Archive for Thursday, March 23, 2006

Middle class gone

March 23, 2006


To the editor:

Are you a typical middle-class worker and homeowner in Lawrence, Kan.? If you are, then you are carrying an increasingly heavy burden for America. Are you worried about how to save the middle-class dreams for your children and grandchildren? Well, forget it. It's too late.

You will be fortunate if you can save yourself. If you are middle class, you are an endangered species. You have paid for everything that America has done. Both the state and country will turn to you to pay the impossible debt the country owes. Those at the top will pay nothing because they make the laws, that 2 percent of America which owns the Congress. Those at the bottom will pay nothing because it's still impossible to get blood from a turnip.

Everett Hickam,



Jamesaust 12 years, 3 months ago

Haha. I don't know where the breakeven point is when a household's tax generating income begins to not only pay for its own pro rata share of expenses but begins to subsidize others but I'd guess about $250k a year.

Everyone who earns less is living off the 'generosity' of those fortunate few who pay (virtually) all the taxes.

It is quite the phenomenon that a people who live with more wealth, higher standards of living, and more freedom that any people have ever had or have even dreamed of having would talk themselves into believing themselves to be poor.

But that won't keep the author from falling for the same old tricks. Politicians will propose great new solutions to all our problems - solutions divorced from funding or even debate about the funding. Politicians will propose tax increases on 'the rich' and when, predictably as the rising of the sun, the anticipated - and already spent - revenues fail to materialize, a need will be created to raise taxes on everyone else without any 're-think' about whether we need or can afford the underlying spending in the first instance.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years, 3 months ago

The living standard of all of those who earn above $250,000 depend completely on the goods and services produced by those whose earnings are considerably less.

Here's a little thought problem for you-- which do you think would have a more immedieate deleterious effect on the functioning of society/the economy-- a general strike by all those earning over $250,000, or one by those earning under $30,000?

tpatric 12 years, 3 months ago

Gee, I have never really known who the middle class is. I always supposed that if I weren't on the dole I was in middle class, and if I didn't need to worry about balancing my check book anymore, I was out of it. My thoughts on that now are mixed in that it would depend on if the $250,000 was from a one income family or 2 income family. At any rate, those who don't hate taxes please raise your hands. By the way, when I moved here in 1981, sales tax was under 4% and I was paying alot less real estate tax. Considering that the city infrastructure is in worse shape now than it was then, and the population is greater, I can't help but wonder where all that money is going...

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years, 3 months ago

It could be that much of it went to build the new infrastructure necessitated by growth. Probably even more of it is going to pay for programs that the Republicans have managed to change from a federal responsibility to state and local governments. Next to borrowing from the Chinese, this has been one of the main ways of financing the tax cuts for their one true constituency, the wealthiest 2% of the population (although instead of paying quite as much of their income in the form of taxes to the Feds, they are now loaning that money instead, along with the Chinese.)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years, 3 months ago

Well, it is a hypothetical, and it would not work as a model for running the economy. My intent is only to demonstrate that the value of the $250,000 and up folks is exaggerated in relation to the $30,000 and under folk when it comes to actually running the economy we have. That's why a progressive tax structure is essential if we aren't going to have an economic system that pays everyone the same thing. I'd think all you hard core capitalists would have to agree that a small bit of income redistribution is a small price to pay for our system of extremely uneven distribution of wealth.

Richard Heckler 12 years, 3 months ago

The below has made significant contributions to the situation and still depending on republican and democrat middle america to pick up the tab. BTW notice gas prices are sneaking up again and middle america needs to arrive at work everyday.

From Lou Dobbs:

CNN) -- Federal prosecutors are turning up the heat in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling case, which promises to be the biggest Washington scandal in a generation.

"Lou Dobbs Tonight" has been reporting on the overwhelming role of corporate cash on public policy for years, usually under the title of "The Best Government That Money Can Buy."

And what has been the reaction of our elected officials and representatives to the scandal? President Bush and scores of congressmen and senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, are now returning Abramoff-related money as quick as scalded cats. What have most of them said publicly about the scandal?

Here's what they haven't said:

We know the system is corrupt, and we're sorry for our conduct. We'll fix it. We know that we've followed the instructions of our all powerful corporate masters and special interest lobbies, and sold out the people who've elected us, and we're sorry. We know that we shouldn't let lobbyists actually write the laws and regulations that they've bought and paid for with corporate and special interest money. And we're sorry. We know we've ignored the national interest and scoffed indifferently at the middle class and working men and women who no longer have any representation in our government. We're sorry. But here's what one congressman did say: According to The Associated Press, Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, said, "I wish it hadn't happened because it's not going to help us keep our majority."

That's at least straightforward, raw political talk. In that respect, Regula gets some credit for not doing what most of his colleagues are doing: feigning some slight concern for the plight of the average American in the face of politically dominant corporate interests and unchecked social, special interest lobbies.

Working men and women no longer have a say in the Best Government Money Can Buy, while facing stagnant wages, job insecurity and declining test scores for their kids.

So here's my wish, congressman. I wish that Abramoff had been the only lobbyist in Washington, but he wasn't. There are 14,000 lobbyists swarming over government officials in Washington.

Now, I hope we find out exactly what that other $2 billion a year in lobbying money has bought. And, ultimately, exactly who that money has bought.

Godot 12 years, 3 months ago

Regarding the strike, make it that those who earn $250,000 or more refuse to pay taxes. Then see what happens to those who earn $30,000.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years, 3 months ago

I guess that would prove that the under $30,000 folks, who make the good life possible for the over $250,000 folks, need to get raises so that they don't have to rely on handouts from the govt., courtesy of the rich folks.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years, 3 months ago

Of course, if the richer upper echelons want a tax cut, they can get one anytime they want it. All they have to do is pay their workers more money, and they get a business deduction for the amount of that increase. Voila, lower taxes, and the worker then gets to (happily) pay increased taxes instead. It's a win-win situation.

cowgomoo 12 years, 3 months ago

Posted by rightthinker (anonymous) on March 23, 2006 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Trust me on this--- $250k may sound big, but it isn't.


Trust me on this----$250K a year in earnings IS big money.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.