Plantagenet wrote:The middle class has now shrunk to the point that it is a minority of the population---- more and more Americans are now poor and dependent on government social services and benefits.
middle-class-erosion
This has big implications for the US economy and politics going forward. Traditionally the US has relied on the middle class consumer to pull the economy out of recessions and power the GDP growth. But as the middle class shrinks this isn't working anymore. The US has had remarkably slow economic growth since the "great recession" ended in June 2009---the shrinking of the middle class is part of the reason.
The Pew research found that the shares of upper-income and lower-income households grew in recent years as the middle shrank — with the higher-income tier growing more. In that sense, the nonpartisan group said, “the shift represents economic progress.”
Pew defined middle class as households earning two-thirds to twice the overall median income, after adjusting for household size. A family of three, for example, would be considered middle income if its total annual income ranged from about $42,000 to $126,000. So this is a political message from those who won't quit complaining about wealth redistribution until they're allowed to redistribute every dime and completely eliminate any incentive to work hard.
Good ole Matt Taibbi uses the story about Donald Trump watching Muslims in New Jersey cheering as the Twin Towers fell on 9/11 to prove that America is dumb, at Rolling Stone:
Until recently, the narrative of stories like this has been predictable. If a candidate said something nuts, or seemingly not true, an army of humorless journalists quickly dug up all the facts, and the candidate ultimately was either vindicated, apologized, or suffered terrible agonies.
Al Gore for instance never really recovered from saying, “I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” True, he never said he invented the Internet, as is popularly believed, but what he did say was clumsy enough that the line followed him around like an STD for the rest of his (largely unsuccessful) political life.
That dynamic has broken down this election season. Politicians are quickly learning that they can say just about anything and get away with it. Along with vindication, apology and suffering, there now exists a fourth way forward for the politician spewing whoppers: Blame the backlash on media bias and walk away a hero.
This season has seen an explosion of such episodes. Carly Fiorina, in a nationally televised debate, claimed to have watched a nonexistent video of evil feminists harvesting fetal brains. Ben Carson has been through a half-dozen factual dustups, including furious debates over whether or not he stabbed someone and whether or not he once won $10 for being the only honest student in an (apparently nonexistent) Yale psychology class.
Trump, meanwhile, has been through more of these beefs than one can count, even twice blabbing obvious whoppers in live televised debates. Once he claimed the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to help China, moving Rand Paul to point out that China isn’t in the TPP. Another time he denied that he once called Marco Rubio “Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator.” The line was on Trump’s website as he spoke…
Outcast_Searcher wrote: that this is NONSENSE, based on the article.
From the article (Pew did the study):
The Pew research found that the shares of upper-income and lower-income households grew in recent years as the middle shrank...
America's richest 20 people own more wealth than the bottom half of the country's population - about 152 million people - combined, according to new research.
And even this is probably an understatement,
"The growing use of offshore tax havens and legal trusts has made the concealing of assets much more widespread than ever before,"
The findings include:
The wealthiest 100 households now own about as much wealth as the entire African-American population in the US.
The wealthiest 186 members of the Forbes 400 own as much wealth as the entire Latino population.
The Forbes 400 now own about as much wealth as the nation's entire African-American population – plus more than a third of the Latino population – combined.
A flat levy of just 1 per cent imposed on only the top 1 per cent of wealth holders, for example, would generate $260 billion a year - "more than the federal government now spends on education and environmental protection combined", the report says.
Plantagenet wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote: that this is NONSENSE, based on the article.
From the article (Pew did the study):
The Pew research found that the shares of upper-income and lower-income households grew in recent years as the middle shrank...
I don't get what your objection to the Pew Study is. The study found that the middle class is shrinking. You quoted directly the Pew finding that "the middle [class] shrank" in your own post above. Do you not understand what those words mean?
The Pew study found that middle class has shrunk to the point that it now constitutes less then 50% of the US population, and it will continue to shrink even more.
Get it now?
Cheers!
Apneaman wrote:Outcast_Searcher, spare us all your brown nosing parroting of neo liberal think tank talking points. They have corrupted and destroyed everything that was decent in your country. None of your ass kissing and worshiping will spare you and yours if and when the time comes. If you are not a 1%er then you are the ultimate useful idiot.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
And yet, Obamacare has supposedly just made the critical service of medical care much more affordable to the "lower class" on the backs of the higher earners. It's things like that (being able to afford critical goods and services) which actually matter to material well being.
The ACA Medicaid expansion was designed to address the high uninsured rates among low-income adults, providing a coverage option for people who had limited access to employer coverage and limited income to purchase coverage on their own. However, with many states opting not to implement the Medicaid expansion, millions of uninsured adults remain outside the reach of the ACA and continue to have limited, if any, option for affordable health coverage: they are ineligible for publicly-financed coverage in their state, most do not have access to employer-based coverage through a job, and all have limited income available to purchase coverage on their own.
The majority of people in the coverage gap are in poor working families—that is, either they or a family member is employed either part-time or full-time but still living below the poverty line. Given the characteristics of their employment, it is likely that many will continue to lack access to coverage through their job even with ACA provisions for employer responsibility for coverage are effective in 2016.12 Further, even if they do receive an offer from their employer that meets ACA requirements, many will find their share of the cost to be unaffordable. Because this population is generally exempt from the individual mandate, and because firms will not face a penalty for these workers remaining uninsured, they will continue to fall between the cracks in the employer-based system.
Hawkcreek wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:
And yet, Obamacare has supposedly just made the critical service of medical care much more affordable to the "lower class" on the backs of the higher earners. It's things like that (being able to afford critical goods and services) which actually matter to material well being.
You really do swallow the propaganda ejaculate.
If you don't know that Obamacare made most of the already poor, even poorer, by forcing them to give part of their wages to the insurance companies, you just aren't paying attention.
The "higher earners" aren't paying for the poor - they are paying more to the insurance companies to raise their profits.
All the above brought to you by the corrupt politicians of both sides of the aisle.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Hawkcreek wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:
And yet, Obamacare has supposedly just made the critical service of medical care much more affordable to the "lower class" on the backs of the higher earners. It's things like that (being able to afford critical goods and services) which actually matter to material well being.
You really do swallow the propaganda ejaculate.
If you don't know that Obamacare made most of the already poor, even poorer, by forcing them to give part of their wages to the insurance companies, you just aren't paying attention.
The "higher earners" aren't paying for the poor - they are paying more to the insurance companies to raise their profits.
All the above brought to you by the corrupt politicians of both sides of the aisle.
Ah yes, Hawkcreek represents the "something for nothing" class. No matter how many social programs get passed to help the "disadvanteged", it's never enough. Got it. (OTOH, in the real world, the TRULY poor get massive help on the premium payments and even the actual medical costs remaining, so they pay very little. But let's pretend they don't. )
That is always the attitude of those fighting the war on the poor. Saying they want something for nothing. Did you ever think they just want a level playing field?
Obamacare raised income tax rates on the high earners AND raised the amount of income middle class earners must pay before they can deduct medical expenses, like high insurance premiums.
Raising tax rates on the "high" earners and raising deductibles does what?? to help the poor. The extra cash went to the health industry. And raising rates doesn't do anything to affect the take home pay of the really rich. How about cutting exemptions - most high earners "earn" most of their income from investments - something the poor can not afford. And if you are a corporate big shot, how about counting all the "perks" as income, and then taxing them at the same rate I paid last year (yes, I made over 200K, which probably makes me a high earner).
So how do you propose health care costs be paid? Magic?
How about the same type of magic most other industrialized nations use - like Japan, Canada, Sweden, almost all of Europe, etc, etc. The only difference is that their medical field is not as controlled as ours by the big pharma and big insurance.
The left has been complaining about the uninsured for many years. Obamacare claims to have "fixed" that (though they ignore the little matter of MASSIVE copays and deductibles on all those "affordable" bronze and most silver plans).
Is your beef with Obama or with health care in general? Everyone already knows that Obama is just a house-N***er for the corporations - just like all the others. Hope and change was a joke.
So what do you want? If you want the "poor" to get "free" medical insurance, what social programs do you propose to cut to pay for that?
How bout cutting corporate welfare first, and then maybe claw back some of the trillions blown in giveaways to the banks, and then maybe (heaven forbid) start working on cutbacks on spending by the military. What exactly have we bought with our trillions spent in Iraq, Assganistan, Libya, and Syria
Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests