Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is that what you mean when you say the middle-class is "becoming poor?"
According to that link: poor is not being able to buy a house; but having enough money to place you in our definition of middle-class. If you were financially poor; you could afford the house because government would help pay for it and then tax the last remaining middle-class worker!
IMHO, this is where the Libertarian Party is destined to become a much bigger player. It's quite likely that the USA will have to experience catastrophe before we get serious about debt and deficit. At that point, the Libertarians will be the folks saying, "I told you so!" It's pretty pathetic that we need our debt addiction to blow up in our face before we get serious, but that's the way the wind is blowing.
If you locked everyone in a room and forced them to balance the budget as well as pay down the debt, you're probably right. We'd never leave the room. Underlying problem: Cutting any funding to anything inevitably hurts somebody. As human beings, we tend to be selfish. We're all in favor of cutting spending as long as it doesn't affect us directly. But if it costs us our job? If a close friend or family member loses their job?
I think the first step is to back ourselves into a corner by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment. Roughly 75% of Americans want a BBA. It's really just a matter of getting the ball rolling. Congress will never do it. The good news is that you don't need Congress for the Amendment process. All you need is two-thirds of the states to call for it -- a method that has never actually been used but absolutely is specified in the Constitution. Once you've forced the issue by putting a BBA in place, the painful process of cutting spending can begin.
Again we agree on most counts, or maybe just some, but we part company when you suggest the Libertarians are somehow the answer or future saviors of America. Not only that, but they are by no means the only ones who will be saying "I told you so" if the U.S. were to run into REAL fiscal trouble, but I don't think that's the concern most average Americans fear either.
Plenty of why already explained in this thread...
Fact is, most people don't really have a first-base understanding of what a balanced budget really means, why it really isn't necessary or even advantageous, and by the time everyone in the room came to fully understand all that, no one would still have the energy to then further consider what better fiscal policy could be had, and again..., we'd never leave the room.
According to that link: poor is not being able to buy a house; but having enough money to place you in our definition of middle-class. If you were financially poor; you could afford the house because government would help pay for it and then tax the last remaining middle-class worker!
I'm having trouble understanding your comment, since a second look (or Google yourself) the definition of poor and/or poverty level, and it involves a good deal more than being able to buy a house. Get that cleared up, and I think we also need to define or mutually understand what we mean by "middle class."
For example as described/defined here...
Middle-income households – those with an income that is two-thirds to double the U.S. median household income – had incomes ranging from $41,869 to $125,608 in 2014.
Again we agree on most counts, or maybe just some, but we part company when you suggest the Libertarians are somehow the answer or future saviors of America. Not only that, but they are by no means the only ones who will be saying "I told you so" if the U.S. were to run into REAL fiscal trouble, but I don't think that's the concern most average Americans fear either.
Admittedly, I'm biased, but consider the facts. Democrats want to cut military spending but increase spending on social programs. Republicans want to decrease spending on social programs but increase military spending. The big two parties have us stuck in a lose-lose scenario.
The Libertarian Party is the party of having the government do less. Less wars and military than either of the big two parties. Less spending on social programs. Less new programs. Less new spending. Dramatically cutting the federal government down to size. Ending the war on drugs and the massive accompanying cost of enforcement and incarceration of drug offenders. Sound economic policy.
Republicans and Democrats will offer lip service to these issues on occasion in order to win a few more votes, then they proceed to do nothing.
Quote:
Fact is, most people don't really have a first-base understanding of what a balanced budget really means, why it really isn't necessary or even advantageous, and by the time everyone in the room came to fully understand all that, on one would still have the energy to consider what better fiscal policy could be had, and again..., we'd never leave the room.
I agree that people don't know what a balanced budget would look like, but I wholeheartedly reject the idea having debt and deficit are beneficial to us.
Having the option available to deficit spend in dire emergencies is crucial of course, but I think everyone understands that. Workarounds can be built into any proposed Balanced Budget Amendment. For example, if three-fourths of both houses of Congress and three-fourths the states all agree to it, then and only then can you deficit spend. With modern technology, if we ran into an honest to goodness major crisis you could probably get that done in less than a day.
A BBA is inevitable IMHO. The only real question is whether we do it before or after our debt seriously blows up in our faces.
Again we agree on most counts, or maybe just some, but we part company when you suggest the Libertarians are somehow the answer or future saviors of America. Not only that, but they are by no means the only ones who will be saying "I told you so" if the U.S. were to run into REAL fiscal trouble, but I don't think that's the concern most average Americans fear either.
Plenty of why already explained in this thread...
Fact is, most people don't really have a first-base understanding of what a balanced budget really means, why it really isn't necessary or even advantageous, and by the time everyone in the room came to fully understand all that, no one would still have the energy to then further consider what better fiscal policy could be had, and again..., we'd never leave the room.
IMO our future has little to do with libertarians.
Admittedly, I'm biased, but consider the facts.
Republicans and Democrats will offer lip service to these issues on occasion in order to win a few more votes, then they proceed to do nothing.
I agree that people don't know what a balanced budget would look like, but I wholeheartedly reject the idea having debt and deficit are beneficial to us.
Having the option available to deficit spend in dire emergencies is crucial of course, but I think everyone understands that. Workarounds can be built into any proposed Balanced Budget Amendment. For example, if three-fourths of both houses of Congress and three-fourths the states all agree to it, then and only then can you deficit spend. With modern technology, if we ran into an honest to goodness major crisis you could probably get that done in less than a day.
A BBA is inevitable IMHO. The only real question is whether we do it before or after our debt seriously blows up in our faces.
We are all biased (again as explained by My Cement Theory thread)...
No getting around our respective biases I suppose, but I simply don't see the "facts" as you see them. Perhaps suffice to say, there are implications related to every dollar of spending that go well beyond whether someone benefits from a social program or not, lots of "pros and cons" that most certainly include economic considerations that I don't think Libertarians have thought through even to first base. In any case, the whole affair is far more complicated than your simple this or that scenario, and ultimately the brokering of these interests in Congress is far from perfect, but apparently the best we can do under the circumstances. I wish we could do better as does everyone, but on the other hand maybe we're doing better than most of us realize. Again reminding me of that Churchill quote, "“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
As for the best approach regarding a balanced budget, I really don't like using business as an analogy when it comes to discussion about government, because the two are very different animals, but think in terms of how a business will borrow in order to grow, as just about every business of any size does. Some "borrow" by issuing stock, others by getting lines of credit, but debt in these regards can be a very positive productive manner in which to make things happen, responsibly, to grow toward a better outcome for all concerned, including the lenders! Again, lots of people just don't get this, especially when it comes to the U.S. government with a multi-trillion dollar economy.
The scope and nature of our economy and budget is literally over our heads and above our pay grades...
No getting around our respective biases I suppose, but I simply don't see the "facts" as you see them. Perhaps suffice to say, there are implications related to every dollar of spending that go well beyond whether someone benefits from a social program or not, lots of "pros and cons" that most certainly include economic considerations that I don't think Libertarians have thought through even to first base. In any case, the whole affair is far more complicated than your simple this or that scenario, and ultimately the brokering of these interests in Congress is far from perfect, but apparently the best we can do under the circumstances. I wish we could do better as does everyone, but on the other hand maybe we're doing better than most of us realize. Again reminding me of that Churchill quote, "“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
As for the best approach regarding a balanced budget, I really don't like using business as an analogy when it comes to discussion about government, because the two are very different animals, but think in terms of how a business will borrow in order to grow, as just about every business of any size does. Some "borrow" by issuing stock, others by getting lines of credit, but debt in these regards can be a very positive productive manner in which to make things happen, responsibly, to grow toward a better outcome for all concerned, including the lenders! Again, lots of people just don't get this, especially when it comes to the U.S. government with a multi-trillion dollar economy.
The scope and nature of our economy and budget is literally over our heads and above our pay grades...
The very best I've read to get me on the way towards an understanding:
Thanks! I'll add to my list, if only I had the time to read books anymore like I used to, but I can hardly keep up with the news these days, and that's about all I can do each morning as I read the latest about such things on a daily basis, besides all I learn occasionally reading the comments in these threads of course!
I'm having trouble understanding your comment, since a second look (or Google yourself) the definition of poor and/or poverty level, and it involves a good deal more than being able to buy a house. Get that cleared up, and I think we also need to define or mutually understand what we mean by "middle class."
For example as described/defined here...
Middle-income households – those with an income that is two-thirds to double the U.S. median household income – had incomes ranging from $41,869 to $125,608 in 2014.
What is hard to understand about the link I provided? I quote: "Between 2000 and 2012, King County grew by 85,000 households — what Constantine referred to in his speech as “new households.” Data show that more than 40,000 of these households are low-income, earning less than half the King County median income (or about $35,000 in 2012). Roughly the same number are high-income, with earnings at more than 180 percent of the median (or about $125,000 in 2012).
That means, of course, that there was barely any growth in the middle-income group — just 3,500 households earning between $35,000 and $125,000.
Speaking to a New York Times reporter, Constantine put a Seattle spin on this redistribution of wealth toward the extremes: “It’s people doing really well, and people making espresso for people who are doing really well.”.
So where is your confusion?
The National Debt Clock bothers me: U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time. We are now over $19 and a quarter trillion in debt - but that is not all. That 'clock' breaks down all debt. Look at the average savings per family and then look at the average debt per family! My personal feeling is that a major economic collapse could kill more in the US than all out warfare. This generation is not the same generation of the 1930's - everybody wants immediate gratification. I cannot picture a family sitting around a table and sharing one can of beans.
What is hard to understand about the link I provided? I quote: "Between 2000 and 2012, King County grew by 85,000 households — what Constantine referred to in his speech as “new households.” Data show that more than 40,000 of these households are low-income, earning less than half the King County median income (or about $35,000 in 2012). Roughly the same number are high-income, with earnings at more than 180 percent of the median (or about $125,000 in 2012).
That means, of course, that there was barely any growth in the middle-income group — just 3,500 households earning between $35,000 and $125,000.
Speaking to a New York Times reporter, Constantine put a Seattle spin on this redistribution of wealth toward the extremes: “It’s people doing really well, and people making espresso for people who are doing really well.”.
So where is your confusion?
The National Debt Clock bothers me: U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time. We are now over $19 and a quarter trillion in debt - but that is not all. That 'clock' breaks down all debt. Look at the average savings per family and then look at the average debt per family! My personal feeling is that a major economic collapse could kill more in the US than all out warfare. This generation is not the same generation of the 1930's - everybody wants immediate gratification. I cannot picture a family sitting around a table and sharing one can of beans.
I made clear my confusion when I asked you what you meant when you said the Middle Class was becoming poor. Remember?
I wasn't sure what you meant, and I don't think that is true in general given just about all common definitions describing what it is to be poor, but maybe that's because I was thinking about national averages for all Americans, not what might be going on in King County or Utica, New York, or Chicago, Illinois more locally or specifically.
Fact is, speaking nationally anyway, about 15% of Americans are at or below poverty. Some 52% are considered "middle class" as previously described. There are about 33% of Americans in the upper middle class to highest income levels, the upper 5% coming in with incomes of $150K or more per year.
How that relates to King County or the national debt, I'm not any more sure than I am the middle class is becoming "poor." That's all...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
