant wages and broader economic changes since the 1980s have made that standard of living increasingly difficult to achieve, leaving many households dependent on two incomes.

The piece also examines immigration and employment, challenging claims that tougher immigration enforcement would significantly raise wages for American-born workers. It cites a Brookings analysis that found Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations eliminated hundreds of thousands of jobs, including between 51,000 and 297,000 held by U.S.-born workers, with construction, hospitality and food services among the hardest-hit sectors.

The author also references research by University of Colorado economists Chloe East and Elizabeth Cox, saying their work found no measurable increase in jobs or wages for U.S.-born workers linked to deportation efforts. According to the article, the findings suggest that removing immigrant workers can also reduce employment opportunities for American workers whose jobs depend on the same projects or industries.

Throughout the article, the author argues that economic hardship felt by many Republican and Democratic voters stems from common financial pressures rather than fundamentally different concerns. The piece contends that political divisions often obscure shared worries about housing costs, healthcare, wages and opportunities for future generations.

Several public opinion surveys are cited in support of that argument. The article references research by The Century Foundation suggesting broad support among working-class Americans for policies aimed at limiting corporate and billionaire influence. It also points to a CNN survey in which 76 percent of respondents identified the cost of living as their biggest economic concern, while roughly three-quarters said the economic system favours powerful interests and is harder to succeed in than it was for previous generations.

The author additionally cites a January New York Times/Siena College poll reporting that 65 percent of voters believe a middle-class lifestyle is out of reach and that 77 percent think it is harder to achieve than it was for their parents. The article argues these findings illustrate widespread concern about declining economic security regardless of political affiliation.

Looking beyond current political debates, the article claims that the central question facing Americans is not simply which party is responsible, but how economic gains have been distributed over recent decades. It cites RAND Corporation estimates that roughly $50 trillion shifted from the bottom 90 percent of Americans to the top 1 percent between 1975 and 2018, adding that the figure has since risen to around $80 trillion. The author argues that changes in labour markets, healthcare costs, higher education and wage growth have contributed to today's political dissatisfaction.

The article concludes by urging Americans from different political backgrounds to focus on their shared economic concerns rather than cultural divisions. It argues that conversations centred on wages, affordability and opportunities for working families could reveal more common ground than partisan debates often suggest.

The reckoning coming when the MAGA sleeping giant awakens | Opinion

I think this article is mixing opinions with facts.

First, where does this "$50 trillion was transferred from workers to the top 1%" come from? That wasn't money that was actually taken from workers. It's based on an economic model that estimates what incomes might have looked like if things had stayed the same after WWII. That's a theory, not proof that corporations somehow took $50 trillion from working Americans.

They also compare today to the 1950s and 60s like it's apples to apples. It isn't. Back then America had very little competition after WWII, manufacturing was booming, houses were much cheaper, healthcare and college cost a fraction of what they do today and families generally lived with a lot less.

Another thing I disagree with is the idea that every job should support a family. That's never been the case. Jobs like paper routes, fast-food cashier, grocery bagger and other entry-level positions were meant to help people get experience, not be lifelong careers. Forcing businesses to pay whatever politicians decide doesn't create wealth. It usually means higher prices, fewer jobs or more automation.

On immigration, the article only tells one side of the story. Of course if you suddenly remove a large number of workers from an industry there will be short-term disruptions. But it's also common sense that millions of people working illegally, many for below-market wages put downward pressure on wages for American workers. Ignoring that doesn't make it untrue.

Finally, I don't see MAGA out there trying to divide people. What I see is enforcing existing immigration laws, securing the border, bringing manufacturing back to the U.S., and creating more American jobs. You can disagree with those policies, but that's very different from saying they're based on division.

13 minutes ago, TedG said:

If Russia nibbles at a Baltic state, how many countries in Europe will have the intestinal fortitude to respond? Putin knows the answer.

The youth of western Europe is interested in " panem et circenses". Today called "internet". None of them willing to "defend anything" as they have "nothing to defend" except the wealth of the 10% of the populace that already possesses 90& of all marketable assets.

The dream: The "rulers" call to war. And the peasants refuse to go to war. As they realise that "the war" will not benefit them. Without " soldiers" only little wars could be conducted.

Major wars can not be conducted without the approval of "the masses". Unfortunately the "masses" can always be convinced that a war is absolutely necessary. Recruiting "soldiers" in the name of the country.

Rinse and repeat. Nothing new.

1 hour ago, TedG said:

If Russia nibbles at a Baltic state, how many countries in Europe will have the intestinal fortitude to respond? Putin knows the answer.

Yes he knows the answer.

Let's just hope that the Ukraine resisists as long as possible. The Ukraine the last "buffer zone", resisting Putins dream of eliminating the "Western Thread" once and for all. The Prussians, Napoleon and Hitler. And lately, NATO, seen as as the major problem, looking westwards.

14 hours ago, TedG said:

Anything you dislike you call NeoLiberal. Frankly the left is the wrecking ball of the USA.

Trump and the Republicans are ‘the left’?

14 hours ago, TedG said:

I'm still waiting for you to defend trickle down.

I don’t owe you lessons in the basic principles of the economics underlying the topic of the thread you are posting in.

Your ignorance on the matter is your problem.

12 hours ago, swissie said:

Absolutely right. Globalization was sold as "everybody will profit from it". This was the lie of the century.

Ever since, there is a "vacuum cleaner" at work, that sucks "the wealth of people" upwards to people that already own 90% of all global assets that can be measured in Dollars and Cents.

Globalization was a tool of neoliberalism, shipping jobs overseas was a policy of corporations to break unions and drive down wages.

Job shopped overseas, wages and working benefits cut, gutted the working class and is now devouring the middle class, the nation’s wealth being funneled into the pockets of a tiny few.

All enabled by ‘Citizens United’ handing corporations and the hyper wealthy financial control over politicians and political parties.

12 hours ago, TedG said:

GDP growth increased after the tax cuts, and real family income increased.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf

And how’s that going right now?