Does a middle class still exist in the U.S.A.?

 After World War II the American middle class grew. The recession of 2008 struck America and the middle class started its decline. As the number of people in the middle class shrunk the number of people living in poverty grew. “Outsourcing” became the norm for corporate America.

I remember talking with a Southwestern Bell Telephone service man in my office one day. He was talking about the jobs that were being lost in the telephone company to outsourcing. He told me at one time there were information operators working in the Texas City area and now their jobs had been sent to India. I could not believe it. He picked up the phone and dial information and handed me the phone. He instructed me to ask for someone’s number and when they give it to you ask them where they are physically located.  At first the person did not want to tell me her location, but then she reluctantly said India. Out sourcing was a large factor that contributed to the decline of the middle class. Technology has made it cheaper and as fast to route a local call to India where labor is cheaper.

The nations economy grew, but the average Americans income shrank.  The rich stayed rich, the poor stayed poor and the middle class started to disappear. A man name Milton Friedman, an economist, was most responsible for this and he never held an elected office. Friedman believed corporations should have only one goal and that was make a profit for their shareholders. President Reagan bought in to his lower taxes and less regulation theory. Friedman was against the government controlling anything related to the economy.

Perhaps the problem originated by a man that had opposite views of Friedman and he was John Maynard Keynes. President Roosevelt bought into Keynes ideas and the “New Deal” was born. Keynes believed the government should borrow money and put people to work in public service building roads and bridges. His theory was put people to work earning money and they will be less cautious with their money and retail sales will increase and the economy as a whole will increase. Keynes supported the idea of lower interest rates so people who had money in savings accounts in banks would move them to more risky investment paying better dividends. Keynes ideas seem good following the depression, but the problem, which is common with government programs, the programs never end they just grow larger. Politicians seem to always take everything either not far enough or too far.

The “New Deal” in my opinion was a contributor to today's “Welfare State”.  Anytime a government program is not working politicians do not really seek solutions to the problems because it is easier for them to throw more tax payers money into the failed program. Other peoples money is always the politicians solution to problems.

I do not think their has ever been a government program where politicians looked at the long term effects before making it a policy or set dates to terminate programs once they no longer served a purpose. If they have it meant nothing because they will simply extent the program when it ends.  

I blame the government for the depression and the current recession.  Both involved the government limiting bank loans which reduced the supply of money, which reduced economic expansion. I have a problem with income inequality being what it is today, but the government made income inequality possible. Only the super rich had access to money.

I support government regulations to a point. But, as I said earlier politicians always carry everything too far or not far enough. They want to try and make everyone happy in order to win the next election. We need term limits.

Friedman opposed all government regulations when it came to the market place (I support some). He opposed the F.D.A. (their regulations have gone too far). He opposed farm subsidies (I do now). He opposed holding corporations responsible for any adverse effect they had on communities (they should be responsible for the damage they create). He opposed National Parks (I support National Parks, but concede the Federal Government owns too much land). He opposed the military draft (I support the draft). He opposed privatizing the postal service (I support privatizing the postal service). He opposed government monopoly on public education (I am not in favor of taxes paying for private education, but I do support parents choosing which public school to send their children to and I support the firing of unqualified teachers). He opposed Social Security and favored privatizing the retirement income system ( I am not in favor of that at this time). He opposed welfare (I oppose welfare which does not require people to do government work to earn it. I oppose free handouts, except for physical and mental problem which make working impossible). He opposed the ban on illegal recreation drugs (I support the ban). He opposed state-run companies (I agree with him). He opposed trade tariffs and quotas (I support trade tariffs and quotas).

I do not think the government is the solution to every problem. Unfortunately many Americans have come to believe the government is the solution to every problem. Unions and the government created inflation. What difference does it make how much your pay increases if the cost of living goes higher?  What have we gained? We have done nothing but price ourselves out of the International work force. Every time wages go up prices go up. Should the government fix prices on medicine and medial care – maybe! I do not really understand how I can buy the same medication in the Philippines for ½ or less of what it cost in America. I know inflation is why I pay $100 for a doctors visit in the U.S. and pay $6 in the Philippines. Do not tell me it has anything to do with the quality of care the doctor gives.  ALL my doctors got their degrees from the University of Texas Medical College or University of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. They all have licensed to practice medicine in Texas or Alabama and in Germany.

I am against corporation putting profit over everything else. If you investigate every corporate scandal it always leads back to executives putting profit above workers, communities or the country. Greed is celebrated in the corporate world today.

I am for limited government, but I am not for total unlimited government. Corporate greed comes when all restrictions are removed. Environmental destruction, income disparity all come when there are no restrictions. BALANCE is the key and politicians do not know when to stop or how far to go.

The National Review stands for outdated conservatism.

The National Review taking on Donald Trump should help Trump if you are tired of politics as usual. It is the men that wrote the article in National Review that has given us the Republican Party we have today. If you like the Repub/Demo Party presently in Washington you will like the article and listen to their advice. If you are tired of politics as usual and Republican politicians too weak to stand up to a Democrat President you will rebel against the article and support Trump.

The article in National Review is an attempt to end a Donald Trump run for the White House once and for all. The National Review has decided that Trump is not conservative enough and believes the Republican voters will once again fall in step with them as we have in the past.

Publications like National Review, run by elite "conservatives" have given us "No Child Left Behind," Medicare Part D, huge deficits to woo select voters, "Romneycare", John McCain, Barry Goldwater and the list goes on and on. This elite conservative group should take some credit for giving us Obama.

William F. Buckley, who founded National Review, used the magazine to publish a series of essays by conservative intellectuals who helped foster the Reagan Revolution and since Reagan it has been on the decline. Let us not forget it was the Tea Party that gave new life to the Republican Party not the elitist at National Review. What have the elitist at National Review done for the middle class?

If it was not for the elitist that wrote the article for National Review there would be no need for a Donald Trump in 2016. They created the need for Donald Trump. They contributed to the bad legislation that keeps Trump high in the polls. They created a need for change in the Republican Party. They are the reason Republican voters are mad as hell! These are the same people who thought Donald Trump’s campaign was a joke. They are so out of touch with Americans they did not even see his being in first or second place as possible. They aren't credible in their criticism of Trump because they never saw it coming and they still do not get it.

For too long the Republican Party has been run by the country club crowd and it is time we return the Republican Party to the Blue Collar middle class crowd. At least Donald Trump has relationships with his employees from the janitors to the Vice Presidents. The elitist that have taken over the Republican Party only come in contact with the middle class when they need their swimming pool repaired. Donald Trump has worked with iron workers, electricians, carpenters, service personnel, union workers on a regular basis. He understands the importance of the working class.

The elitist in the Republican Party have not fixed the border problems, the illegal immigration problem, the deficit problem, the education problem, the health care problem, the lack of jobs problem, the veteran’s problems, etc. Why would we listen to what they think or say now? They must think the people that really make up the Republican Party (the voters) are fools.

They have failed us, not Donald Trump! They are more concerned with their brand of conservatism which is good for the elite, but not good for the middle class. There is a reason that politicians in Mexico tried for generations to stop the growth of their middle class. The elitist in Mexico knew a strong middle class would take power and control away from them. The elitist in the Republican Party do not want to lose power.

It is time we had less thinkers and more doers at the head of the Republican Party. Donald Trump is a thinker and doer.

The National Review and other elitist Republicans have found themselves losing its hold on the Republican Party. They realize if Trump or a Trump like politicians take control of the Republican Party they will no longer hold its elitist seat at the Republican Party table and there certainly is no place for them in the Democrat Party.

Trump is not the first person National Review has tried to destroy. They presently have several lawsuits filed against them and if they should lose those cases it would probably be the end of National Review. Should we take the advice of elitist journalist that have run a company for over 50 years and made no profit? They have lost over 50 million dollars.

I am glad the Republican Party “disinvited" National Review from participating in an upcoming debate. It is a first. During the past 50 years the elitist at National Review have had too much power over the Republican Party and we got what we have today.

During the dark period in American history when segregation and integration was a political issue it was National Review and William F. Buckley that supported segregation and said white men were superior to blacks. He even stated if blacks were the majority then the white minority white should still rule. He suggested maybe blacks should not be allowed to vote.  He claimed the white race was the advanced race. Is that the type of conservatism we want in 2016? They were definitely wrong then and they are wrong now.

If what you have been doing hasn’t worked only a fool continues to do it the same way. Obama’s promise for change was campaign trash, but America needs change and without it we are going to be another Greece.

I cannot honestly say that I will vote for Trump at this time, but every day it seems to me it is better to gamble on Donald Trump than what we’ve got! When the extreme left and the extreme right come out against Trump he only looks better to me.