Middle class feels squeeze
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 07-12-2004 - 4:31pm |
Cynthia Tucker - Universal Press Syndicate
07.12.04 - By now, Karl Rove and his minions had expected that improved jobs reports would have boosted the president's election prospects immeasurably. After all, the stock market is doing just fine and corporate profits are going gangbusters. How come so many workers are still worried?
Well, most workers don't get to share the bounty of those corporate profits. Even with the popularity of 401(k)s, which are replacing traditional pensions, only about half of all Americans own stock. The average American is still feeling what John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, call the "middle-class squeeze."
Already, jobs growth, which picked up in March, has begun to slow considerably. The report from the month of June showed a disappointing 112,000 new jobs, fewer than necessary to keep pace with population growth. Even more telling is this: When Bush came into office, 64.4 percent of all American adults were working. That figure has now dropped to 62.3.
For those who are working, hourly wages have declined slightly over the last year after adjusting for inflation. And many of the manufacturing jobs that boosted generations of Americans into the middle class are probably gone forever -- lost to computers and Chinese workers.
Add to that soaring health-care costs. Workers are having to pay more of their insurance costs, reducing their take-home pay. Or they are stuck with jobs that provide no health insurance.
As if that were not enough, Alan Greenspan recently raised interest rates and is expected to keep raising them for the next several months. As he does, many average Americans will find it harder to pay off their monthly credit cards bills or get a mortgage. During the recession, they had used those credit cards to keep up their standard of living (and buy the nation out of that recession). Many families now have substantial credit card debt.
Bush is not responsible for the global tidal wave that has swamped U.S. manufacturing or the credit card debt that threatens to bankrupt many families. The president didn't create an out-of-control health-care system or push down hourly wages. But his natural affinity for the wealthy and well-connected has produced policies that are much more in tune with their interests than with those of average working folk.
According to the U.S. Census, yearly median family income is $51,407. In terms of income distribution, the largest group of American families -- nearly 21 percent -- earn between $50,000 and $75,000 a year. Nearly 16 percent of American families live off incomes between $35,000 and $50,000 annually. That paints a picture of a substantial midsection -- nearly 37 percent of families -- with incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 a year.
Now take a look at the distribution of the Bush tax cuts. The American families earning between $43,000 and $76,000 have received only a 17 percent share of the tax cuts, according to an analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the top 1 percent of income-earners has received a 24.2 percent share.
I know, I know. Those wealthy Americans paid more of the taxes, so they deserve more of the tax cut, right? Actually, they got more than they deserved, even by that measure. And they haven't used their tax cuts to produce substantial numbers of good-paying jobs for Americans. Wealthy investors are concerned only about increasing their profits. If replacing factory workers with robotic arms does that, they gladly install the robotic arms.
Much of the economy is beyond the control of any president. But shoring up the general welfare is not. Bush had a responsibility to expand the social safety net -- extend unemployment benefits, create access to health care -- for those Americans who are falling further behind, despite their best efforts.
Instead, the president has coddled the wealthy.

Pages
So happy to have amused you.
Indeed. The problem is that most people don't understand the numbers. Corporate profits are up so the stock market is happy; that doesn't mean the employees of corporations are sharing in the boon. Think I have posted articles to this effect. There is also another problem that we are experiencing a new economic trend--globalization--and economic theory doesn't know how to deal with this. What we do know is whether we are financially better off now than 4 yrs ago.
Don't you see you contradict yourself in just one sentence? Wealthy are penalized for being wealthy. How insane. You are robbing the wealthy of the same oppurtunity to use their money that you grant to the less wealthy. You can't say that person A can use 90% of their money but person be can only use 70% of their money and say that is equal oppurtunity.
Want to fix your tax loopholes? Try this..
Create one tax (x%), everyone pays it on income, no tax returns, no writeoffs, no itemized tax deductions, no tax deductible interest.
Here is the tax code:
Income * % = Tax due.
I was agreeing with you until--
<>
Of course not, that may require that they take their head out of the sand and pay attention to what's going on. Your posts always seem to indicate an attitude of "I'm ok so who cares who's hurting, I don't know and I don't care." What happened to compassion?
And I think many feel that the answer is no!
Also I don't see why the rich have to complain, they still end up taking more money home inspite of being in higher tax bracket compared to the one in lower bracket. In the end they would still have more money. I know because as my pay check increased (before it dropped drastically:)) I still had more money to take home inspite of taxes. I guess when a person has too much money they become extra greedy.
<>
I predict that we will be see the flat tax implemented when civil partnerships are recognized.
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
"Of course not, that may require that they take their head out of the sand and pay attention to what's going on. Your posts always seem to indicate an attitude of "I'm ok so who cares who's hurting, I don't know and I don't care." What happened to compassion?"
People are concerned with themselves, their friends and family first. If George Bush came into office and your whole family was suddenly laid off but the % of unemployment nationwide was 1% you'd still likely vote against Bush. Yet 99% of the country is employed. It is human nature to vote for what benefits you the most.
Additionally, it isn't an issue that I don't care. It is the method that we choose to express that compassion.
You feel that government intervension and legislation is the best way to help people.
Fair enough.
I feel that the individual, local communities, churches, etc should be the primary support for people and the government should be a last resort.
Because I have this viewpoint you assume I don't care about people or accuse me of being incompasionate. That is far from the truth. Our methods are just different.
How do you figure?
"Wealthy are penalized for being wealthy. How insane. You are robbing the wealthy of the same oppurtunity to use their money that you grant to the less wealthy. You can't say that person A can use 90% of their money but person be can only use 70% of their money and say that is equal oppurtunity."
Spinning again? If only people considered "equal opportunity" as an opportunity to pay tax. Lets face it you don't agree with progressive taxation. Your brilliant income * % is also called a flat tax and I addressed that in a previous post.
So True!!!! This is a new turn in American thinking. America use to strive for the well-being of all citizens. There were always class distinctions, but almost everyone believed that this wealthy country should provide a living wage for workers so they could at least have the necessities of life. The record during the first 50 years of the 20th century indicate this effort. Sometime during the 70s certain wealthy Christian ministers told the people that wealth was a badge of honor, and it was theirs to enjoy. This stood the previous belief , that a camel had a better chance of getting through the eye of a needle than a rich man did of getting into heaven, on it's head. It became acceptable to focus on self, and if you cared about the other you were a "bleeding heart" liberal (said with distaste). Now we are reaping the rewards: a nation without compassion.
What does this mean?
Pages