It would be really nice to see policies that support single-child families. Now that both parents usually work full time, there really is a lower available-adult-to-child ratio in most homes. it's a big problem for teachers.
Having a few kids in a class with little adult availability at home is one thing, having 40 kids in a class coming from homes like that is another. It doesn't really matter whether the parents have money or not.
I think it would be good to try having schools that only admit children from single-child families, too, so that people don't have to worry about their kids being safe in school without brothers and sisters for 'backup'.
Holding the oldest child back a grade to make sure he or she is big for his or her age, then giving that child many siblings is something some people in rough schools /neighborhoods do to try to protect their kids, not because they are irresponsible or bad parents. I think a single-child-families-only school would help support people who keep family sizes within their means.
Having a few kids in a class with little adult availability at home is one thing, having 40 kids in a class coming from homes like that is another. It doesn't really matter whether the parents have money or not.
I think it would be good to try having schools that only admit children from single-child families, too, so that people don't have to worry about their kids being safe in school without brothers and sisters for 'backup'.
Holding the oldest child back a grade to make sure he or she is big for his or her age, then giving that child many siblings is something some people in rough schools /neighborhoods do to try to protect their kids, not because they are irresponsible or bad parents. I think a single-child-families-only school would help support people who keep family sizes within their means.
2
Both parties are globalist - favoring offshoring of jobs, and mass immigration for the jobs they can't offshore, and this is what is squeezing the middle class.
The emphasis on education as a cure has been a popular political selling point since at least the 1940s, but it's wrong. The job market for scientists is terrible, with most stuck in dreary postdoc positions paying $40K / yr. for many years after getting their PhDs. The globalists encourage foreign students to pursue 'STEM' PhDs, at the expense of American taxpayers and donors, driving American students out of areas they once dominated. Americans now want to be bankers, lawyers, or other high paid hustlers.
The entire American establishment, funded by fabulously wealthy global corporations, are cheerleaders for this agenda.
The emphasis on education as a cure has been a popular political selling point since at least the 1940s, but it's wrong. The job market for scientists is terrible, with most stuck in dreary postdoc positions paying $40K / yr. for many years after getting their PhDs. The globalists encourage foreign students to pursue 'STEM' PhDs, at the expense of American taxpayers and donors, driving American students out of areas they once dominated. Americans now want to be bankers, lawyers, or other high paid hustlers.
The entire American establishment, funded by fabulously wealthy global corporations, are cheerleaders for this agenda.
16
As a middle class parent, I'd rather see us raising the minimum wage and creating more infrastructure, education, and jobs programs than getting specific programs targeted toward my needs.
With that said, I always find comments on these articles a little rich. Many say, essentially, "I am childless, and now that I've gotten public school at the public expense, and I've gotten subsidized student loans, and perhaps a university degree paid for 75% by the taxpayers, I want to make sure we stop all these leeches who keep having babies they can't afford."
With that said, I always find comments on these articles a little rich. Many say, essentially, "I am childless, and now that I've gotten public school at the public expense, and I've gotten subsidized student loans, and perhaps a university degree paid for 75% by the taxpayers, I want to make sure we stop all these leeches who keep having babies they can't afford."
23
Too much free stuff results in 'free-doom'.
6
Typically brilliant if cynical Far-left strategy. Pour money into Left-wing universities, with students being unwitting middlemen. Students become indebted to the Obama student-loan takeover as their "company town." Then as their plight becomes universal and known by the media, takeover man, Obama, starts buying their attentions. First by bribing them by forgiving their loans to go to work for government or (far-left) non-profits NOT the private sector. This accomplishes two Progressive goals. 1. Adds Democrat voters and 2. Weakens the private sector. Then he starts to simply forgive the loans HE, Obama, caused. Brilliant but terribly harmful to the society and economy of the United States. More non-productive government or quasi-governmental workers taking taxpayer money with zero return. THAT IS zero-sum. A weaker private sector economy from fewer workers means more government assistance is "needed"! It ends with the LiberalProgressiveDemocrats in charge of a bankrupt country. Then they turn it into a Cuba or Venezueka. Great.
6
What is the progressive end-game? Isn't that the real question this article poses? Is it Utopia? Do Democrats want to impose a system of government where everyone has the same amount of everything? That seems to be the flavor of most of the comments I have read here, so please correct me if I am wrong.
My response to that goal is that if all men were angels, that society might be possible. But we're not. We're driven by self-interest. So if I can get the same amount of stuff by not working as I can get by working a 60-hour week, if working hard in school advances me no further than the guy in the next seat, if innovation is not rewarded, then what's the point?
It is not an accident that the combination of free-market capitalism and the rule of law which this country has embraced for 250 years has lead to the greatest creation of wealth and prosperity in the history of humankind; or that every socialist and communist experiment has led to brutal oppression and mass poverty. Don't you all realize that there are limits to the amount of socialism a free society can sustain before it tips into tyranny?
My response to that goal is that if all men were angels, that society might be possible. But we're not. We're driven by self-interest. So if I can get the same amount of stuff by not working as I can get by working a 60-hour week, if working hard in school advances me no further than the guy in the next seat, if innovation is not rewarded, then what's the point?
It is not an accident that the combination of free-market capitalism and the rule of law which this country has embraced for 250 years has lead to the greatest creation of wealth and prosperity in the history of humankind; or that every socialist and communist experiment has led to brutal oppression and mass poverty. Don't you all realize that there are limits to the amount of socialism a free society can sustain before it tips into tyranny?
8
THERE ARE LIMITS, I SAY!!! Well we haven't reached them by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, we've gone backwards for at least 30 years so we need to make up some ground. Our end game is not Utopia. It's not PigMerica either. Something along the lines of Germany or Finland is something to look at. Neither is socialist or communist. You need to look at our history. Our country wasn't created to be a capitalist panacea. We have a commons with common values you may not be aware of that go beyond accumulating wealth.
7
Our country was founded on the principle of freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from government confiscation of property, etc. All government programs come at a cost to this freedom, so each time we need to ask is the trade-off worth it. Germany and Finland may be doing okay, but look at all of the failing European states whose social-democratic experiments are failing. Greece, Italy, and Spain are fiscal disasters, and their situations are only getting worse because after years of buying votes by giving free stuff, none of the voters are willing to give up their free stuff. So they keep electing leaders who promise fairy tales instead of tough reforms. You THINK there are limits, but what are they? Once the Democrats win their next round of "progress," then the next, then the next, do you really think they will stop?? Look at history, look at the experience of other countries.
2
So, econ101, how is it that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Canada, and Australia are rated higher in quality of life than the US? Much, much more mass poverty in the US than in Canada, Norway, or Denmark, I think.
9
An American girl was killed overseas while doing the right thing by trying to help people, and what is occurring in these forums?
Kvetching about paying for the very stability and civility that keeps us from devolving into the same murderous thuggery.
The shortsightedness of this nation is absolutely stunning in its girth.
Kvetching about paying for the very stability and civility that keeps us from devolving into the same murderous thuggery.
The shortsightedness of this nation is absolutely stunning in its girth.
19
It's difficult reading some of these disgusting, pinched, nasty, sociopathic posts. You would think that the only point to America is to serve as a free for all money grab. That freedom just means the freedom to grab up every last dime you can find. That in terms of public services, one should only get them to the extent one can afford them. Soon, you will only get as much clean air or water as you can afford. While this nightmare is familiar on the SciFi channel, Americans don't have to fall for it. What's next? Free health care? Free education? Yes, as most people in the civilized world have accepted. The only way the money holders can pass off their guilt laden psycho-babble about class warfare is by withholding education to the masses. We need to start there.
18
How about people taking care of themselves to the best of their ability. No more taxpayer supported pensions, 401k programs instead including EVERYONE in government too! Getting rid of overstaffing by both the Senate and Congress. Does a senator really need 50 people working for them that the taxpayer will ahve to support down the road? Corporations paying their fair share. And aid to the citizens (legal) who truly need help. End the decades long and generational welfare rolls, six generations of the same family on welfare is ridiculous. If you can't afford 5 kids don't have them, sorry but if you choose to have all of those babies and no spouse to help support them or yoru spouse is a scholar and doesn't work don't come to the taxpayer for help. That well is dry. Take responsibility for your actions. Not everyone can start at a job as CEO. Learn skills, who says blue collar work isn't fashionable? Do we really need more lawyers? Think for yourselves and stop looking to your governement to make your decisions for you.
Stop following and lead. Do you really believe that Boehner, McConnell, Pelosi and Reid are looking out for you and do you trust them to make up your minds for you? Because I don't. I wouldn't trust them with walking my dog or taking out my garbage. They'd have to start a committee first.
The Dems love to promise more and more programs while the repubs love giving tax breaks to their friends and families. And look where that's gotten us.
Stop following and lead. Do you really believe that Boehner, McConnell, Pelosi and Reid are looking out for you and do you trust them to make up your minds for you? Because I don't. I wouldn't trust them with walking my dog or taking out my garbage. They'd have to start a committee first.
The Dems love to promise more and more programs while the repubs love giving tax breaks to their friends and families. And look where that's gotten us.
14
Is this supposed to be the new chic? Criticize everything? Is this how we judge clear eyed analysis? How many political leaders and government systems we can put under the umbrella of that they're all bad? We all depend on good governance, and most of the time we're not even aware of what that is.
I make no illusions that we live in paradise, but it is a far cry from hell. Good governance depends on everyone, from the president to the average voter. When we don't take the time and make the investment just what are we to expect. Too many blame our politicians. I blame voters when they don't show up and at least vote.
I make no illusions that we live in paradise, but it is a far cry from hell. Good governance depends on everyone, from the president to the average voter. When we don't take the time and make the investment just what are we to expect. Too many blame our politicians. I blame voters when they don't show up and at least vote.
6
It is time for you to get off the Internet 24/7 and out into the real world to see it for what it is. Most people are out there doing the right thing, most of those who struggle come by their problems honestly, and most understand the value of a robust social safety net.
Perhaps holding the hand of an old person, teaching a child to read, or fostering a homeless dog would help. You know, worthwhile things that contribute to the betterment of society.
Perhaps holding the hand of an old person, teaching a child to read, or fostering a homeless dog would help. You know, worthwhile things that contribute to the betterment of society.
12
I have children but the idea of focusing on families is a very bad one. Polical slogans are also cultural messages and sometimes the cultural reverberations of a political platform persist long after the policy itself has been discarded or modified. Children are not the sine qua non of human existence, and women in particular should be encouraged to think of themselves as individuals rather than breeders. Overpopulation is a real issue. And it is hypocritical to deny that there are people who should not reproduce at all but do. We pay for the their choices already; no need to pay more. This said, making higher education more affordable for those who have the intellectual wherewithal to benefit from it is a good idea.
11
This plan will backfire on Democrats, since it discriminates against singles, childless couples, seniors, etc. The way to help the middle class is to eliminate the federal economic policies which have harmed the middle class: the Reagan tax rate cuts for the wealthy, and during the past six years transferring trillions of tax dollars and lost interest on savings from the middle class and seniors to Wall Street.
17
As a 'middle class' family man I am incredibly grateful for the slight reduction in taxes that helps me feed, dress, and shelter my family. That said I find it rather unfair that the single and childless get essentially no tax relief aside from perhaps home ownership and other small deductions and credits. I think lower taxes for all but the top 10% would spur more economic growth and opportunity for everyone as opposed to maintaining the historically low tax rate of top income earners.
15
Who do you think is funding the Social Security and Medicare benefits of the single and childless? Who is fighting for them in our military (hint: not their kids)?
5
The "generation of the future" will be paying into the SS and Medicare cash flow just as those of us now working do, Mookie. They won't be doling out charity. I personally will have helped that cash flow for more than 50 years by the time I retire -- without incurring any liability to it in the form of minors who may need survivor's or disability benefits (I think 8 million kids currently are receiving some sort of SS) nor any liability for spousal survivor's benefits, divorcees benefits or stay-home spouse retirement pay.
A friend was widowed a year ago with a 14-year-old kid. Between the girl's survivor's benefits and the widow's caregiver benefits, they'll collect more than $150,000 by the time the girl is an adult. They don't need it -- mom makes more than $80,000 and had lots of life insurance on the deceased husband/father -- but will take it anyway. No way will the girl will ever reimburse "the system" for that money plus whatever she herself collects in retirement no matter how hard or long she works. We the childfree foot that bill because we can't assign our benefits to anyone, should we die. We can't give a loved one a boost despite decades of making contributions.
And of course, when the widow decides to collect -- which she can do early just by virtue of being a widow, despite her ability to work and earn -- she'll dip on the husband's account, not her own.
Give me a break on the 'our kids will fund your SS and Medicare' meme. It doesn't work.
A friend was widowed a year ago with a 14-year-old kid. Between the girl's survivor's benefits and the widow's caregiver benefits, they'll collect more than $150,000 by the time the girl is an adult. They don't need it -- mom makes more than $80,000 and had lots of life insurance on the deceased husband/father -- but will take it anyway. No way will the girl will ever reimburse "the system" for that money plus whatever she herself collects in retirement no matter how hard or long she works. We the childfree foot that bill because we can't assign our benefits to anyone, should we die. We can't give a loved one a boost despite decades of making contributions.
And of course, when the widow decides to collect -- which she can do early just by virtue of being a widow, despite her ability to work and earn -- she'll dip on the husband's account, not her own.
Give me a break on the 'our kids will fund your SS and Medicare' meme. It doesn't work.
5
I know this is a pet issue for you, Bohemienne, but your fury at Social Security lacks context. Social Security started as the "widows and orphans fund." It was designed to keep people out of abject poverty. That is why elderly couples get more money than single people -- because they need more food and medicine. Widows get money, too. That's where the whole project started.
If you want to live well in retirement, that's called your IRA.
If you want to live well in retirement, that's called your IRA.
3
Oh where to begin? What I hope Democratic policy makers get is what works is fairness. In 2011, individual income taxes contributed $1.1 trillion to federal coffers, corporate taxes added up to $181B. That same year according to the GAO, U.S. corporations received $181 billion in income tax breaks — as much as they paid in taxes!! Most of the forgone revenue came from two breaks: accelerated depreciation for capital investment and the ability to defer U.S. taxes on profits earned overseas (a patently unfair bonus). American multinationals, insurance companies, and S corporations are tax avoidance machines. The tax code is rift with tax dodges that benefit the 1%. Even golf courses are entitled to a special tax break: some $50M a year to owners who donate golf courses to conservation trusts. For $50m, 6,000 children could attend Head Start for a year. Let's lead with what benefits quality of life in this country for everyone and especially the children. Let's invest in fairness.
8
How about more affordable housing so that families don't have to fall into homelessness and so that our recent college graduates can live someplace other than their parents' basements; stellar public schools (for all students, including poor ones) with well-paid teachers, on-site psychologists, therapists, counselors, tutors (for parents), and nurses; universal health care; plentiful public transportation (buses, light rail, trains, bikes) that actually link people to work and school and grocery stores, so that no American has to walk 21 miles to and from work; grants, not loans, for smart, hard-working poor and middle-income kids so that they can actually afford higher education; a living, not a minimum, wage; paid sick leave; paid maternity leave.
And still the Democrats can't figure out what to do next?
And still the Democrats can't figure out what to do next?
9
Sounds like Utopia. And if all men were angels, we could have this perfect society. Instead, every attempt by government to create Utopia has resulted not in fairness or equality, but in corruption and tyranny. Look at China, Cuba, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, and on and on. They tried all of these things ... and the result was brutal oppression and mass poverty. So I'll pass. Give me instead a government that stays out of commerce as much as possible, enforces the rule of law, and protects my basic freedoms. It's not perfect, but it beats the alternatives.
2
Why? Don't they get enough favored tax status as it is? Single taxpayers continue to pay higher taxes to subsidize parents, children, etc. Also paying property taxes for schools; even though they have no children to rnroll. Don't get me wrong singles do get tax breaks:
1. Pretax deduction fro 401ks. GOP wants to take thsi away.
2. Pretax deduction fro paying the employee portion of health insurace. GOP wants to take that way.
3. Get taxed on on any employer provdied fringe benefits (health care, 401k match, etc). Both parties want to implment this.
4. Mortgage interest and property tax deduction is about the only tax benefist singles may be able to keep.
It is high time that single taxpayers got a tax break by not having children, by not adding to overpopulation, by not adding to the carbon footprint, by not adding to the school population, by not buying tank SUVs to transport children, etc. I amde a choice to be single, parent's made a choice to have children. It wa sthei4r choice, then they should fund their choice.
1. Pretax deduction fro 401ks. GOP wants to take thsi away.
2. Pretax deduction fro paying the employee portion of health insurace. GOP wants to take that way.
3. Get taxed on on any employer provdied fringe benefits (health care, 401k match, etc). Both parties want to implment this.
4. Mortgage interest and property tax deduction is about the only tax benefist singles may be able to keep.
It is high time that single taxpayers got a tax break by not having children, by not adding to overpopulation, by not adding to the carbon footprint, by not adding to the school population, by not buying tank SUVs to transport children, etc. I amde a choice to be single, parent's made a choice to have children. It wa sthei4r choice, then they should fund their choice.
15
The author seems unable to distinguish between agenda, policy and rhetoric.
The Democratic Party agenda is to get elected into important roles where they can be the recipient of the richest lobbying sectors.
It is the policy of the Democratic Party to make their constituency as vast as possible, so it will be worth more money when it is sold to the highest bidder.
Democratic Party rhetoric is sticking your wet finger into the wind and saying whatever your advisers tell you will get you elected.
I hope that helps, as we really don't need more of this type of conflation by journalists.
The Democratic Party agenda is to get elected into important roles where they can be the recipient of the richest lobbying sectors.
It is the policy of the Democratic Party to make their constituency as vast as possible, so it will be worth more money when it is sold to the highest bidder.
Democratic Party rhetoric is sticking your wet finger into the wind and saying whatever your advisers tell you will get you elected.
I hope that helps, as we really don't need more of this type of conflation by journalists.
4
Well, the Dems have to come up with something. It's politics. But everytime I hear the term "middle class" I cringe. So who are they talking about really? It's a category that extends from people living in their cars to families making 200k in some places. I get that the Dems need to come up with something to ignite the public. They'll force the Repugs to be 'against families'.
BUT, I just can't help feel that as I go about my daily routines, single and childless by choice, that people are having babies they cannot afford and WHY? I don't think everyone should be childless, and I believe we all benefit from paying for schools, parks and playgrounds. I don't want to pay for tax breaks for people who can't figure out how to stop having children they can't educate, feed, cloth and house. I'm amazed I feel this way but I do.
The other day there was a couple with an infant begging outside my supermarket. They didn't just get poor. But they had a baby anyway.
I just don't get it.
And when are the Dems going to grow a set large enough to talk about raising the income cap on social security contributions? Why is there a cap at all?
BUT, I just can't help feel that as I go about my daily routines, single and childless by choice, that people are having babies they cannot afford and WHY? I don't think everyone should be childless, and I believe we all benefit from paying for schools, parks and playgrounds. I don't want to pay for tax breaks for people who can't figure out how to stop having children they can't educate, feed, cloth and house. I'm amazed I feel this way but I do.
The other day there was a couple with an infant begging outside my supermarket. They didn't just get poor. But they had a baby anyway.
I just don't get it.
And when are the Dems going to grow a set large enough to talk about raising the income cap on social security contributions? Why is there a cap at all?
11
Exactly.
Any "struggling young family" today with kids under age 7 deliberately chose to bear offspring in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s.
And anyone else who doesn't plan financially and otherwise for how they'll support their own family in the event of job loss, divorce, death, disability, economic downturn and other very, very common events is a fool and a mooch. None of those events are lightening bolts out of the blue; they happen in pretty much every family at one point or another.
Any "struggling young family" today with kids under age 7 deliberately chose to bear offspring in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s.
And anyone else who doesn't plan financially and otherwise for how they'll support their own family in the event of job loss, divorce, death, disability, economic downturn and other very, very common events is a fool and a mooch. None of those events are lightening bolts out of the blue; they happen in pretty much every family at one point or another.
11
I am 71, have no children or grandchildren, but am happy to support this so-called parent agenda My life is better when I am surrounded by educated people who have decent healthcare. I don't mind paying taxes to help make that happen.
12
Parents already get plenty of tax cuts/credits from the government. I'm not sure why they need more. Is there really a shortage of people in the US? And many of the same people clamoring for paid family leave would also be upset when the people who used this leave lost out on promotions and the best job assignments. There's no such thing as a free lunch. And for parents to claim moral superiority while dipping their hands in everyone else's wallet is likely going to be a political non-starter. The aborted plan to raid the 529s is a good example.
If you have children that is wonderful for you. Congratulations. But don't ask everyone else to pay for them. That's up to you.
If you have children that is wonderful for you. Congratulations. But don't ask everyone else to pay for them. That's up to you.
14
"....traditionally Democratic white working-class voters who supported Mr. Obama in 2012 but now disapprove of his performance." This is evidence of the roaring success for the GOP obstructionist flim-flam machine. A serious look at Obama's tenure reveals accomplishments that have no business of being successful (one-term Mitchie cones to mind). Obama is not perfect but ALL democrats and Americans should open their eyes and acknowledge one of the better Presidents in US history.
5
Well, we all know how the GOP will respond to Democratic initiatives: Moe tax cuts for the wealthy and no other government programs because they don't help create jobs and only promote dependency. Unless it's military spending.
3
SO those of us who choose to be childless and/or single are left out yet again. Where exactly do the rest of us fit in I'd like to know.
18
I am childless and I am old, so I know I will be childless for the rest of my life. As to where do we fit in ?? Well, one of somebody else's child may be an emergency room physician that save my life some day, some may be fireman, police, or garbage collector, and a lot of them will be paying into social security and Medicare, ACA to keep the system afloat. As long as it's done wisely, fairly and in proportion, I am totally fine with it.
12
I'd be fine with it too, but the emphasis seems to be on the 48% who pay no taxes and families; the top earners and 1% crowd have the means and lobbyists to pay for what they want which leaves us out in the cold again. The Dems and Obama's plan is not fair nor is it equitable to say the least. The Dems are hopelessly oblivious again.
6
"With near-universal health care ... enacted, there was no obvious next step in the party’s mission of expanding the safety net."
Does anyone else see a problem with this statement? What this says is that Democrats are looking to further expand the "safety net" for its own sake, and not in response to a need. That is a very dangerous agenda, particularly in the face of so many problems with the existing safety net. For starters, the rosiest assessment of the ACA is that the jury is still out on how it will work. A more frank assessment is that there is little evidence that it will ever provide most of the benefits that we promised and that it will forever run in the red. Add to that the current insolvency crises which are quickly approaching for Medicare and Social Security -- the other great safety net "successes" of the progressive left.
Take a look at Obama's latest ten-year budget, and you can see that in ten years, our annual debt payments are projected to exceed all annual domestic discretionary spending and all military spending. And the trend worsens after that. So the Democrats' governing agenda is to search and search until they find more ways to expand the "safety net"?! Why don't they instead find ways of fixing the current safety nets and making sure they remain solvent going forward? Is that not enough of a political winner?
Does anyone else see a problem with this statement? What this says is that Democrats are looking to further expand the "safety net" for its own sake, and not in response to a need. That is a very dangerous agenda, particularly in the face of so many problems with the existing safety net. For starters, the rosiest assessment of the ACA is that the jury is still out on how it will work. A more frank assessment is that there is little evidence that it will ever provide most of the benefits that we promised and that it will forever run in the red. Add to that the current insolvency crises which are quickly approaching for Medicare and Social Security -- the other great safety net "successes" of the progressive left.
Take a look at Obama's latest ten-year budget, and you can see that in ten years, our annual debt payments are projected to exceed all annual domestic discretionary spending and all military spending. And the trend worsens after that. So the Democrats' governing agenda is to search and search until they find more ways to expand the "safety net"?! Why don't they instead find ways of fixing the current safety nets and making sure they remain solvent going forward? Is that not enough of a political winner?
5
How about rolling the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid into one efficient program -- Single Payer (catching up to the rest of the industrialized, and not so industrialized world). As for Social Security, take the cap off earnings for the first million or so -- problem solved.
10
Cathy - No offense, but for every complicated problem, there is a simple and easy answer ... which is almost always wrong. There is no single or easy solution to our entitlement problems. But ignoring that they exist is certainly not a viable approach ... and adding to the problems with more entitlements seems to be even worse. Yet, that is what our Democratic party is offering. As for your proposed solutions, to offer them one must first acknowledge a problem exists, which most Democratic politicians seem unwilling to do.
1
Cathy - I must rebut another part of your response as well: "one efficient program -- Single Payer." I don't think the federal government has ever been accused of being "efficient."
2
Mr. Cohn lost me in the first paragraph. The Affordable Care Act, despite its success in expanding Medicaid, is nothing like "near-universal healthcare" -- not even close. It is dismaying how the press continues to report the issue as nothing more than a victory lap for the Democratic Party (WeGotHealthCareDoneTM), when there are still huge gaps in coverage at various income thresholds that need to be addressed.
Also, and perhaps more importantly - as discovered by many who were happy to receive subsidies to make their insurance premiums more affordable but later found they were unable afford their high deductibles and co-payments - insurance is not care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/unable-to-meet-the-deductible-or-th...
Also, and perhaps more importantly - as discovered by many who were happy to receive subsidies to make their insurance premiums more affordable but later found they were unable afford their high deductibles and co-payments - insurance is not care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/unable-to-meet-the-deductible-or-th...
12
Frank, you're right. We must applaud the first steps and work to improve the entire situation. However, with one party having voted 55 times (!) in the House to stop the entire thing, one must wonder how we're going to do anything if they don't give us any way to fix what is there. At the same time, these same folks (Republicans) are suing the government to try to stop the ACA from operating in various jurisdictions and situations. How you vote will either improve the programs or put us back where we were. Vote.
4
My family is smack dab in the middle class dilemma. My wife lost her job last May and hasn't found a new position (despite literally hundreds of resumes sent out). Meanwhile, a son is away at college and a daughter in her junior year of high school. I am semi-retired, with a modest pension and SS.
Two over-arching issues keep my wife and I up nights. One is the cost of health care. I'm on Medicare with a supplemental plan, while the remainder of the family is on a very, very costly private health insurance plan. We can't afford to get sick or have an accident.
The other is the cost of higher education, and the usurious rates we pay for college loans. At a time when interest rates on savings are are non-existent, I ask -- as do many other Americans -- why households attempting to invest in the future for their children should be saddled with such severe loan burdens, while billion dollar banks can borrow funds from the Fed for a mere pittance, and equity fund managers can earn millions and pay hardly any taxes, while our burden continues to rise.
I will vote for whichever candidate effectively addresses these two elephants sitting on my chest.
Two over-arching issues keep my wife and I up nights. One is the cost of health care. I'm on Medicare with a supplemental plan, while the remainder of the family is on a very, very costly private health insurance plan. We can't afford to get sick or have an accident.
The other is the cost of higher education, and the usurious rates we pay for college loans. At a time when interest rates on savings are are non-existent, I ask -- as do many other Americans -- why households attempting to invest in the future for their children should be saddled with such severe loan burdens, while billion dollar banks can borrow funds from the Fed for a mere pittance, and equity fund managers can earn millions and pay hardly any taxes, while our burden continues to rise.
I will vote for whichever candidate effectively addresses these two elephants sitting on my chest.
10
That you retired with two school-age kids and now feel strapped is hardly the fault or responsibility of anyone else. Do you really feel OK trying to foist the predictable costs associated with those voluntary decisions onto the rest of us?
7
Paul - I am with you a hundred percent. My employer health insurance has gone up by double-digit percentages every single year since the ACA was passed, while generally by benefits have gone down. From last year to this year, my premium increased 33% for the same exact coverage. Meanwhile, I put away as much as I can for my kids' college education, but the college calculator says it will be nowhere near enough. In both cases, federal policies have either caused the increases in these costs or done nothing to contain them. Only through government subsidization can any industry outstrip the pace of inflation by multiple percentage points year after year.
Someone tell the Democrats to please stop trying to help us!
Someone tell the Democrats to please stop trying to help us!
2
re: PaulB
You made the personal choice of having a child in your mid-40s, do you not see how risky that decision was when the greatest outlay of cash in your family - your son's education - came when you turned 65?
And now you expect people like me to pick up the tab for your dubious personal lifestyle choice?
You made the personal choice of having a child in your mid-40s, do you not see how risky that decision was when the greatest outlay of cash in your family - your son's education - came when you turned 65?
And now you expect people like me to pick up the tab for your dubious personal lifestyle choice?
7
There is still no root understanding of what Democrats ought to stand for. The problems we face now are variants of the same ones faced for 50 or more years. The discussion is really about the elucidation of those problems, once they are determined to be problems, the solutions that might be available and the implementation thereof. Running from the above cost virtually every Dem that lost in the last cycle their election. Those that embraced it won.
Republicans have an ideal response: NO.
Republicans have an ideal response: NO.
3
For every billion in tax cuts you could:
- give 1000 millionaires an extra $1,000,000
-give 1,000,000 ”thousandaires” an extra $1,000
Now, what would they do with it? Some would say that the millionaires would pour it back into their businesses in the U.S., and I would say that is true for a certain percentage. Another slice of the millionaires would want better returns than they could get from their U.S.-based business and invest in a foreign opportunity which would help no one in the states except the investor. Yet another slice might not invest at all but simply buy that Tuscan villa or whatever other foreign asset they have been coveting again help no one in the states.
Compare that with the thousandaires. What will they do with their $1,000? I haven’t seen any Italian vacation homes on the market for $1,000. I’m guessing a large percentage, a bigger percentage than that of millionaires who would put a windfall $1,000,000 into their business, would spend their modest prize locally. This would help many more people in the states as the money percolates through the economy. Even the millionaires would benefit as their businesses would be the recipient of much of the spending.
- give 1000 millionaires an extra $1,000,000
-give 1,000,000 ”thousandaires” an extra $1,000
Now, what would they do with it? Some would say that the millionaires would pour it back into their businesses in the U.S., and I would say that is true for a certain percentage. Another slice of the millionaires would want better returns than they could get from their U.S.-based business and invest in a foreign opportunity which would help no one in the states except the investor. Yet another slice might not invest at all but simply buy that Tuscan villa or whatever other foreign asset they have been coveting again help no one in the states.
Compare that with the thousandaires. What will they do with their $1,000? I haven’t seen any Italian vacation homes on the market for $1,000. I’m guessing a large percentage, a bigger percentage than that of millionaires who would put a windfall $1,000,000 into their business, would spend their modest prize locally. This would help many more people in the states as the money percolates through the economy. Even the millionaires would benefit as their businesses would be the recipient of much of the spending.
9
Hilarious, if not so sad and misinformed. And the usual class warfare from Democrats. Instead of lifting all boats, the far left liberal wing of the Democrat party prefers to blame the wealthy for all of America's problems. They ignore the fact that the top 10% of earners already pay more than 80% of all federal income taxes, and that families making less than $50,000 pay an effective federal income tax rate of zero. Obama has raised the top federal tax rate to nearly 40%, and now he wants it raised again. Enough is never enough for Democrats. Big government is always the answer. The mantra never ends. More, more and even more taxes are always the answer.
9
"the top 10% of earners already pay more than 80% of all federal income taxes, and that families making less than $50,000 pay an effective federal income tax rate of zero."
----------------------------------------------
Your source?
----------------------------------------------
Your source?
8
Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal ...
Not quite 80% but close.
Not quite 80% but close.
1
Yes, yes, Paul, life is so unfair and challenging for the very wealthy, isn't it?
8
As someone who has worked in tax preparation and in a bank it amazed and angered me the large amounts of refunds that were handed to low-income people simply for having children.
Meanwhile, single, lower middle class people like me receive no help or any notice from a Democratic Party that claims to support the middle class, yet in reality, expects people like me, with limited income, to subsidize another individual's personal choice of breeding children.
So call me a skeptic, but I don't trust the Democratic Party or any other political party at this time to look out for my interests.
Meanwhile, single, lower middle class people like me receive no help or any notice from a Democratic Party that claims to support the middle class, yet in reality, expects people like me, with limited income, to subsidize another individual's personal choice of breeding children.
So call me a skeptic, but I don't trust the Democratic Party or any other political party at this time to look out for my interests.
20
The "liberal agenda" has resulted in New Jersey being the most overly taxed state in the country, with private businesses fleeing in droves and the middle class living paycheck to paycheck. And we're supposed to trust in the new liberal agenda? Give me a break. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same ripoff machine. Obama and Holder has proven that with their kids glove treatment and bailout of Wall Street criminals.
6
...and you obviously voted for Chris Christie, that purulent bully whose models appear to be Hermann Goering (read your history books on how he plundered Europe during the German Occupation, 1940-45) and Tony Soprano, without any of the charms of either...
2
The Democrats need to also come up with proposals to redistribute income BEFORE it is earned as well as after.
To that aim, they need to double down on their support for the labor union movement, the greatest asset in eliminating income inequality.
To that aim, they need to double down on their support for the labor union movement, the greatest asset in eliminating income inequality.
8
"With near-universal health care ... enacted, there was no obvious next step in the party’s mission of expanding the safety net."
How about this for a next step: make sure that near-universal healthcare works before moving on to the next social engineering project! But that won't score enough points with all those middle class whites who never liked Obamacare, who were repulsed by the way it was sold through lies and deceit and enacted through a process of political strong-arming and backroom deals. Let's not do anything to draw more attention to that disaster, so let's just pretend it works and move on to something more appealing to all those middle class peons. How about free stuff!? Seems to work with the other groups that Democratic political operatives have so successfully targeted, picked off, and bought off. So why not the vast "middle class" too? We can even raise their taxes to pay for the free tax, and they'll never notice! Someone please tell me how this is anything more than a bold political strategy in search of a policy.
How about this for a next step: make sure that near-universal healthcare works before moving on to the next social engineering project! But that won't score enough points with all those middle class whites who never liked Obamacare, who were repulsed by the way it was sold through lies and deceit and enacted through a process of political strong-arming and backroom deals. Let's not do anything to draw more attention to that disaster, so let's just pretend it works and move on to something more appealing to all those middle class peons. How about free stuff!? Seems to work with the other groups that Democratic political operatives have so successfully targeted, picked off, and bought off. So why not the vast "middle class" too? We can even raise their taxes to pay for the free tax, and they'll never notice! Someone please tell me how this is anything more than a bold political strategy in search of a policy.
3
It's hard to believe that the Democrats could have a hard time finding a cause to campaign for. They must be walking around blindfolded with there fingers in their ears.
2
How about a federal tax code that took into account the cost of living in each state and the fact that single people in many metropolitan areas cannot afford to buy a house. Thus they do not get any tax breaks related to housing.....just higher and higher rents and higher costs of living.
1
The federal tax code is already way too complicated. All deductions and credits should be eliminated.
7
This is the best that the Democrats can come up with? More free stuff to encourage dependency on government? No wonder they took such a drubbing in last fall's election -- voters must have suspected that even more liberal -- excuse me, "progressive" -- nonsense was in the pipeline after Obamacare, etc.
13
"Near universal health care"? When did that happen?
18
Credit where credit is due. A reinvigorated progressive agenda is happening now due to the concurrence of four elements: 1) leadership from President Obama and his budget proposal and other potent initiatives; 2) the strong, continuing influence of Elizabeth Warren, a symptom of our times; 3) a reviving national economy; and 4) the realization among conservatives that current political reality requires Republicans to turn left, and act more like Democrats.
6
What "reviving economy" are your referring to?
Is that the "reviving economy" where wages continue to be either stagnant or in retreat or it the "reviving economy" in which record numbers of people are in long-term unemployment and poverty or it it the "reviving economy" in which permanent, living wage jobs are harder and harder to find?
And Elizabeth Warren....influence?
Nope, just hype and wishful thinking for a politician whose track record in Washington and elsewhere is even more threadbare than a certain former senator and community organizer named Barack Obama.
Is that the "reviving economy" where wages continue to be either stagnant or in retreat or it the "reviving economy" in which record numbers of people are in long-term unemployment and poverty or it it the "reviving economy" in which permanent, living wage jobs are harder and harder to find?
And Elizabeth Warren....influence?
Nope, just hype and wishful thinking for a politician whose track record in Washington and elsewhere is even more threadbare than a certain former senator and community organizer named Barack Obama.
3
We are presently experiencing the dubious benefits of a tax code that puts the lightest burden on those at the top that I have ever seen. Between WW II and the Kennedy administration, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. And we had no shortage of American Millionaires.
Here is a simple, short and sweet Rx for our national financial stability: We locate a copy of the IRS code from 1956, dust it off, adjust all the brackets (AND the deductions) for inflation, and replace the entire IRS code.
If memory serves, all interest, not just on mortgages, was deductible back then. Totaling up all your credit card interest for itemizing on your return will really help you focus on just how much of your money goes down that particular rathole.
Here is a simple, short and sweet Rx for our national financial stability: We locate a copy of the IRS code from 1956, dust it off, adjust all the brackets (AND the deductions) for inflation, and replace the entire IRS code.
If memory serves, all interest, not just on mortgages, was deductible back then. Totaling up all your credit card interest for itemizing on your return will really help you focus on just how much of your money goes down that particular rathole.
34
Very wise words, bob!
Unfortunately, Bob, that makes too much sense. Our current crop of "conservatives" (who are apparently entirely ignorant when it comes to economic policy) will never go for it. Their cash cows are making too much money the way things are.
5
A return back to 1956 tax rates? By this I assume you mean:
1. Maximum annual Social Security tax of 2% of $4,200 -- or $84. Maximum employee Social Security tax in 2015 is $9,065.
2. No Medicare tax --- or Medicare (no Medicaid either)
3. No Social Security disabilty programs (it was actually created in 1956)
4. No food stamps, Section 8 housing or free cell phones
1. Maximum annual Social Security tax of 2% of $4,200 -- or $84. Maximum employee Social Security tax in 2015 is $9,065.
2. No Medicare tax --- or Medicare (no Medicaid either)
3. No Social Security disabilty programs (it was actually created in 1956)
4. No food stamps, Section 8 housing or free cell phones
4
In many other advanced countries, higher education receives much more government support and is affordable to the middle class. College tuition is deductible from the taxable income of those who pay, unlike in the US, which seems reasonable since that tuition is investing in higher earning potential down the road. In other countries each earner's income is taxed at its own rates. Here married single-income households can get a lower tax rate, whereas married double-income households are penalized by having the lower income taxed at the highest marginal rate! Also, the childcare expenses needed so that the second income can be earned are largely not deductible. So the income is essentially double taxed (household employment taxes paid out of after-tax income, and the childcare provider's income is taxed) and at a higher rate! Not the case in other countries. The net result is that in this country paying for higher education is penalized, and working parents are penalized through our tax code. Instead of creating an even more complex tax code and dangling credits etc that evaporate long before a livable income level is reached, why not simplify the code and tax everyone's income fairly? Each earner taxed on his or her own wages, and expenses or investments (childcare, tuition,..) that make that income possible are deductible. Businesses can deduct their employees' compensation, why can't households?
2
Aha! Let's be the Parent Party - bad idea! Let's be the party for a majority of Americans, including parents. The correct agenda is fairness for all. If you look at fair play for all jobs are at the top of the agenda along with wages. Is it fair to tax stock market profits at a lower rate than wages? Is it fair to work hard and not be able to live on your wages? Fixing that problem helps everyone except, perhaps, the top 0.1%. You have a small business and will have a lower profit margin? But you'll have more customers! The safety net will have fewer customers.
Appeal to most people while the GOP appeals to the top end. Get the message out, we lag badly in the propaganda department. Calling the Safety Net "Free Stuff"?
Appeal to most people while the GOP appeals to the top end. Get the message out, we lag badly in the propaganda department. Calling the Safety Net "Free Stuff"?
9
So helping middle-class parents is now considered part of a "liberal agenda"?
What other evidence do we need about how politics in our country has veered dangerously to the right? And at the expense of the middle-of-the-road middle class?
What other evidence do we need about how politics in our country has veered dangerously to the right? And at the expense of the middle-of-the-road middle class?
8
No, giving "free stuff" to people without having a plan for it is a "liberal agenda". Giving "free stuff" to corporations without having a plan to pay for it is a "conservative agenda".
11
The conservatives do have a plan for giving free stuff to the rich and corporations. Broadly, it's called trickle down. The specifics are found in our tax laws.
3
What about those in poverty, below middle class. Are they not worth political attention?
6
I agree that we should always be thinking of those who are struggling to make ends meet. But I think that the beauty of this plan is that it helps the middle class, but also those in more dire economic straights. The focus on child care and education, as well as expanding the earned income tax credit, will help those people as well.
1
The Democrats just don't seem to understand that issues like these just don't have the emotional or fear-inducing appeal of Republican claptrap like abortion, gay marriage and the right to bear arms. That's why Republicans win when it rains... they want it more. Every program the Dems come up with to "aid" the middle class costs a ton of money, which comes from who else but the middle class. Gun control is a terrific idea but will never gain traction as long as the NRA is more powerful than the President. And as long as there are relatively poor Southern, Appalachian and mid-Western whites eagerly voting for rich Republicans to retain their tax breaks and deregulate their Wall Street casinos in exchange for substituting the Bible for the Constitution, the middle class will continue to pay the freight.
2
Sadly, you are mistaken about health care reform. Your description of the ACA as "near-universal health care — the unfinished business of the 20th-century Democratic Party" reveals that you have little practical knowledge of the healthcare system and that you are unaware of how badly broken it remains. The system is still incredibly expensive, inefficient and ineffective. And it is certainly not "near-universal."
18
The problem with middle class targeted breaks is that they always phase out in the same incomes where taxes start to surge upward...after $75K of income. The tax rate there is $28% on every dollar extra you earn, and SS is collected all the way up to $116K. SS used to cut off and that is why the regular tax rate was justified in going up at those incomes, but no more, SS and Medicare tax up to $116 is about $10K in taxes and the whole tax bill in that range is in the teens of thousands depending on your deductions. So, the incline is too steep for the middle class. It would be better for everyone if the 10% tax rate went all the way up to $175K. But most tax breaks phase out...meaning you can't take them...over $70K AGI.
1
I have a salaried W-2 job and a substantial income from a private freelance/consulting biz.
I pay 40 cents on the dollar, or more, for every buck I make in my side business -- FICA, state and my highest marginal rate. It's almost to the point where it's not worth it, since of course as a "non family" single, childfree household without a mortgage I get no substantial breaks on that tax.
I've deliberately scaled back on side work to cut my tax bill, sheltered the max in retirement accounts (fortunately my W-2 job entitles me to two defined contribution plans and my age allows me to boost contributions significantly) and boosted my charitable giving to huge levels for 2014 and beyond. I still won't have those deferred and donated dollars to spend so my lifestyle won't benefit -- but at least they'll be going to causes and organizations I find valuable instead of snatched from me to pay for the more 'worthy' lifestyle of my peers and neighbors.
I pay 40 cents on the dollar, or more, for every buck I make in my side business -- FICA, state and my highest marginal rate. It's almost to the point where it's not worth it, since of course as a "non family" single, childfree household without a mortgage I get no substantial breaks on that tax.
I've deliberately scaled back on side work to cut my tax bill, sheltered the max in retirement accounts (fortunately my W-2 job entitles me to two defined contribution plans and my age allows me to boost contributions significantly) and boosted my charitable giving to huge levels for 2014 and beyond. I still won't have those deferred and donated dollars to spend so my lifestyle won't benefit -- but at least they'll be going to causes and organizations I find valuable instead of snatched from me to pay for the more 'worthy' lifestyle of my peers and neighbors.
3
@Michael has it right. This parent agenda sounds to me more like a dog whistle to so-called social conservatives than a progressive plan to make lives better. What we need is a worker agenda, an agenda that benefits people who work for a living, parents included. That used to be the realm of labor unions. At the very least, the Democratic agenda should include things like fully funding OSHA, EPA, FDA, and all those agencies whose purpose is to make life better for those of us who really have to live in this country, and a huge investment towards repairing and upgrading our crumbling infrastructure. I'd trade the dog-whistling "secure border" fantasy for that any day.
8
I'd love to get inside the mind of people who grumble about paying for others while driving down their federally-funded highways to their federally-funded banks. Parenthood might largely be a choice, but others make choices unrelated to parenthood that I pay for and you don't see me grumbling about it, because I figure it's all part and parcel of living in a relatively stable and civil society and keeping things that way.
The notion of rugged individualism is mythical, stupid, and childish.
The notion of rugged individualism is mythical, stupid, and childish.
7
Chantel,
Roads, bridges, airports, federal banks etc. are available to all citizens regardless of their reproductive choices. So are schools. I have no objection to paying for any of the above and would gladly see my taxes raised to fund world-class infrastructure and year-round schools with the same rigor as European schools.
Please don't conflate those public goods with special perks, breaks, safety nets, entitlements and cash handouts available solely to citizens who have opted to reproduce, at the expense of those who haven't.
And for the record I'm not talking the stereotypical "welfare queen,' I'm talking about my more-or-less middle-class economic peers who reap, reap and reap some more when they choose to produce offspring. Enough is enough.
Roads, bridges, airports, federal banks etc. are available to all citizens regardless of their reproductive choices. So are schools. I have no objection to paying for any of the above and would gladly see my taxes raised to fund world-class infrastructure and year-round schools with the same rigor as European schools.
Please don't conflate those public goods with special perks, breaks, safety nets, entitlements and cash handouts available solely to citizens who have opted to reproduce, at the expense of those who haven't.
And for the record I'm not talking the stereotypical "welfare queen,' I'm talking about my more-or-less middle-class economic peers who reap, reap and reap some more when they choose to produce offspring. Enough is enough.
8
In general, people should pay for what they use. The federally funded highways were supposed to be paid for through fuel taxes. But since the tax has stayed the same and fuel efficiency has increased, the tax no longer covers current costs. We need to go to a mileage tax.
4
re: Chantel
Most everyone uses a highway.
When it comes to having a child - that is your choice, not mine.
Thus, it is arrogant and selfish to think that single people like me, who are struggling to pay the bills, should be expected to subsidize another individual's personal choice to have children.
Most everyone uses a highway.
When it comes to having a child - that is your choice, not mine.
Thus, it is arrogant and selfish to think that single people like me, who are struggling to pay the bills, should be expected to subsidize another individual's personal choice to have children.
5
If this is the Democratic Party "leadership's" idea of a CHANGE agenda for the 2016 Presidential campaign they are only kidding themselves. Americans want real CHANGE in our country a lot more than a few feel good programs and modest benefits that will not be fully realized for years to come.
The idea that these proposals seriously address ever growing INEQUALITY in America, the horrendous wealth gap and the dismal future facing more and more Americans is preposterous.
Again we need proposals for fundamental CHANGE in 2016 that address the core issues troubling so many of us.
The idea that these proposals seriously address ever growing INEQUALITY in America, the horrendous wealth gap and the dismal future facing more and more Americans is preposterous.
Again we need proposals for fundamental CHANGE in 2016 that address the core issues troubling so many of us.
4
Education is the best way to bring about change, and better education for all kids--from day care through college--is what this initiative is about. I agree that many middle-class people whine about college costing too much but are unwilling to sacrifice anything of consequence (big house, new cars, "nice" vacations, toys) to save for their kids. This has somehow got to change.
But we need more opportunities for the working and poor classes to access quality education as well.
But we need more opportunities for the working and poor classes to access quality education as well.
1
Why should anyone believe what they are saying?
Look at Obama's record
What he said about keeping your health insurance if you wanted too.
What he said about gay marriage.
What Gruber confirmed to the world about the Democratic Party.
You would have to be a "Gruber" to believe anything the Democrats are promising now. Which means the media will print every promise as though it were the undeniable truth.
The Party of endless lies is out to woo the middle class with more lies while they continue to bail out the super rich liberals and give waivers to rich campaign contributors. There is nothing that the Democratic Party has to offer the middle class except more debt and deceit.
Look at Obama's record
What he said about keeping your health insurance if you wanted too.
What he said about gay marriage.
What Gruber confirmed to the world about the Democratic Party.
You would have to be a "Gruber" to believe anything the Democrats are promising now. Which means the media will print every promise as though it were the undeniable truth.
The Party of endless lies is out to woo the middle class with more lies while they continue to bail out the super rich liberals and give waivers to rich campaign contributors. There is nothing that the Democratic Party has to offer the middle class except more debt and deceit.
9
I am an Independent, fiscally conservative, have no kids by choice and am comfortable but not wealthy. I am comfortable because I have worked my entire life, saved, not depended on anyone, including my parents or the Gov't to fund anything along the way. I am all for helping the truly needy but we have created a class in our country that does not work, does not want to work, funded by us taxpayers who chose to work and I am personally sick and tired of seeing my neighbors hanging out all day on "disability" and am simply not interested in funding anyone kids to go to college, community college or pay for their "leave" so they can have more kids. Fix the work ethic in this country first, then the dismal education system that produces high school grads that can read and write in complete sentences. The Democrats have it ALL wrong.
16
The Evergreen Repub Mantra: "Fix it first, then we can see."
"Seal the border first, then we can talk about immigration reform." The border is now more secure than it has ever been. A fully secured, non-penetrable border is not achievable, it is only a fairy tale to speak of such a border.
" Too many cheats on welfare and disability. Fix it before another penny is spent."
Repubs say not one more penny until those cheats are eliminated. A program so onerous to gather the cheats would make it impossible for the ones such programs do help. More fairy tales with impossible goals.
"When students and parents are motivated, then we'll see about more money for education." Again, backward thinking with no mention that many urban schools are the laughingstock of the world. Another impossible task to achieve under such conditions.
Just another tactic for the GOP to shed their responsibility to run and govern a country that benefits all. Not just to look for "reasons" not to do what is in the end is the best course for our country, all of it.
"Seal the border first, then we can talk about immigration reform." The border is now more secure than it has ever been. A fully secured, non-penetrable border is not achievable, it is only a fairy tale to speak of such a border.
" Too many cheats on welfare and disability. Fix it before another penny is spent."
Repubs say not one more penny until those cheats are eliminated. A program so onerous to gather the cheats would make it impossible for the ones such programs do help. More fairy tales with impossible goals.
"When students and parents are motivated, then we'll see about more money for education." Again, backward thinking with no mention that many urban schools are the laughingstock of the world. Another impossible task to achieve under such conditions.
Just another tactic for the GOP to shed their responsibility to run and govern a country that benefits all. Not just to look for "reasons" not to do what is in the end is the best course for our country, all of it.
7
This is the kind of simplistic thinking proferred by right wingers. For the poor, many without skills, we need the government to be the employer of last resort. Heaven knows rebudilging and repairing our infrastructure could keep a large percentage of the unemployed poor employed. But the right, the Republicans have given up on America. Take the money and run, mostly to cheap foreign labor markets, where poverty prevails and we will soon be following. Perhaps at that point the Republicans will come home again/ All this name calling and besmirching of a poor class is obfuscation to conceal their real purpose. Wealth at whatever the cost. We have turned democracy on his heels: rule of the minority with unequal rights for the majority.
6
Let me some up the Democratic Party agenda. As quoted from a famous Progressive.
""We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
""We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
3
Well, no, considering Lawrence Summers seems to be the always-around go-to guy when the Dems start discussing economics. And Hillary gets a lot of money from Wall Street. For me, it's not that I want to destroy capitalism, but I sure would like to re-route it away from the top 1% down to wherest I dwell, and trickle-down hasn't done that. I don't want to destroy capitalism, but I sure would like to refurbish it.
3
I believe that the GOP/TeaParty is the party of the past--of discarded, authoritarian notions such as "Do as I say, but don't you DARE do as I do," as regards their congresspeople (who see office as a cash cow for life and prostitute their oath to serve the voters and Constitution daily) and a kleptocracy approaching Putin's, where social mobility becomes a myth.
It's a party of the past in that they refuse to renew our national infrastructure and refuse to acknowledge that there are some national functions that are best performed by government--not middlemen who always take their "taste."
It's the party of "No!" that has become seditious and traitorous--far more successful at undermining America, its Constitution, and democracy than possible in the wildest dreams of our World War II enemies, to whom they seem to be handing a victory some 70 years later.
The Democrats have to unapologetically cast themselves as the party of America's future, of rebuilding our technical edge, advancing our education and work opportunities, and helping people have dominion over their bodily functions (to wit, childbearing too early and too much--"religion" be a matter of choice and not of national policy).
What we CAN'T afford is to continue the policies put in place by the GOP in 2001. A state of constant fear is not what the Founders envisioned, but authoritarians and kleptocrats--both of yore (fascists and communists) and today have.
It's a party of the past in that they refuse to renew our national infrastructure and refuse to acknowledge that there are some national functions that are best performed by government--not middlemen who always take their "taste."
It's the party of "No!" that has become seditious and traitorous--far more successful at undermining America, its Constitution, and democracy than possible in the wildest dreams of our World War II enemies, to whom they seem to be handing a victory some 70 years later.
The Democrats have to unapologetically cast themselves as the party of America's future, of rebuilding our technical edge, advancing our education and work opportunities, and helping people have dominion over their bodily functions (to wit, childbearing too early and too much--"religion" be a matter of choice and not of national policy).
What we CAN'T afford is to continue the policies put in place by the GOP in 2001. A state of constant fear is not what the Founders envisioned, but authoritarians and kleptocrats--both of yore (fascists and communists) and today have.
8
Carl - Given the vitriol in your post, I doubt you will pay much attention to my post, but I hope you do. I believe caution is a virtue which our government needs to heed. Our country was formed under a Constitution and certain principles, under which it has grown into the freest, wealthiest, most prosperous, and most emulated nation in the history of the world. The poorest Americans today live better than 99.9999% of all other people in any society in any previous era of human history. If we continue to govern the way we have governed most of our history, we will continue to enjoy this success. If we attempt to radically change our government, impose too many restraints on our industry ... then we risk undoing what allowed our country to become so great. I hope you think about that when simply accusing Republicans of being the party of "no" and of standing in the way of progress. Progress is not always good. It can be very, very bad. Personally, I'd like to see the "progress" that this administration has thrust upon on healthcare industry actually work before seeing the next round of "progress."
2
The Republicans were NOT the party of "No" until an African-American became president. They WERE the part of big money, and we saw how "well" Reaganomics worked--two stock market crashes (1987 and 2008) and the savings-and-loan debacle. "Trickle down" is a mean myth, as is "job creation" by people who ship American jobs overseas.
As far as I'm concerned, the ideological "parents" of what has become today's GOP--people such as Grover Norquist and all of the soi-dise moralists--have ruined what was once a good thing and have turned it toxic.
By the way, do you have Medicare. I'm a year-and-a-half away from it, and I don't want to see the likes of Paul Ryan game it through privatization. Obamacare isn't perfect, and I'm in favor of single-payer like other civilized nations. When I read of the abuses of health insurers (which I know first-hand) it is one of many industries that are immoral and marginally useless but are encouraged as vast sources of money and protect their existence through unbridled political contributions. Gambling is another.
As far as I'm concerned, the ideological "parents" of what has become today's GOP--people such as Grover Norquist and all of the soi-dise moralists--have ruined what was once a good thing and have turned it toxic.
By the way, do you have Medicare. I'm a year-and-a-half away from it, and I don't want to see the likes of Paul Ryan game it through privatization. Obamacare isn't perfect, and I'm in favor of single-payer like other civilized nations. When I read of the abuses of health insurers (which I know first-hand) it is one of many industries that are immoral and marginally useless but are encouraged as vast sources of money and protect their existence through unbridled political contributions. Gambling is another.
3
The healthcare insurers are a layer of bureaucracy that we do not need. Why should we pay them to be toll collectors? To feed their $100 million CEO salaries? This feeding at the trough goes down their chain of command, and of course the hospitals and doctors throughout the country who do their best to preserve their regional fiefdoms.
4
Wage earners have 25-30% of their pat withheld pursuant to law. To the extent they spend the remainder of their income on taxable retail purchases they lose another 8.5% (in California) of their earnings--more when they purchase gas. Whether they rent or own their monthly housing costs include property taxes--thousands of dollars per year for most middle income people. They are required to pay car licensing and registration, and now are compelled by law to spend hundreds of dollars a month on health insurance that covers services some will never need and many have no need for.
If there really were a major political party that wishes to help wage earners (and there isn't) they need only reduce the money they remove from those people's pockets every day. This however, is never the answer for establishment parties, because it would reduce their control over the wealth of this country. How could they demonstrate their "generosity" and their great concern for the welfare of one group or another without continuing to confiscate earned wealth from some and doling it out to others?
If there really were a major political party that wishes to help wage earners (and there isn't) they need only reduce the money they remove from those people's pockets every day. This however, is never the answer for establishment parties, because it would reduce their control over the wealth of this country. How could they demonstrate their "generosity" and their great concern for the welfare of one group or another without continuing to confiscate earned wealth from some and doling it out to others?
4
Pardon, universal health care has NOT been established here. Greater access to less expensive PRIVATE healthcare has been established. Real universal health care is what Denmark has, not what the US has. And given that the Democrats are also in the pockets of Wall Street and the rest of the 1%, they can trumpet any agenda they like: they won't be able to push it through. It's all talk, nothing more.
60
"...paid family leave; universal preschool; an expanded earned-income tax credit and child tax credit; free community college and perhaps free four-year college in time"
Free this, free that. Expand this and that. ENOUGH! I'm not paying a penny more for these "programs." I pay plenty for my own family. Let the liberals pay for them if that's what they want so badly.
Free this, free that. Expand this and that. ENOUGH! I'm not paying a penny more for these "programs." I pay plenty for my own family. Let the liberals pay for them if that's what they want so badly.
20
I feel the same about the tax loopholes and giveaways I have to cover for the 1%, which is a far greater amount than what I pay to help needy children.
One wonders when the right wing will actually start upholding the same religious values for itself that it commands from the rest of us.
One wonders when the right wing will actually start upholding the same religious values for itself that it commands from the rest of us.
33
And some of us hard working non-takers in the middle class feel the same way about both, CMS.
This isn't about needy children -- I have zero problem supporting programs that help truly disadvantaged people, child or adult. It's about facilitating certain optional middle-class lifestyle choices at the expense of others. I work seven days a week and am tired of making outsize tax payments compared to the childed because some people "dream of becoming parents" but don't want to make any trade-offs in their careers or their standard of living in order to do so.
Let's all pay the same share of our income in taxes and all do as we please with what is left over.
This isn't about needy children -- I have zero problem supporting programs that help truly disadvantaged people, child or adult. It's about facilitating certain optional middle-class lifestyle choices at the expense of others. I work seven days a week and am tired of making outsize tax payments compared to the childed because some people "dream of becoming parents" but don't want to make any trade-offs in their careers or their standard of living in order to do so.
Let's all pay the same share of our income in taxes and all do as we please with what is left over.
11
Bohemiennne, having children is considerably more than a "lifestyle choice." Did you ever consider what would happen if most American stopped reproducing? Who would provide the funds for your Social Security in retirement? Who would take care of you in the nursing home? Those who deliberately choose not to have children are entitled to their choice, but it is certainly fair for them to support those who create the next generation. And by the way, the meager tax benefits offered don't begin to cover the financial cost of parenting.
12
I live in a solidly blue state and even the people here have become much more cynical and skeptical with the "free stuff for everyone" message the Democrats have been trying to make. Example, President Obama's "free College" giveaway landed with a thud... I think most voters are going to look for a candidate who has solutions to the serious problems facing us, not bromides.
21
Don't like the free two years of college idea because it might cost more, even though it could help thousands of young people get technical training that would take them from working at McDonalds and Walmart, where you and I both subsidize them through various low-income programs, and facilitate their moving into a higher-paying job, Erik?
Look at it from another standpoint... Just think about how much of your taxpayer money could be saved if you just mandated that high school ends at the 10th grade instead of the 12th, and as taxpayers we didn't have to pay for those two extra years. If the kids wanted to go those two extra years, they could get student loans, right? How about ending free public education at the 8th grade level? Think of the cost savings there!
Look at it from another standpoint... Just think about how much of your taxpayer money could be saved if you just mandated that high school ends at the 10th grade instead of the 12th, and as taxpayers we didn't have to pay for those two extra years. If the kids wanted to go those two extra years, they could get student loans, right? How about ending free public education at the 8th grade level? Think of the cost savings there!
2
Let me guess, your kid wants to go to technical school and you want me to pay for it. Kids who want to learn a technical skill can take out loans, apply for grants, get a job in the field, or join the military to learn the skills. They're adults. Figure it out.
Has anyone ever noticed that the Left's favorite slogan, "we're all in this together" begins to fall about as soon as the bill comes due? Then suddenly the middle class is "in this" more than others.
Has anyone ever noticed that the Left's favorite slogan, "we're all in this together" begins to fall about as soon as the bill comes due? Then suddenly the middle class is "in this" more than others.
4
A reduction in the cost of college education would be a boon for my son and I and a boon for the country. I have been setting aside $50-$200 per month since my son was 5 years old. He's 10 now, and I really don't see how our savings are going to pay for anything after the first year of college. I'd save more, but that would impact my ability to pay for rent, groceries, etc., the basics.
He could go to a less expensive community college, but should access to Ivy League colleges be reserved for only the very rich?
He could go to a less expensive community college, but should access to Ivy League colleges be reserved for only the very rich?
14
The basics including your computer, your internet access, your NYT subscription, eh?
You and many other parents could save more and not be putting your paw out to the rest of us if you'd tighten your belts instead of eyeing others' money.
You and many other parents could save more and not be putting your paw out to the rest of us if you'd tighten your belts instead of eyeing others' money.
6
He could also get lucky and be accepted by one of the military academies which would give him an excellent college education for the cost of four years of obligated service.
1
Assuming he could get in, Harvard might not be the best fit for your son. But if your family income is under $65,000 a year, all he would have to contribute would be a few thousand dollars from a student job and summer earnings. The family contribution would be zero.
3
If wages were high enough we wouldn't need all these other initiatives. It's really that simple. I used to believe that our problem was the outsourcing of manufacturing, but after watching the 1% take all the money for the last two decades, it seems clear that there's plenty of wealth in the economy of the U.S. -- it's just not getting paid to 99% of the people. I'm a parent, but singling out parents and children for a few welcome breaks will not address the real problem. And the comments below already demonstrate that the GOP is going to be far too nimble to let this work. They'll claim that the inequality gap is caused by the Democrats and get away with it, unless the Dems come up with a full-throated agenda to get some of the spoils of our growing economy to the people who have been denied it for so many years.
65
Exactly - we have a wage issue that will not be solved by taxation and redistribution. If we had a fair federal minimum wage then people could afford to pay the already-low community college fees to further their education, and wouldn't have to work two or three jobs just to subsist. And since disposable income rises much more rapidly than income over a certain level, it makes no sense to cap social security contributions. Removing that cap would prevent or delay the Social Security funding gap without a convoluted mishmash of tax credits etc.
7
A flat tax that applied to everyone at 17% would be a welcome break for all. Get rid of the beyond ridiculous tax rules, impossible to figure out tax forms and endless parade of deductions and lobbyist networks and replace it with a postcard sized tax form and fairly applied tax which is the same for all.
1
I have mixed feelings here, as I'm a right-leaning independent voter with 3 teen-aged kids. I work hard and make a decent living...but am nowhere close to the top 1% that gets villified by "main street".
On the one hand, I think that helping parents and families is a good concept and is tough to argue against. Plus, my economic self-interest sees child tax credits and potentially free community college as tremendous financial incentives.
Furthermore, young adults (or thier parents) shouldn't need to go into debt to get the education that is required for success in today's global economy.
However, it's not difficult to see this as yet another attempt to blindly transfer wealth. Can the rich afford to be taxed more? Sure. But the question becomes how much is too much...and how far down the income scale should be considered "rich". Working hard and making responsible financial decisions to become "comfortable" shouldn't be penalized, so I'm wary when the democratic party looks to fund more programs via more taxes.
I'm all for helping the poor and taking care of children, but at some point the "safety net" will become so robust that it ends up being a viable life alternative.
There has to be a middle ground where the truly needy are helped to get back on their feet without overly taxing the working middle class.
On the one hand, I think that helping parents and families is a good concept and is tough to argue against. Plus, my economic self-interest sees child tax credits and potentially free community college as tremendous financial incentives.
Furthermore, young adults (or thier parents) shouldn't need to go into debt to get the education that is required for success in today's global economy.
However, it's not difficult to see this as yet another attempt to blindly transfer wealth. Can the rich afford to be taxed more? Sure. But the question becomes how much is too much...and how far down the income scale should be considered "rich". Working hard and making responsible financial decisions to become "comfortable" shouldn't be penalized, so I'm wary when the democratic party looks to fund more programs via more taxes.
I'm all for helping the poor and taking care of children, but at some point the "safety net" will become so robust that it ends up being a viable life alternative.
There has to be a middle ground where the truly needy are helped to get back on their feet without overly taxing the working middle class.
27
When a family pays SS and Medicare and state taxes and property taxes, they already have less to spend than the cash value that those on benefits receive. You pay taxes on your food money, they get the money tax free...and also the full value because you don't tax a food benefit; Section 8 money for housing is AFTER TAX dollars; Welfare money is under the threashold for taxation and is not wages so has no SS taken out. We are already there, with the benefits adding up to $50K in many states. You and your wife have to make $75K together to get that. And you have to juggle your jobs and responsibilities. Often the benefit class gets a pass on being responsible parents, because they are underwhatever.
2
During those amazingly prosperous years of the Eisenhower administration the top marginal rate was in the 90% bracket. Under Reagan, capital gains were taxed as straight income.
Put those two (comparatively moderate) Republican concepts together, and we could afford all sorts of programs. It is not so much a spending crisis, as it is a revenue crisis....and history shows us that the rich are capable of paying far, far higher rates than they do now...and still stay rich.
Put those two (comparatively moderate) Republican concepts together, and we could afford all sorts of programs. It is not so much a spending crisis, as it is a revenue crisis....and history shows us that the rich are capable of paying far, far higher rates than they do now...and still stay rich.
3
Many, many very good points. To me, the biggest stumbling block is just who is "rich". We can all agree that 1%rs are rich, but what about those who earn $250,000 a year? Certainly, they are comfortable and not poor, but many would consider themselves "middle class", especially if they live in an area with a high cost of housing. In the NYC tri-state area, $250,000 is far from "rich".
I look at my children's friends and the issues that they are struggling with in their families. Most went to independent schools, boarding schools and private colleges. Their mothers rarely worked outside the home. There was a 2nd home and money for vacations. Now, they frequently find that they cannot possibly afford 3 children in independent schools, boarding school is like something from a fairy tale, and their children will most likely go to a public university and have some debt. In order to do even this, many mothers will now also work. If they are able to have the kind of education they had, most likely it is being paid for by grandparents.
It's pretty discouraging to be well-educated, hard working and what most would consider "successful" in their career and not to be able to remotely have the standard of living with which they grew up. This is only possible if they chose finance or law as a career and live in a major city where salaries for these professions are extremely high.
The working middle class are pretty much where they've always been. Those above are not.
I look at my children's friends and the issues that they are struggling with in their families. Most went to independent schools, boarding schools and private colleges. Their mothers rarely worked outside the home. There was a 2nd home and money for vacations. Now, they frequently find that they cannot possibly afford 3 children in independent schools, boarding school is like something from a fairy tale, and their children will most likely go to a public university and have some debt. In order to do even this, many mothers will now also work. If they are able to have the kind of education they had, most likely it is being paid for by grandparents.
It's pretty discouraging to be well-educated, hard working and what most would consider "successful" in their career and not to be able to remotely have the standard of living with which they grew up. This is only possible if they chose finance or law as a career and live in a major city where salaries for these professions are extremely high.
The working middle class are pretty much where they've always been. Those above are not.
2
Typical. The first question Progressives tend to ask when confronting another election is how can we extract more money from the private economy and redistribute it to people who will vote for us? Free college? Free childcare? Why not? I even recall Al Gore embracing the idea of offering folks free air conditioners during a particularly brutal Texas heat wave, although I was never sure if he was going to offer to pay the electric bill.
Professor Krugman assures us that deficits don't matter -- at least in the short run. But when does the short run become the long run -- and when will we know?
Professor Krugman assures us that deficits don't matter -- at least in the short run. But when does the short run become the long run -- and when will we know?
15
Our economic system isn't capable of providing a decent standard of living or equal opportunities for our citizens. In that case, government has to make up the difference through taxes, i.e., redistribution.
5
I'm glad to see other commenters are already addressing the idiocy of either party pandering solely to parents.
An increasing percentage of the population - particularly women, working in a wide diversity of jobs -- are not parents, and are not going to be.
A decreasing percentage of the population are choosing -- yes, CHOOSING -- to be parents. Why are they special beneficiaries of special tax cuts and payments, for which the non-parents are forced to pay? Why are single people or non-childed couples being expected to keep paying, and paying, for the lifestyle choices of parents? I'm all for collectively providing good education, sound nutrition, stellar health care and other social goods for children. But it must also be provided to those who don't have children, not simply forced down their throats as the perpetual cash cow for others at the expense of their own needs.
Now, let's also talk about the poor. Oh wait -- they're not mentioned in this essay! That's right, since Bill Clinton's sell-out "welfare reform" act, which pandered to the right wing by essentially adopting right-wing ideology, the Democratic party has decided to abandon, to ignore, even to castigate the poor.
Is this the best the Dems can do, to counter GOP antipathy toward the victims of capitalism by adopting the GOP's own antipathies? BAH. Let's get a real Democratic party back into action! (Note to HC: so far, you're not it.)
An increasing percentage of the population - particularly women, working in a wide diversity of jobs -- are not parents, and are not going to be.
A decreasing percentage of the population are choosing -- yes, CHOOSING -- to be parents. Why are they special beneficiaries of special tax cuts and payments, for which the non-parents are forced to pay? Why are single people or non-childed couples being expected to keep paying, and paying, for the lifestyle choices of parents? I'm all for collectively providing good education, sound nutrition, stellar health care and other social goods for children. But it must also be provided to those who don't have children, not simply forced down their throats as the perpetual cash cow for others at the expense of their own needs.
Now, let's also talk about the poor. Oh wait -- they're not mentioned in this essay! That's right, since Bill Clinton's sell-out "welfare reform" act, which pandered to the right wing by essentially adopting right-wing ideology, the Democratic party has decided to abandon, to ignore, even to castigate the poor.
Is this the best the Dems can do, to counter GOP antipathy toward the victims of capitalism by adopting the GOP's own antipathies? BAH. Let's get a real Democratic party back into action! (Note to HC: so far, you're not it.)
46
Children are a social good for the country. The tax code is there to encourage child rearing because, you know, without any children we stop having a country in 75-80 years. Also, Social Security makes some assumptions about how many working age people there are to support retirees. My kids will be paying your Social Security, so be nice to them.
2
People don't have children because they feel obligated to provide a new generation of taxpayers. Such claims or insinuations are disingenuous at best. And if only there were billions of motivated people around the world who wanted to come to the US, work, and pay taxes! Since there aren't, though, we should subsidize those who bear children here, because otherwise we will "stop having a country." Right.
2
What a distorted view of the purpose of taxes? Do we really need a tax code to encourage child rearing? This is part of the problem: people who think that society needs to be engineered by the government though taxes or legislation. How did civilizations survive and grow throughout history without a tax code to encourage child rearing?
2
It's great to think of helping middle class families as a "theme," but the proposed solutions--free community college, day care support, and paid leave are beside the point if jobs are leaving the country and going elsewhere. It's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The sad thing is that Democrats are in general agreement with the Republicans when it comes to world trade agreements which are a sure ticket to disaster for the middle class. The only difference is that the Democrats still like to pretend they're all for the middle class because that's where the votes are.
27
Unfortunately people like Governor Scott Walker of WI, would say his plan to basically hand over taxpayer money to churches, in the name of vouchers for school kids, so parents can send their kids to private schools would be very helpful to parents.
Too bad all this church handed over money rips off the public school funding in Wisconsin. In addition, he has taken away 300 million dollars from the UW system - which has always up to now been one of the most respected in the country. He would say this is helping parents too, because while doing this, he has frozen school tuition.
I'm all for helping parents, having raised our kids and as grandparents. But taking money away from public schools and universities is not helping parents.
Yet Walker is coming across to many as smelling like a rose. He's ripping off parents, folks. Don't let him do it as president - because he will, he just never says it first.
Too bad all this church handed over money rips off the public school funding in Wisconsin. In addition, he has taken away 300 million dollars from the UW system - which has always up to now been one of the most respected in the country. He would say this is helping parents too, because while doing this, he has frozen school tuition.
I'm all for helping parents, having raised our kids and as grandparents. But taking money away from public schools and universities is not helping parents.
Yet Walker is coming across to many as smelling like a rose. He's ripping off parents, folks. Don't let him do it as president - because he will, he just never says it first.
15
How does this "rip off" public school funding, the money goes for education and there are less students in public schools. If anything, it "rips off" the teacher unions since there will be less jobs for them and more for private school teachers.
6
In reponse to Dawn Prevete, while it may be true that there are many in their 50s who no longer directly need these programs, many of them are the parents of young adults who do. I don't think that they will vote against the interests of their children.
8
And the number of grandparents who are raising their grandchildren has been increasing for years. Not everyone with young children is between the age of 20 and 45 (or so).
3
I just don't know how they will vote. It's a concern. I'm originally from New York City so have spoken with friends there who are very negative about these proposals as well as others from Georgia and different states. Many feel that young people - including their children - have or will find good jobs as the economy improves and are really concerned about their own constrained financial situations.
I was even told by one friend in New York, that Shaun Donovan proposed borrowing from Medicare and Medicaid because they were future needs and the money could be used to fund free community college, childcare tax credits and other current needs.
I've told her she misheard and I hope I'm right.
I was even told by one friend in New York, that Shaun Donovan proposed borrowing from Medicare and Medicaid because they were future needs and the money could be used to fund free community college, childcare tax credits and other current needs.
I've told her she misheard and I hope I'm right.
3
Nate:
You are totally misinformed about what you call "near universal healthcare". Have you not heard about King v. Burwell, which is on the SCOTUS docket and, if decided for the plaintiffs, will strip subsidies from the health plans set up by the federal government in states which refused to do so.
Even if the subsidies remain, I suggest you read your colleague Elizibeth Rosenthal and her extraordinary series, "Paying Till It Hurts".
Here's the most recent one, read it and understand that you need to educate yourself on our broken healthcare system, which is far, far far from universal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/insured-but-not-covered....
You are totally misinformed about what you call "near universal healthcare". Have you not heard about King v. Burwell, which is on the SCOTUS docket and, if decided for the plaintiffs, will strip subsidies from the health plans set up by the federal government in states which refused to do so.
Even if the subsidies remain, I suggest you read your colleague Elizibeth Rosenthal and her extraordinary series, "Paying Till It Hurts".
Here's the most recent one, read it and understand that you need to educate yourself on our broken healthcare system, which is far, far far from universal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/insured-but-not-covered....
23
In King v. Burwell, a right-wing "think tank" annex--an "interested" law firm, put the plaintiffs up to it. It's a mirror image of a Stalinist (or Nazi) show trial, and a total abuse of the legal system for partisan purposes.
Mitt Romney is actually to be thanked for giving the GOP game away--somehow get rid of 47% of Americans without cost to the top 1%, who stand to get the share of the missing. We have recently seen this sort of thing in the former U.S.S.R., where connected individuals purchased that nation's assets for a song when Communism fell, and now they are hiding their assets in overpriced American real estate.
Mitt Romney is actually to be thanked for giving the GOP game away--somehow get rid of 47% of Americans without cost to the top 1%, who stand to get the share of the missing. We have recently seen this sort of thing in the former U.S.S.R., where connected individuals purchased that nation's assets for a song when Communism fell, and now they are hiding their assets in overpriced American real estate.
2
I agree with the author that the Democratic candidate will pander to middle class parents. At the presidential stage, however, all finalists must raise vasts sums from powerful interests and no candidate is seriously interested in challenging the status quo. Hillary Clinton was recently taking photos with her supporter, Lloyd Blankfein. And even if a candidate truly wanted to serve the middle class, instead of his or her powerful backers, there are too many impediments to do so...
6
My daughter would like a pony.
Will Mr. Obama provide her a "free" pony or am I expected to actually provide for my family from my own income?
She also wants a "free" cellphone. Never mind. Obama came through with that already!
Will Mr. Obama provide her a "free" pony or am I expected to actually provide for my family from my own income?
She also wants a "free" cellphone. Never mind. Obama came through with that already!
27
I would like conservative voters to start basing their opinions on fact rather than hearsay: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
Can I actually expect that to happen or should I wait for my pony instead?
Can I actually expect that to happen or should I wait for my pony instead?
7
"According to the Universal Service Administrative Company, the organization responsible for administering Lifeline, there are approximately 13 million Lifeline beneficiaries. The program cost the Universal Service Fund $2.2 billion in 2012. "
"It is funded by contributions from telecommunications companies and FEES THEY APPLY to their customers’ monthly phone bills. "
"It is funded by contributions from telecommunications companies and FEES THEY APPLY to their customers’ monthly phone bills. "
2
Mr. Obama's disastrous 6 years in office should convince everyone once again that policies that simply transfer wealth from the working middle class to those choosing not to work and government employees only further weakens the middle class. The rich are smart and nimble enough to create more wealth by the taking advantage of the disruptions caused by Mr. Obama's evisceration of middle class wealth. Meanwhile, hard working class blacks and hispanics get pushed further down the economic rungs as their opportunities to get good jobs are diminished. Mr. Obama's solution is to raise the minimum wage for the limited jobs that exists. A country where the more and more workers are being pushed in to minimum wages jobs will not lead to economic progress for the country. Furthermore, Mr. Obama has put a stranglehold on future growth as he has burdened the country with a massive debt it will struggle to keep current on. I urge every person to look at the National Debt under Obama and the projected debt. He has broken this country and the backs of the hard working people who call then US their country.
10
good humor. thanks for the laugh.
8
Debt = Accumulated Deficits + Interest over the lifetime of the United States.
Deficit = Yearly shortcoming between government revenue and spending.
Deficits are down under Obama but the country isn't in a surplus so the Debt continues to rise. This is the normal order of things. The government can't really run a surplus because as soon as it does, the party with the elephant decides that taxes must be cut and the surplus returned to the people.
Deficit = Yearly shortcoming between government revenue and spending.
Deficits are down under Obama but the country isn't in a surplus so the Debt continues to rise. This is the normal order of things. The government can't really run a surplus because as soon as it does, the party with the elephant decides that taxes must be cut and the surplus returned to the people.
4
Not surprising considering the devastating erosion of support for the Democrat party among white middle class Americans.
10
It's "Democratic" not "Democrat" which is a slur used by the right wing.
16
To Lifelong New Yorker: I think RS knew that.
2
A strong economic case should be made for "investments" in the middle and lower classes. The financial burden of how we are spending monies on the back end rather than the early years should be chronicled. Our justice and prison systems should be a constant target, drilling the facts and alternatives into the public's conscience. Early education's financial payoff needs to be clear in the minds of the general public, not just a campaign theme. Democrats should study Republican tactics more as they've been outfoxed for decades now. Republicans have succeeded in convincing the public to vote against their personal interests despite the Democrats efforts in the past. Packages of legislation as a campaign of parts targeted at the voting demographic of the moment has no gravitas. The liberal view and solutions should be a constant educational effort. Then we can get rid of apologetic words like "progressives".
3
I would be happy if age discrimination in hiring would be quickly and rigorously prosecuted and tax incentives provided for businesses hiring those over 50 who have been unemployed for more than six months.
60
It does seem that all of the emphasis is on younger, unemployed workers. Janet Yellen alone continues to raise concerns about the number of older, educated workers still unemployed.
Proposals, such as increasing visas for "skilled" workers (for the big tech firms, for e.g., mostly lower paid workers) do little to help millions of unemployed older Americans. Today companies outsource technology, legal work, just about anything to cheap overseas outlets.
I've even seen PBS news stories about older college professors who insist on holding onto jobs rather than retiring and giving up their place to younger Americans.
As a nation we seem happy to forget the older unemployed and eager to just move on and write them off. Trim Medicare benefits, avoid paying back borrowed funds and interest from the Social Security Trust Fund. Darn those baby boomers trying to claim benefits.
Wouldn't it be great if we had implemented Al Gore's infamous "lockbox"?
Proposals, such as increasing visas for "skilled" workers (for the big tech firms, for e.g., mostly lower paid workers) do little to help millions of unemployed older Americans. Today companies outsource technology, legal work, just about anything to cheap overseas outlets.
I've even seen PBS news stories about older college professors who insist on holding onto jobs rather than retiring and giving up their place to younger Americans.
As a nation we seem happy to forget the older unemployed and eager to just move on and write them off. Trim Medicare benefits, avoid paying back borrowed funds and interest from the Social Security Trust Fund. Darn those baby boomers trying to claim benefits.
Wouldn't it be great if we had implemented Al Gore's infamous "lockbox"?
3
Left unsaid is how much in tax will be needed to pay for this, and who will be taxed.
People are always in favor of new benefits for themselves, to be paid for by 'someone else'. It is only after the programs are put in place that they learn that they themselves are the 'wealthy' who are going to be taxed to pay for this.
People are always in favor of new benefits for themselves, to be paid for by 'someone else'. It is only after the programs are put in place that they learn that they themselves are the 'wealthy' who are going to be taxed to pay for this.
30
It's about time to get rid once and for all that the tax cutting GOP have any idea how to run an economy for America. Not partisan talking points, black and white data. In our lifetimes the best economies were run by Democratic administrations, as a result of Democratic policies and governance. The worst economies were run by Republican administrations and were the result of Republican policies and governance.
The motivation for Republicans to believe in this "small government" mindset has nothing to do with efficiency and savings. Their motivation has everything to do to further bolster the fortunes and power of the wealthy minority while keeping at bay the working middle class.
Republican hypocrisy has reached new heights with their claim that under Obama, and because of his policies, that the middle class has stagnated. The GOP will not do a jobs bill, will do nothing about minimum wage and has done everything in their power to reduce the strength of labor unions, the real friend of the working man and woman. It is still the GOP that stands in the way of middle class progress.
The motivation for Republicans to believe in this "small government" mindset has nothing to do with efficiency and savings. Their motivation has everything to do to further bolster the fortunes and power of the wealthy minority while keeping at bay the working middle class.
Republican hypocrisy has reached new heights with their claim that under Obama, and because of his policies, that the middle class has stagnated. The GOP will not do a jobs bill, will do nothing about minimum wage and has done everything in their power to reduce the strength of labor unions, the real friend of the working man and woman. It is still the GOP that stands in the way of middle class progress.
52
It would be better to lower the tax rate for all working people under $200K per year, and let them choose to pay for daycare or community college or save in a 529 account. It is silly to tax one parent's 529 to pay for another's community college bill..especially when someone like Cuomo can redesign the CC's so that the tuition is 0 for state residents. No one is going to get free room and board for CC, and that is what makes 4 year colleges so expensive, you have to borrow to pay the living expenses if you don't have it. But really, students do need to pay their own fees, things that are consumable or more expensive materials and personal use items, that can't be totally free. You don't need any cash to make the tuition free, just end the Pell Grant program which has to be paid for tuition, and props up high prices.
3
Jack: Complaining about "partisan talking points"? Really? Do you not see how deeply, deeply partisan your collection of talking points is?
Physician, heal thyself
Physician, heal thyself
Democrats have everything they can to keep the poor voting for Democrats. It hasn't worked out well for the poor.
14
The question is whether reliable Democratic voters over 50 will see the new agenda, focused to a large extent on young families with children, as offering them any significant benefit. I've spoken with some lately who say, going forward, "I'm going to vote for candidates focused on my economic interests".
These are the Democratic voters who may have been most hurt by the recession - retirement savings hit and most likely to remain unemployed or underemployed. These people make up the legion of post-recession contract workers and self-employed, promised benefits from the ACA but often hit with higher costs and more limited healthcare options.
They may object to the Presidents' proposal to fund the new benefits for young parents and college age students with savings eked out of future Medicare beneficiaries' pockets.
These voters, together with the increasing number of over 65 baby boomers, also make up the most reliable group of voters in midterm and presidential elections.
These are the Democratic voters who may have been most hurt by the recession - retirement savings hit and most likely to remain unemployed or underemployed. These people make up the legion of post-recession contract workers and self-employed, promised benefits from the ACA but often hit with higher costs and more limited healthcare options.
They may object to the Presidents' proposal to fund the new benefits for young parents and college age students with savings eked out of future Medicare beneficiaries' pockets.
These voters, together with the increasing number of over 65 baby boomers, also make up the most reliable group of voters in midterm and presidential elections.
46
I'm 51, taxpayer since age 15 and as a single childfree citizen have been the cash cow of the tax code, paying a disproportionately higher share of my income compared to married, childed at the same income level -- to finance programs like SNAP, WIC, TANF, child tax credits and deductions, the Earned Income Tax Credit (welfare),early childhood education, the USDA school nutrition program, federal housing assistance, Medicaid and others that the childfree adult, no matter how desperate, is largely shut out of. (Yes they can get a teeny bit of SNAP and thanks to ACA, perhaps Medicaid, but that's only recently.)
Not to mention the discrimination against childfree and single in the Social Security and Medicare systems, which use the contributions of people like me to pay survivors benefits and disability benefits to minors -- yet give us short shrift on the retirement payouts compared to households with stay-home spouses.
Meanwhile my savings and retirement plans have been eroded by this never-ending zero interest rate policy which has since the recession cost my household many thousands of dollars a year and caused me to alter my plans.
Sorry but we already do enough for "parents" who, after all, enter into that lifestyle electively. I don't have a choice about aging and will vote for lawmakers who include my interests for a change. And the savvy politician might note demographics -- solo dwellers & childfree are a fast-growing and very large slice of the electorate.
Not to mention the discrimination against childfree and single in the Social Security and Medicare systems, which use the contributions of people like me to pay survivors benefits and disability benefits to minors -- yet give us short shrift on the retirement payouts compared to households with stay-home spouses.
Meanwhile my savings and retirement plans have been eroded by this never-ending zero interest rate policy which has since the recession cost my household many thousands of dollars a year and caused me to alter my plans.
Sorry but we already do enough for "parents" who, after all, enter into that lifestyle electively. I don't have a choice about aging and will vote for lawmakers who include my interests for a change. And the savvy politician might note demographics -- solo dwellers & childfree are a fast-growing and very large slice of the electorate.
73
Bohemienne, who is or will be paying for YOUR social security and Medicare? The children other people have sacrificed to raise and educate! You stand to collect many times more than your contributions so please stop complaining - there is nothing unfair in the social contract here. And, married couples where both work (a majority these days) are taxed MORE than singles, since the second income is taxed at the highest marginal rate. So again please stop complaining.
41
Yes. I am approaching 50, am childfree and am very concerned about Social Security. While I have saved well for my retirement through IRAs and 401ks and have been fortunate to have been able to keep my job through the Great Recession, others in my generation have been devastated. Many have had to drain their retirement savings to survive round after round of layoffs and face a great deal of uncertainty as they approach retirement. The Republicans are determined to vilify Social Security - calling it an "entitlement program," and demanding cuts in benefits. If the Democrats do not actively defend this program - the younger generation will not only be burdened with high child care costs - they will also face the prospect of having to share their homes and resources with their elderly parents.
27
What appeals to me about this 'parent agenda' is that ultimately it is about supporting our youngest citizens. Developmentalists have long understood that what benefits parents benefits children. We've allowed our most inclusive national policies (e.g., education), to isolate children from the enduring effects of the family environment and parents' well-being. If national policies can be better shaped to support parents and families, attaining other vitally important goals, such as healthy and educated children and youth, will likely follow.
10
It is not a failure to address the economic interest of voters in the south and Appalachian states (by which I believe the writer means West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee) that have hurt Democrats with voters there.
If their voters could look beyond the prejudiced that informs and motivates their politics they might understand that as as it has since 1932 it is the Democratic Party's policies and beliefs that support them economically and that Republican policies and beliefs are inimical to their economic interests and would keep them chattel to wealth and privilege.
No, sadly, as it is ever thus in the south and some of the border states, it is race and race alone that controls politics and how voters behave. The Republicrats have long since replaced the Dixiecrats and inherited their political power based on keeping white working class voters in their column by appealing to the worst instincts of prejudice, fear and loathing.
Any discussion of who can do what politically with what agenda in the south has to begin with that historically sad and sordid set of facts.
If their voters could look beyond the prejudiced that informs and motivates their politics they might understand that as as it has since 1932 it is the Democratic Party's policies and beliefs that support them economically and that Republican policies and beliefs are inimical to their economic interests and would keep them chattel to wealth and privilege.
No, sadly, as it is ever thus in the south and some of the border states, it is race and race alone that controls politics and how voters behave. The Republicrats have long since replaced the Dixiecrats and inherited their political power based on keeping white working class voters in their column by appealing to the worst instincts of prejudice, fear and loathing.
Any discussion of who can do what politically with what agenda in the south has to begin with that historically sad and sordid set of facts.
8
I like the label "parent agenda" and I do agree it might have some real salience in the next campaign cycle. Still, this begins and ends with paid family leave and paid sick leave. The next Democratic president, provided her party controls at least the upper chamber of Congress, will be judged in no small part on whether she signs those legislative acts into law. Expanding the social safety net wherever possible is essential for the Democratic Party because its raison d'être is the eradication if not elimination of poverty and hardship in this country. These policies would truly assist the vast majority of citizens, some of whom currently thumb their noses at the PPACA. Everyone deserves to avoid the choice between coming to work while sick and losing money and possibly a job because you choose to stay home and recuperate.
16
I'm a lifelong Democratic Party voter and fairly significant campaign $$ contributor but will never support publicly funded or employer-mandate leave policies that address only the childed.
I urge lawmakers to take note that the "family with young children" demographic only represents about one-quarter of households and to fashion public policy that provides safety nets and perks for all citizens, not just certain lifestyle choices. The backlash already has begun and it's a very tone-deaf politician who doesn't look at Census Bureau figures & trends and size up who the voters really are.
I urge lawmakers to take note that the "family with young children" demographic only represents about one-quarter of households and to fashion public policy that provides safety nets and perks for all citizens, not just certain lifestyle choices. The backlash already has begun and it's a very tone-deaf politician who doesn't look at Census Bureau figures & trends and size up who the voters really are.
82
Wow! You do realize that children are our future? yes?
Your post seems to sound like a Republican's stereotype of us liberals (or lib-ruls in their speak).
Just wow!
Your post seems to sound like a Republican's stereotype of us liberals (or lib-ruls in their speak).
Just wow!
5
"fashion public policy that provides safety nets and perks for all citizens, not just certain lifestyle choices"
Tax policy should not be fashioning "safety nets". We all must pay for government, and the way we pay for government should be equal for all citizens. The overly complex tax code should be thrown out and replaced by a flat tax that everyone pays at the same rate. Equality before the law is one of the fundamental values of the constitution and the tax code violates that value.
Tax policy should not be fashioning "safety nets". We all must pay for government, and the way we pay for government should be equal for all citizens. The overly complex tax code should be thrown out and replaced by a flat tax that everyone pays at the same rate. Equality before the law is one of the fundamental values of the constitution and the tax code violates that value.
2
With republican opposition to anything oriented to middle/working class families, passage of meaningful legislation seems more like pie in the sky. Worse yet is the propensity of the white working class, especially in the south and midwest, to vote republican, thus depriving themselves of potential economic benefits. Thus is human nature. But hope springs eternal.