strengthening the middle class

[hfojvt]

It seems to me that working class issues were pretty much absent from last night's debate. The first 45 minutes or so were given to Iraq/Iran. Important issues to be sure, but I think if those are the key issues for this campaign then we are playing on the Republicans home turf.

My support for Edwards is not based on his position on Iraq or Iran. I do support ending the war in Iraq and not starting one in Iran, but Bush's other war is not getting near enough press - the Republican war on the working class and the poor.

Hillary did mention "strengthening the middle class" as one of her goals, and Obama mentioned tax breaks for people making less than $50,000 (but <big sigh> solving problems with tax cuts is the Republican way and also seems like reverse help. Eliminating taxes for people making less that $50,000 is a bigger gain for people making $49,000 a year than it is for people making $19,000 a year.)

However, the discussion of Social Security sheds some light on the definition of the phrase "middle class". Richardson started this in the Iowa debate I saw on PBS when he objected to removing the cap on FICA taxes. He called it a big tax increase on "small businesses" and the "middle class". Even Edwards chimed in right away saying that we should exempt incomes between $95,000 and $200,000 and then charge FICA taxes on incomes over $200,000. Last night Obama echoed that saying there should be exemptions for middle class families if the cap is raised and Hillary said removing the cap would be a trillion dollar tax increase on the MIDDLE CLASS.

A little newsflash for the big three. People making over $95,000 a year are NOT middle class. According to the census, 82.63% of all US households make less than $95,000 a year, and only 2.67% of households make more than $200,000 a year. That's HOUSEHOLDS too, quite often with two or more incomes.

Again, it seems to me that what Hillary promises, are policies that benefit households making $40,000 - $150,000 a year and doing very little for the almost 50% of households which make less than $40,000 a year. Are these benefits for the upper middle class supposed to trickle down to the poor?

Do we even have a Democratic party that will ask about the poor? Or talk about the poor? Or think about the poor? Even two weeks after a failure to over-ride the SCHIP veto, it is not part of our Presidential campaign at least not brought to us by the M$M.

[sandnsea]

1. That is the traditional definition of middle class

The professionals between working class and rich, the middle class and in this country they now make over $100,000 a year. That's how those of us making median wages get screwed over and over again. It's also why you shouldn't sneer at a candidate who is talking about those making less than $50,000 because that's someone talking to the majority of Americans who don't have any help at all.

[hfojvt]

4. I do not believe that is traditional

Traditionally, most of the working class was supposed to be middle class. The majority of America was supposed to be middle class. If you are in the 80th and 90th percentile of income it is simply ridiculous to call that "middle" especially for personal income as opposed to household income. Personal income of $110,000 and a spouse making $50,000 puts you in the top 5% of household income. If our candidates cannot tell the middle class from the top 5% then they have abandoned the working class.

As for the $50,000. If he is talking about tax credits, then he is not talking about helping the poor or lower working class, because they typically already do not pay taxes. A family of 4 making $40,000 already only pays about $50 in Federal Income taxes. So eliminating taxes for those making less than $50,000 does almost nothing for them, but it does provide a nice $1200 check for those making $10,000 more.

[zalinda]

2. Edwards specifically said between

$95,000 and $200.00 because that is where are policemen, firemen, teachers and such come in, with both partners in a marriage working. Right now, those above $187,000 pay the same as those making $187,000, so Donald Trump pays the same as the policeman, teacher couple. With Edwards plan those that make more than the $187,000 would start paying their fair share. He has developed ideas to help the working poor, as things shake out, I'm sure more of them will come to the forefront, like his college for all.

And to be fair, Al Franken was (I think) the first to come up with the doughnut hole theory on FICA.

zalinda

[hfojvt]

3. not in this town

In this town fireman are making less than $30,000 a year and teachers less than $50,000. That was my point too, though. Even if you have two teachers in a household, each making $60,000 a year they are still below the cap. Their household income is $120,000, which makes them richer than about 90% of the population, but the cap on FICA taxes only applies to INDIVIDUAL income, NOT household income.

As for Donald Trump, he's probably not paying FICA on any of his income. His income is not mostly salary or wages (except maybe for his dumb TV show) It is rental income. It is capital gains. It is interest income and dividends. None of those sources of income are charged FICA taxes, even if you make $1 million a year like George W. Bush.

[hfojvt]

5. Kucinich said at the debate that we need to talk about practical issues

Should he have been prepared for the UFO question?

Answer: Tim why are you even asking me this? We have 30 million Americans living in poverty, we have gas prices that have tripled in the last three years, we are spending ten million a week in Iraq, we have 45 million with no health insurance, a President who has vetoed health care for children, and so on and so on, and you want to ask me about UFOs? What about the ILOs we have in the White House? I cannot believe this question. Do you think the Presidential election is a joke?