Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Just a pet peeve, but you are describing the median person, not the average person.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Are we doing enough for our poor and middle class? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter IC FBGCav
- Start date
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
This is a good post that represents a lot of what I think as well. As far as the bolded, I think a BIG part of that statement is "get by", and I think that is the problem that people are pushing back on. There not much leeway in there for an illness, accident, saving for college, etc. Also built in there that you basically need to have X kids and both parents have to work, and I wrestle with how I feel about that. It's possible, but it's not fun, and I debate in my head how much plain "hard work" has to do with it.
I think at the very least we shouldn't go broke because of health and education. Both of those things help society as a whole, and both are very bloated expenses for the middle class.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Also a good post, and a big part of the problem. We battle it out over the stuff that really has little impact on our daily lives - abortion, weed, guns, but the stuff that would effect us all like finances gets pushed to the side.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
We have Dems aren't doing what I want along with Dems aren't doing anything...which is odd especially when we see what GOP legislation did to the middle class and poor via the tax bill. At worst, knowing what we know now, "Dems doing nothing" > "GOP getting what they want"...at least in terms of this specific topic of the middle class. Seems like "stop digging" is exactly what we should be doing if we want to get out of the hole. The overarching issue of "which is it?" still persists....are they not doing anything or just not doing the things you want?
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
My #1 step would be to bring unions back into the picture again.
Labor unions are only one part of that and they got off on the wrong foot because workers engaged thugs as the only way to counter corporate thugs and crooked law enforcement, so thugs ended up running our unions.
As i've said here before, i tried to make a push, on national sportstalk radio in the 90s, for a Fan's Union, when contracts & ticket prices started to soar (Rickey Henderson's 3 yr, $9mil deal is what pissed me off) and i honestly believe we could have reined in prices if we had. A Customer's Union could have the same effect on cost & quality w consumer goods and a Citizen's Union would have the same effect on our politics. I can only imagine how much further along the rights of women & immigrants & people of color would be if they had central organizations to not only oppose the forces against them & advocate for them but to plug volunteerism into the mix.
The thing that bothers me most in the politics of the last decade is the obstructionism. The Kavanaugh trial-without-investigation, the Merrick Garland blockade before that, the hundreds of bills that majority parties won't let see the light of day and, now, another fast-track hearing - this time an, impeachment trial without witnesses. A couple of times already, i've said to myself how unfortunate it was that John Oliver - who could pull one of his citizen-participation stunts - would be on hiatus for the Impeachment. How ridiculous is it that the antics of a late-nite comic is the only real engine of vox populi between elections?!
The course of personal liberty has pretty much all Americans in the zone of feeling they get to be who they want to be. Time to pay that forward and liberate our system from the corruption and waste and bureaucracy that has our progress in a headlock with the commitment & cooperation upon which our nation was founded.
Labor unions are only one part of that and they got off on the wrong foot because workers engaged thugs as the only way to counter corporate thugs and crooked law enforcement, so thugs ended up running our unions.
As i've said here before, i tried to make a push, on national sportstalk radio in the 90s, for a Fan's Union, when contracts & ticket prices started to soar (Rickey Henderson's 3 yr, $9mil deal is what pissed me off) and i honestly believe we could have reined in prices if we had. A Customer's Union could have the same effect on cost & quality w consumer goods and a Citizen's Union would have the same effect on our politics. I can only imagine how much further along the rights of women & immigrants & people of color would be if they had central organizations to not only oppose the forces against them & advocate for them but to plug volunteerism into the mix.
The thing that bothers me most in the politics of the last decade is the obstructionism. The Kavanaugh trial-without-investigation, the Merrick Garland blockade before that, the hundreds of bills that majority parties won't let see the light of day and, now, another fast-track hearing - this time an, impeachment trial without witnesses. A couple of times already, i've said to myself how unfortunate it was that John Oliver - who could pull one of his citizen-participation stunts - would be on hiatus for the Impeachment. How ridiculous is it that the antics of a late-nite comic is the only real engine of vox populi between elections?!
The course of personal liberty has pretty much all Americans in the zone of feeling they get to be who they want to be. Time to pay that forward and liberate our system from the corruption and waste and bureaucracy that has our progress in a headlock with the commitment & cooperation upon which our nation was founded.
ren hoek
Footballguy
We should abolish term limits. Should institute a system where voters have a constant ‘thumbsup/thumbsdown’ mechanism online where they can nominate, vote out, or keep whoever they like at any given time. If they like someone enough, they can keep them forever.
Politicians would be accountable to voters every waking second instead of once every 1/2/4 years.
dkp993
Footballguy
Interesting idea but I’m not sure how this would work practically. People are fickle and quick to react (often poorly). I’m not sure any leader should be held accountable to a moment in time where not all the information will ever be available. As a leader myself I’m often forced to make unpopular decisions with the greater good in mind. While these decisions are sometimes not understood in the moment they often become understood after the effects are felt.
Most people aren’t built to be leaders and don’t understand what it takes to be a good one. Being at the whim of moment to moment emotional decisions from the group is the exact recipe for the down fall of said group.
ren hoek
Footballguy
If it comes out that they were on the right side of history, people can just put them back.
I think most people understand that it takes time for an officeholder to settle in. I wouldn’t pull the trigger unless it was something egregious. This thing where they pretend to be good to get elected and then betray the voters over and over again needs to go. The reason they get to do that is because it’s stupid hard to fire them for doing a bad job. It’s even harder to hold them accountable for the crimes that they commit.
It’s a purely theoretical exercise of course, but it’s interesting that we are still governed by a 200-year old bureaucratic slog of a system. Only a country where entrenched power has an effective monopoly on policy decisions could a system be this averse to change.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Good discussion in here but I want to add that this is one area in which conservatives are unfairly attacked. It’s always “Republicans don’t care about food stamps, don’t care about the poor, etc.” Most Republicans care as much about the poor as everyone else; they simply believe that government is not the best tool to help them, as it leads to dependency, inefficiency, and corruption.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
If any party would work to improve social security so that it can provide a realistic base for retirement (not the entirety, but a solid majority for most) and make Medicare for 50+ year olds, which actually helps Medicare because 50-64 year olds are by definition healthier than 65+ year olds, then that would be a real way to help secure things for the middle class. Instead we argue about laser pointer items like the poster up thread accurately pointed out, and the rich laugh their way to tax cuts and corporate welfare. No one is looking out for the middle class until they address those real, fundamental issues.
supermike80
Footballguy
I'm middle class. And I'm happy
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I’m also middle class, and happy. My wife and I both work full time jobs. We pay taxes. I think it could be better spent. I think the promise of jobs is a poor trade off for corporate tax breaks. I think we can do more domestically to help people- and I mean everyone. I would like to see more money go to infrastructure, money the states and local governments would be able to save and reappropriate their budget to help people on a local level- job training, food banks, etc. Subsidized child care would go a long way in our lives, or cheaper healthcare. Sure, I can pay the bill for recently having my appendix out, but it’s not easy to absorb those costs for a lot of working Americans, even if they have decent jobs and health insurance. While @TripItUp is the great american dream (pulling up your bootstraps and working for it, frugal living and investing) it doesn’t automatically mean they will end up in the same tax bracket. It also doesn’t mean people with less money don’t work hard either.I'm middle class. And I'm happy
I watch our military take our money with virtually no oversight- when asked to account for the millions, they can’t. They have bureaucratic inefficiencies that are simply being ignored. Independent audit buried
Actual 2019 audit
First audit was 2018, 24 years after it was mandated by Congress. 2015 independent audit buried for fear the military would lose budget. 2019 article points out near the end that you really can’t take these savings this into account when planning for 2021 budget because (we don’t want to lose the money.) Also I’ll point out- when we are spending multitudes more than the next country in defenseGraph of military spending so let me ask you- what are we so threatened by that we have to spend this much more on defense every single yearthan every other country? Year after year after year....you’d think we could dial it back if we aren’t fighting ground wars. I support the idea of scaling down overseas operations. We can reach everywhere in the world with a handful of strategic bases.
I think the kicker is that it’s easy to say “support the troops!” I’m for that- but we don’t support our troops. We support jet engine companies and munitions manufacturers. We support mercenary groups for hire. The money doesn’t go to the troops, it goes to Lockheed or Boeing. Troops are broken down mentally during training, used, and sent back to society without any sort of help to understand what has happened to them.
When I worked at a university, my supervisor would come around every year and ask what new equipment we wanted. “We have a budget surplus we need to spend or they’ll slash our budget for next year.” This happens all the time in government and probably costs taxpayers billions/trillions.
Sorry this is kind of all over the place.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
Definitely agree with the bolded (don't disagree about the education part, I just think there are ways to do that affordably).
I don't wrestle with how I feel about "you basically need to have X kids and both parents have to work". Basing the number of kids you have based on your income outlook? What's wrong with that? In fact, that might be the single most important lifelong financial decision one can make (when to have kids). The most assured way to be impoverished is to have a child at a very young age without a dependable partner.
But generally speaking at a range of economic levels, folks need to make some sort of rational decisions when it comes to family planning (or lack of). And both parents working isn't some hardship.
Just plain hard work? I'd say $13 an hour is very attainable for someone with minimum skills that's willing to work. I'd also say 60 hours a week isn't some horrible thing (I work more than that for far less than $13/hour). That's $3100/mo pretax (assuming 2 jobs, so no overtime). About $2500 a month take home. Again, I'm talking minimal skills, just plain "hard work". A single person can do just fine with $2500/mo. $1500 should easily be able to cover housing/utilities/food (obviously not talking high COL areas). I agree, healthcare costs are a pretty big wildcard (whether they've got employer benefits or not, but even without, this person would get a subsidy). Call it $300/mo for a single youngish person.
So, $500-800/month for additional lifestyle expenses or (hopefully) savings goals. Again, this is the worst case scenario for a super-low skilled healthy single person.
Now, you throw in a partner/spouse/family and things get different. Any partner income coming in to play here changes this equation dramatically for the better (again, assuming there's some reasonable family planning).
No, this isn't always "fun". I'm not sure that's much of a factor. I suspect I'm not the only person that grew up in a household where watching what my parents had to do to keep the bills paid didn't look much like "fun" (though a heck of a lot of joy, love, and contentment).
I totally agree about healthcare, though. Folks shouldn't go broke over it, especially being something largely out of their control.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snorkelson
Footballguy
This is a big reason I support abortion as an option, or having a wide net to help these people. This is part of my problem with the Republican Party. Fight making birth control covered by insurance or Medicare (or medicaid?) fight abortion, not because it’s good policy, but to secure a branch of voters. Then strip down the aid given and tell them to work harder.
Sure some people abuse the system, just like the rich people do. In my opinion probably less so. There are honest/dishonest people across all of society. So if we are basically taking away options for these people we need to open another door for them.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I just don't like to go down the rabbit hole of trying to tell people how many kids they can/should have, that's basically what I was saying. Stuff happens - and the expenses for 1 kid could quickly become more for somebody than it is for 3 kids somewhere else. health, special needs, on and on. It's not that easy to plan, and I don't look down too much on people for wanting kids.
Not sure I agree with the 2nd bolded either. It sure can be, but mostly I don't think that we should be at a point where there is barely a choice for a lot of people in the middle class. It's not for everybody, but I had the opportunity to be a stay at home parent for a bit with both of our kids. Both times I had to go back to work a little earlier than we wanted mostly because of medial bills piling up and we needed some extra cash flow. Just to do that added in about $1K for daycare, $300-$400 for health care since we didn't get any help from the state any longer for that, plus gas, etc (needless to say when I do the math of how much I make/hr after all that it's pretty anger inducing).. Add to that not getting the time with the kids, etc.. Yes, we make it work, but our lifestyle with one of us at home >>>>>> me working. Like I said, at least around here, it feels like if you have a kid = both parents need to be working and I don't think that should be the case. The middle class should be at a point where it should be an option that one parent could be at home if they wanted to be.
The standard of living has consistently got worse for the middle class and below over the last 40 years, though it was covered up by using two incomes to have the same lifestyle as one income previously. Right now two incomes is now falling behind where one income used to be, and jobs that used to be able to support a family are now not able to. Housing has dropped from 1 income for a house, to two incomes for a house, to often 2 incomes for an apartment. I predict the next trend will be multi-family housing, once two incomes is not enough to afford a house or apartment. Instead of looking for roommates, people will look for family-mates where you get two unrelated families living together because it will take 3-4 incomes to afford housing. Plus middle or lower incomes are now being less able to afford heathcare and education, so they are more likely to be less healthy than in the past and less likely to be able to afford a good education for their kids so they can go for something higher, which itself is becoming less worthwhile since now you need a degree for 80% of jobs that should not need them, just because everyone else has one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
I would vociferously disagree with this assertion. Our standard of living has gotten dramatically better. Take a look at any cancer survival rate chart over the years. Look at road deaths per capita. Look at homicides per capita. Look at the phone in your pocket. Look at how the average home has gotten larger, substantially so, over the last 40.
If anything the US has seen lifestyle inflation over this time period. Cars have gotten bigger, more powerful. More cars per household. More miles driven per household. Homes have gotten dramatically larger. Leisure time has gone up (and much more in the lower economic classes - upper classes have seen work weeks get significantly longer. This is a switch from early this century).
We live in the most prosperous country the world has ever seen and the best time to be living in that country is now.
Most of these things seem pretty far off-target; cars are bigger, cancer survival, more powerful phones? I feel like I am missing how that is relevant to the economic situation many people find themselves in, both because things like that are becoming more unobtainable by the lower classes, and it is more a general statement of "technology gets better over time", rather than something related to the topic at hand. Using that logic a homeless person has a higher standard of living then John Rockefeller because they can walk into the library and use the internet.Sand said:
More cars per household - it takes two people to bring in the same income as one person = need more cars
More miles driven per household - the above, plus people needing to commute longer and longer distances as they get pushed out of urban areas where most of the jobs are.
House size - does not effect the poor and lower (or upper depending on location) middle class when they cannot afford a house.
That article seems to be indicating that leisure time has gone up for lower economic classes because they literally cannot find a job. I bet a 23 year old living with their parents who cannot find a job can watch way more netflix than I can, but it doesn't mean I envy their life.
TripItUp
Footballguy
I have little empathy for those that "struggle" that make poor life decisions. Having kids when you can't properly raise them/support them is near the top of the list of poor decisions people make. Acohol/drug use is another. General laziness is another.
I do have empathy for those that try to do the right thing by working hard and being a good parent.
I would like to have a system that deters the former and better supports the latter.
I do have empathy for those that try to do the right thing by working hard and being a good parent.
I would like to have a system that deters the former and better supports the latter.
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192
Footballguy
I think the ACA has hurt more middle class families than it has helped.
For most people--they don't go to the doctor or ER. They aren't getting bankrupt by medical bills. The premiums are taking money out of their pockets for a service they rarely/never use.
And when they DO use it--the co-pays/deducitbles are so high--they aren't really getting a benefit from being insured.
For every "I got sick and had to file bankruptcy" story, I hear 10 "my insurance didn't pay my bill" stories.
I'm a doctor, fwiw.
Sand
Footballguy
You cherry picked a bit here. We have significantly safer vehicles, thus lower deaths. Homicides have plummeted - we're safer. Lifespans have increased. That's just the things I can think of off the top of my head. I know there are better writers out there who can express this stuff much more eloquently than I as I sit here on my 14th hour of work.
And, yes, I would consider the phones we all sport now to be a huge positive impact to our standard of living - in innumerable ways.
You'd be right there, but the typical middle class American has a higher standard of living than Rockefeller, all things inclusive.
It's truly astonishing the world we live in now.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Posts like this just seem to read like "I did it, why can't everyone?" or "I have empathy for people who make the same choices I did". If so, i just dont get this mentality.
Zerp
Interdisciplinary Research
I agree with much of what you wrote. Except in my personal experience my co-pays seem reasonable (I can choose to pay more or less, to change the copay value, I pay $25 for a Dr or DDS appt). And a few years ago something happened that resulted in a $70K bill. I paid $400.
jm192
Footballguy
Sure. But for thousands of Americans, insurances are finding loopholes to not pay that 70K
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I am not well versed in ACA, but I feel like we would be screwed if not for the mental health and preexisting conditions aspect of it. Not 100% sure of that is the case, and if so how many of the country falls under a similar umbrella as us.
TripItUp
Footballguy
If you incent poor decisions, people will keep making them.
If you incent good behavior, people will continue those behaviors.
Govt. should set policy that addresses root causes, and not set policy that just puts bandaids on problems.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Then the battle becomes who decides what are "poor decisions". In your post you mentioned just using alcohol, and it feels like you have a $ amount that people need to make to have kids.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I love how Lieberman gets the blame,, and we just ignore the simple fact that we don’t have health care for all right now because of the Republican Party.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
What planet are you living on? This is absolute nonsense, and this kind of crap absolves Republicans.
dkp993
Footballguy
San Diego just like you. And no it’s actually quite the opposite, it absolves no one. Both parties are culpable, the degrees of which are only what’s up for arguments and ultimately that matters little.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Most people I talk to are just focused on income tax levels and don't think about any of the other types of taxation.
Sand
Footballguy
Similar threads
