A Middle Class American’s Dilemma About Helping the Poor

Since humans are so flawed, how do Marxists change/persuade such persons to accept and believe Marxist philosophy as truth? I ask honestly, because the tone of your rhetoric seems to be very non-persuasive in a philosophical way via insulting rhetoric. You are ‘preaching to the choir.’

Beyond ‘totalitarianism’ is there a more persuasive way to appeal to such persons who seem to be obviously less intelligent and in a way that they would understand?

From an economic standpoint, it seems to me the ‘first world’ is in economic trouble and are buying few of our treasuries. Other than printing dollars is there way for the government to increase the financial well-being of the poor?

I’m very middle class in regards to financial wealth and as inflation increases (?due to deflation in the value of the dollar) I could become lower middle class financially and quickly. And since the ‘middle class levels’ seem to be the majority, does that mean that for government income(taxes) that taxes need to be raised even for middle/lower class people?

The ‘elites’ are enormously more wealthy but they are also enormously more able to ‘protect’ their wealth. I would be laughed at if I tried to ‘off-shore’ or invest my meager savings to protect it. There certainly wouldn’t be a useful income
from the amount to make any meaningful benefit after investment expenses were paid.

I am at a loss to answer either question with any logical answer. Thanks for any philosophical/economic answer. I’m just flawed in thinking that I can maintain my own self-interested support in at least a lower class lifestyle without more financial support (social security) than I have now. That is my reality.

How do we (you) define real outcome from a Marxist/financial perspective that is even probable. Changing reality up or down in financial terms seems expensive either way.

A majority of ‘someones’ have to lose or gain and ‘who decides what is equitable’ and how does ‘equity’ become acceptable among all the classes? The answers seem unfathomable to me. Thanks. I hope my comments/questions are not unfathomable themselves.

There is no need to lower middle class incomes to lower class levels to support the poor. That is a fallacy, sorry. It doesn’t work that way in my book. Taxes to some extent do need to be raised on the middle classes. We need to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, and we need to put back in the Social Security portion that is taken out of the checks.

The SS holidays that Obama keeps pushing are jeopardizing the integrity of the SS system. We need to get rid of the Bush tax cuts in order to effect the solvency of the state itself.

There is no inflation problem, and there is no inflation risk.

Most things we would tax you on, you’re going to get a direct benefit from in services. That’s what it’s all about. For instance, national health care would raise your taxes, but in return you get free health care. Free free free free! Exactly how many middle class folks have been reduced to penury via taxation? Even in social democratic states with high taxation, most people live very well indeed. I’m not aware of any cases in social democratic societies of middle class folks being reduced to penury, eh?

P.S. I do not support Marxism or Communism for the United States.

8 Comments

Filed under Economics, Government, Left, Marxism, Socialism

8 responses to “A Middle Class American’s Dilemma About Helping the Poor

  1. dano bivins

    The majority of bankruptcies in the U.S. are the direct result of healthcare bills.
    Litigation accounts for about 3% of healthcare costs.
    Drug companies spend more on marketing than they do on R&D.
    Every country that has a form of universal coverage would revolt before they gave it up.
    We spend abouit 50% of our yearly budget on the military and internal security, either directly, thru black accounts, or in the form of interest on debt from past military ventures.

  2. Hwy 91

    I always wondered why the Social Security System and Medicare pay out to retirees who are wealthy and cover their medical needs. I don’t understand the reasoning behind this.
    I also don’t understand why we pay congressman and senators retirement benefits for life even if they only serve a short time.

  3. Pingback: Those who could really make a difference | RJBWEB

  4. Pingback: Those who could really make a difference « Transcendent Vestige

  5. Gay State Girl

    “For instance, national health care would raise your taxes, but in return you get free health care.”

    But that would create overall hostility and societal resentment for people who suffered from certain illnesses or those who saw doctors more frequently (for a valid reason or not.)

    • Harry S

      No it wouldn’t.

      Most countries in Europe have national health care to some extent, and this does not occur. I don’t think anyone would be resentful of cancer patients, that’s just bizarre.

      • Gay State Girl

        If the illness is preventable (example heart disease via obesity) it could cause discrimination towards fat people.

        Are you from Harry’s Place?

        • Harry S

          No, my name is actually Harry.

          In the UK, I haven’t ever heard of that happening. The most you ever get is bigots on message boards saying that drunk people/smokers/fat people should have to pay for their own treatment. Of course it ignores the fact that the government puts duty on alcohol and tobacco for exactly that reason. Unhealthy food is also taxed the same as other commodities.

          At the end of the day, it’s just a bunch of bigots who say stuff like this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s