Trouble ahead for the American middle class

Yeah, but I refuse to use it. Hand washing is the way to go.

No, what you wrote was hardly "American policy", nor was it engaged in for "for over 200 years".

As to "revisionist history", that's what you are engaged in; not I. You appear to be channeling Eugene V. Debbs, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman; not people known for their Conservative leanings. :-)

I happen to be a MASTER of factual history...something you are not in the least acquainted with. And trying to smear me, wont help your case on iota.

Thus far, I have actually posted accurate historical facts to this thread. Either refute them them with facts ( which I know that you are unable to do ), or go educate yourself, prior to posting drivel again!

BTW...there is nothing whatsoever unconstitutional about having factories overseas nor making a lot of money.

Words have meaning and like facts, they are writ on stone. Throwing out words such as "fascist" and using "globalist" as a pejorative, most assuredly does not strengthen your Socialist positions in the least.

I have..now go get someone to explain, in words of one syllable, what I have already posted.

Hand washing dishes is better than using a dishwasher? No, it isn't! But, one has to hand wash, IF one is using antique Limoges or Herrand, or Wedgwood; none of which I bet you are eating off of.

You have posted nothing but insults. Protectionist tariffs were very much American policy for over 200 years. Anti-trust laws and labor laws were also American policy since the civil war. Re factory overseas, fine, but American policy for over two hundres years was to protect American factories and American jobs. Have fun refuting that.

Oh really?

So, besides not being capable of spelling correcting, ignoring FR's spell check feature, not being able to write grammatically correct English, not being knowledgeable of any American history, ill educated in financial matters, you also are incapable of actually reading and comprehending others' replies. I see...it's all clear now.

I guessed my post about how Marshall Field made $600.00 per hour whilst his shop girls made $3.00 to $5.00 per WEEK is a figment of my imagination. And that the many FACTUAL posts, refuting you completely, on this thread, are also nonexistent. Well, bless my soul, perhaps you can only see what you want to see; is that it?

It was NEVER governmental policy, in this nation, to protect anyone's job, nor to "protect American factories"! That would be fascist...a word you love to throw around.

The last time protectionist tariffs ( you HAVE possibly heard of Smoot-Hawley, but if not, go look it up ), Americans were delved deeper into a full depression, which never should have lasted as long as it did. And FYI...there were more PANICS and CRASHES and DEPRESSIONS in this country's history, when protectionist tariffs were in place, then when there weren't. As a matter of historical fact, there have been NO PANICS, nor DEPRESSION, or even a major CRASH, since we got off the tariff route.

LOL

Today's middle class includes multimillionaires. Most people, in the Middle class, own stock; even if its just in their pension portfolios, managed by their unions. And, they, just as the billionaires do, also donate to political parties and to their favorite candidates.

The middle class in America have it made, and yet protectionists whine at the lack of "good manufacturing jobs", as if manufacturing does not need to increase per worker efficiency (i.e. make more with less). Look around, anyone with the drive to succeed, barring geographically work shortages, can become middle class in today's America.

Of course, middle class is not a defined term and the demagogues will just redefine middle class to suit their own agendas, instead of predefining the middle class and playing fair.

You have posted nothing but insults. Protectionist tariffs were very much American policy for over 200 years. Anti-trust laws and labor laws were also American policy since the civil war. Re factory overseas, fine, but American policy for over two hundres years was to protect American factories and American jobs. Have fun refuting that.

Your argument is based on this false premise: Because tariffs, anti-trust laws, and labor laws were used in American policy, they were American policy. This ignores the complexity of American policies.

One could just as easily assert that since America was not totally protectionist as a matter of US policy, then free trade was US policy.

The argument should be about which policy is best. Care to refute the principle that a larger market is more efficient in its allocation of resources, and is not therefore, a zero-sum game?

Well, I do know to avoid estate taxes some wealthy folks in America go off to places like Australia with their wealth so 400 million can pass for almost nothing.

As far as taking all these businesses out of the country, the downside is they give other Americans a market to fill and eventually laws would probably put large import charges on items to make being out of the country unthinkable.

One of the main unspoken purposes of the tax code for the government is to dictate businesses behavior by making companies have to operate around the written code.

Exactly so, on all accounts.

And a BIG yes, to your last statements about not defining what constitutes the middle class. The middle class is now and always has been comprised of three parts; the lower, middle and upper strata of what is generally called the MIDDLE CLASS. The latter group is comprised of quite wealthy people; however, they are still middle class!

Horsefeathers...to all of that gibberish!

I read with great skepticism posts that have class warfare at its core. The middle class has more serious things threatening to undermine its condition. I think that the increase in the practice of cohabitation and its effects on the family has more serious consequences.

Well, I do know to avoid estate taxes some wealthy folks in America go off to places like Australia with their wealth so 400 million can pass for almost nothing.

I have a problem with taxing death. I would encourage wealthy folks to do so if this is possible.

As far as taking all these businesses out of the country, the downside is they give other Americans a market to fill and eventually laws would probably put large import charges on items to make being out of the country unthinkable.

I have no idea what thought you are trying to convey. If you are saying large import charges would be placed on imports because American production would have fallen by such an amount, that argument ignores that taking manufacturing out of the US may not be profitable in all instances.

One of the main unspoken purposes of the tax code for the government is to dictate businesses behavior by making companies have to operate around the written code.

Punative taxation can have a deterrent effect, however, the main purpose of the tax code is to create revenue. Regulation can be accomplished through other avenues, such as the EPA, OSHA, etc.

Divorce poses a far greater threat to the American middle class than manufacturing job losses. Ghetto culture is a bigger problem than loss of manufacturing jobs.

When the arrangement does not even require a divorce, you have a disasterous situation for children. The children, learning from their adults, will repeat the process. The cancer will spread.

One of the bonuses of producing goods over seas is the wealthy become more wealthy ,but the claim that everything evens out with the creation of new service jobs does not hold water. Many service jobs go to illegal immigrants who send the most of their money home to Mexico. Most of this money is not pumped back into our economy.
If this continues the middle class will become poor ,and many wealthy people will also end up poor.

"It was NEVER governmental policy"

Oh really?

In his Report on Manufactures Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton proposed a far-reaching scheme to use protective tariffs as a lever for rapid industrialization. Some of Hamilton's recommendations resulted in upward tariff revisions in 1790 and 1792

After the War of 1812, tariffs were raised sharply. Hatred of England was one reason; the primary goal was protection for the manufacturing industries that now were growing rapidly in the Northeast

Senator Daniel Webster, formerly a spokesperson for Boston's merchants who imported goods (and wanted low tariffs), switched dramatically to represent the manufacturing interests in the Tariff of 1824. Rates were especially high for bolts of cloth and for bar iron, of which Britain was a low-cost producer

Henry Clay and his Whig Party, envisioning a rapid modernization based on highly productive factories, sought a high tariff. Their key argument was that startup factories, or "infant industries," would at first be less efficient than European (British) producers. Furthermore, American factory workers would be paid higher wages than their European competitors. The arguments proved highly persuasive in industrial districts. Clay's position was adopted in the 1828 and 1832 Tariff Acts.

Legislators such as Justin Morrill and economist Henry Carey began to push for a restoration of the Whig American System program of protective tariffs. The first of these was passed in early 1861 and bears the name of the Morrill Tariff.

And the result of these protectionist tariffs was

American industry and agriculture—and industrial workers—had become the most efficient in the world by the 1880s. They were not at risk from cheap imports. No other country had the industrial capacity, the high efficiency and low costs, or the complex distribution system needed to compete in the vast American market. Indeed, it was the British who watched in stunned horror as cheaper American products flooded their home islands. Wailed the London Daily Mail in 1900.

The election of 1888 was fought primarily over the tariff issue, and Cleveland lost. Republican Congressman William McKinley argued, "Free foreign trade gives our money, our manufactures, and our markets to other nations to the injury of our labor, our tradespeople, and our farmers. Protection keeps money, markets, and manufactures at home for the benefit of our own people."

McKinley campaigned heavily in 1896 on the tariff as a positive solution to depression. Promising protection and prosperity to every economic sector, he won a smashing victory. The Republicans rushed through the Dingley tariff in 1897

Woodrow Wilson made a drastic lowering of tariff rates a major priority for his presidency. The 1913 Underwood Tariff cut rates, but the coming of world war in 1914 radically revised trade patterns. Reduced trade and, especially, the new reveues generated by the federal income tax made tariffs much less important. When the Republicans regained power after the war they restored the usual high rates.

The GOP under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush abandoned the protectionist ideology, and came out against quotas and in favor of the GATT/WTO policy of minimal economic barriers to global trade.

Free trade with Canada came about as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1987, which led in 1994 to the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. It was based on George H. W. Bush's plan to enlarge the scope of the market for American firms to include Canada and Mexico. US President Bill Clinton, with strong Republican support, pushed NAFTA through Congress over the vehement objection of labor unions. Likewise in 2000 he worked with Republicans to give China entry into WTO and "most favored nation" trading status (i.e., low tariffs). NAFTA and WTO advocates promoted an optimistic vision of the future, with prosperity to be based on intellectuals skills and managerial know-how more than on routine hand labor.

As I have clearly documented protectionism is CONSERVATIVE. Protectionism was GOP policy, and American policy thru out most of or history.

Have fun refuting that!

"One could just as easily assert that since America was not totally protectionist as a matter of US policy, then free trade was US policy."

Good point, but see my 138, while the nation did experiment with lowering protectionist tariffs from time to time (under democrats) the experiment was always abandoned until quite recently.

Hand washing dishes is better than using a dishwasher? No, it isn't!

It is the way I hand wash them; perfectly spotless.

But, one has to hand wash, IF one is using antique Limoges or Herrand, or Wedgwood; none of which I bet you are eating off of.

You're right. What can I do, I'm not a Bush.