Assuming that starting and owning small businesses are the backbone for a strong middle class, then yes the gov't doesn't "help" enough. But instead of actively helping, maybe it would be better phrased as not passively hurting. The left rallies around regulation and benefits that frequently require or assume big business, and right's "pro-business" stance is also focused on big corporations, free trade, etc.
Have some family members running "Mom and Pop" sized businesses and it's very tough for them to make a living.
In my experience (have some family members running small businesses as well, including my father) the crunch seems to be coming from the fact that the middle class has just enough money to make mortgage / car payments - which keep them in the middle class - but not enough left over to spend at small businesses. If compensation was rising in accordance, there wouldn't be a problem. However large corporations are hoarding cash like crazy and leaving employees out in the cold which in turn harms small businesses.
This is why campaign finance is the #1 problem facing American democracy today. It's not about the election, it's the re-election. It's about the sausage-making. Even if you come to Washington without the support of wealthy donors, you will have to work with people who do. Representatives in the pockets of special interests will favor them because those are the groups that truly hold politicians accountable, because losing re-election is akin to flushing a political career down the toilet. So policy tends to favor the special interests, even when the popular majority opposes it.
I do not believe it is possible for a powerful state like America to avoid corruption, because high concentrations of power insulate themselves from accountability (which is a threat to power like any other), and it takes immense power to reap immense benefits (whether those benefits reach the general population or are at the expense of others is a different story, like the CIA-backed coup in 1950s Guatemala which broke the back of local communists/socialists and ensured greater profits for United Fruit Company and lower costs to American consumers).
Therefore, I advocate a citizen's veto amendment, allowing the public to reject laws passed by representatives who only give a damn about the constituents during election season. If corporations and wealthy individuals are going to control Congress and the Executive, the people ought to retain the right to say no.
Like I said, re-election is what matters. It's not about money winning elections, it's about politicians spending their terms serving their donors once they're in office so they can stay in office.
"Therefore, I advocate a citizen's veto amendment, allowing the public to reject laws passed by representatives who only give a damn about the constituents during election season."
What happens when corporations give goodies to the citizens and shape the message in the social media in such a way that it makes feigned outrage seem organic that the common person votes their way? Don't think you can change reform the system which the powers that be created. It's their game where you just happen to be one of the tiny pieces in it. The real problem is that no one dares to think that maybe it's time to stop playing their game once and for all. That thought is too scary for most.
And how would you stop playing their game? Industrial scale propaganda has been as much a part of our environment since the early 20th century as atmospheric lead pollution. We have to work with it because we can't ignore it.
Also, I believe that private corporations should pay for public goods (free to the public) as a means to attract talented employees who can increase profits, so I am not convinced by your argument or solution, if there is one at all.
There's far too many assumptions laid in your arguments thus far to unpack them without writing volumes on this problem. But I'll sum it up this way with a question: do you think you should work to justify your existence? If you say yes to this question then you're in their trap, thus any solution you propose on the predicate of everyone has to work is flawed from the get go. If you say no, then you got a starting point to build out from the old social/economic order, so branch out and explore that thought some more.
If I say yes (that my life requires work to be fully justified) you will disregard my agency as being a part of a "trap."
If I say no then I suspect you will again fail to provide concrete examples to match your rhetoric, because frankly I haven't a clue what point you are trying to make.
Everyone should have a function, at least. House-spouses who run errands and raise children are just as much a worker as the breadwinner, for example. But some people will fall through the cracks and we shouldn't worry about managing everybody unless they place an undue burden on society.
If you have anything specific to say, say it. Otherwise, we should probably get back to work.
"If I say yes (that my life requires work to be fully justified) you will disregard my agency as being a part of a "trap.""
Because it is a trap. No one demands our grandparents to work all that much if at all. Watching the kids maybe, but not much else. And I'd hardly call that work considering it's a social relation beyond mere monetization.
"If I say yes (that my life requires work to be fully justified) you will disregard my agency as being a part of a "trap."
If I say no then I suspect you will again fail to provide concrete examples to match your rhetoric, because frankly I haven't a clue what point you are trying to make."
I did, see above.
"Everyone should have a function, at least. House-spouses who run errands and raise children are just as much a worker as the breadwinner, for example."
What if I told you caring for kids isn't a job? And what if I told you doing errands for friends isn't a job either? Those aren't jobs, those are normal tasks of a household (of social relations that we enjoy) that should never been measured in dollars/pesos/yuan/etc.
"But some people will fall through the cracks and we shouldn't worry about managing everybody unless they place an undue burden on society."
Who decides the quadriplegic is an undue burden? You? Or their friends and family?
"If you have anything specific to say, say it. Otherwise, we should probably get back to work."
I multi-task. If you can't keep up it's not my problem. /s
Beyond my snark, the point is that work as you and I see is has to be done, but what IS work? Mises wouldn't have called household chores work as they're part of living. Work for him and me are things we do for an exchange of wages. Those wages are beneficial since they allow us to specialize in a singular task which in turn everyone benefits. But most importantly a wage is meant to free us from drudgery of doing other things by purchasing goods or services that save our labor in other instances. This is all assume that we live in a properly balanced free market (one which has never existed at least in the last two or three centuries). But the reality is that we're burdened by work when we require less labor hours to produce the same goods and/or services. Even taking out robots from modern industrial processes doesn't yield the amount of labor that our parents or their parents endured. Technology just gotten that good as to liberate labor to do what is assumed more valuable work. The reality is that if we don't need to labor for the same basic goods/services then maybe we ought not work. Or at least we ought not work as much as we do now. Yet here we are debating this point as if it's inherent to society and the economy that we ought to work. All I'm trying to point out here is that there's something wrong with the economy that demands us to work to excess of market demand for goods/services in question. It's just busy work. Dig a ditch then fill it back in. Pick up those rocks and move them to just repeat the process again tomorrow. See the issue now? If not, then we're likely on ideologically opposite ends of this discussion.
"Overall, 62% say the government doesn’t do enough to help the middle class, while 29% say it does about the right amount and 6% say it does too much. Roughly the same share (59%) says the government does not do enough for poor people or for children (59% each), and 66% say the government doesn’t do enough to help older people."
Basically, people think the government doesn't do enough.
I would like to see views on taxes included in the same survey.
Have some family members running "Mom and Pop" sized businesses and it's very tough for them to make a living.