"The simple fact is that back in the 1960s you could rent a small apartment, buy a used car, and put yourself through college on a minimum wage job. I know because I did it (pumping gas, washing dishes, working as a part-time DJ), as did millions of my generation. Just ask your grandparents. So, what happened?".

The government got involved. Federally secured loans mean that students and homeowners could borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, even when they might be able to pay those loans. The lenders don't care because they are protected. My daughter's school, University of Arizona, costs around $60k per year. It's probably a good investment if you're going into a field where you're going to make a lot of money. If not, it's a waste of money.

But yeah, that's what happened.

"WWII expansion did more than either the monetary standard change or the New Deal to make the economy great, er, good enough; to increase the size of the Middle Class."

That's true, although it was more the post-war years than anything else. After WWII, if you wanted a truck, or cargo ship, or airplane...it was going to be manufactured in the US. And that required lots of labor. Companies didn't care about the costs, as they would simply pass them on to consumers. There was no competition. That began to change as the Asian and European economies rebuilt. Up until the 1970s, have a college degree earned you around a 5% premium compared to someone without a degree.

Anyways, this whole "heist" argument is ridiculous. Median US household income in the US is $83,740 (2024). That's 4th highest in the world. And median household income is dead center of middle-class. And median household income has increased by almost $20k per year since 1990 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

If you want an education on economics, you'll need to look to someone other than Thom Hartmann.

"Big Beautiful Bill transfers a trillion dollars upwards to the wealthy."

How, by not transferring it downwards?

The top 1% of income earners paid 46% of the total federal income tax burden, with an average rate of 26%.

The bottom 50% covered 2.3 % of the total burden, with an average rate of 3.3%.

"THAT'S HOW wealth is being transferred upward."

How do you cut taxes for people who don't pay them to start with?

"They don't pay them to start with because they bought politicians to make money speech and to make their taxes negligible compared to their income."

If you want to keep believing that the wealthy don't pay their fare share of taxes, and that the poor pay too much, don't click the link below:

"They don't pay them to start with because they bought politicians to make money speech and to make their taxes negligible compared to their income."

If you want to keep believing this, don't click the link above.

"All of these were the reaction to a depression."

When Reagan passed the Tax Reform Act, it wasn't the low-income earners who were complaining. It was the wealthy. Prior to TRA, there was a cottage industry that thrived around tax dedications. You could deduct travel costs for your family. You could deduct the cost of your household staff. Maybe most importantly, you could take passive property dedications. So even if the marginal rates were high, you could trim out down so that the effective rates were far lower. TRA did away with those deductions.

"Besides, this doesn't solve home prices, university prices."

I would argue that government involvement is what caused prices to soar. I had a buddy who took a job in Colorado Springs for $90k per year and was approved for a $560k home loan. How could he possibly pay for that?

This is why I half-jokingly say that the US is the last Marxist country. To each according to need, to each according to ability. If you're not successful, you shouldn't have to pay for anything. If you are successful, you should pay for those who aren't.