I don't agree on some points here. I don't think anyone reasonable is claiming that the 1% is bankrupting the middle class. The observation is that middle class earnings have been stagnant and even deteriorating over the last decades. That's just an observation.
You claim that the middle class hasn't produced. What exactly do you mean by that? If you mean that workers for large (and small) corporations haven't produced as well as they have historically, then why are corporations making record profits? Certainly a small number of executives can't be making the difference.
How have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan destroyed wealth? On the contrary, U.S. defense contractors (some very large employers) have made quite a bit of money as the defense budget has swelled. Hence the outcry over sequestration.
I will address the last paragraph first, because it is such a common and extreemly dangerous misunderstanding.
Every tank made represent a cost, indeed quite a high cost, as does every other piece of military technology. The money that has been spent on a tank cannot be spent e.g bridge repair in Minesota or even a nice vecation for you.
Yes the defence contractors have been hansomely paid for their services, and yes they have properly hired somebody who would not have had such a good job.
But have they made wealth? No. On the contrary. An engineer who works for a defence contractor cannot at the some time make a more fuel efficent car engine or a cheaper high speed train/monorail. The cost of the wars is not just the money and lives that goes in to it, but also what is not created. What could have been.
As for haven't produced I should perhaps be clearer -- if you expect that your standard of living should increase then what you can buy with your income needs to increase too (either things have to become cheaper or you have to make more money). That has not happened, and while I am not an economist it would appear likely that it is because most of the jobs the middle class have today is make work jobs (too many manager jobs, too many useless compliant jobs, too many lawyers, etc) jobs that, like our defences contractors above don't actually produce value.
Add to that the housing bubble and the higher cost of colleges (both fueled by the idea that no price is too dear for either and cheap credit) and a lot of people can appear to be productive for a long time before the mirage is revealed.
As for the record profits, that I suspect are mostly lagging indicators (e.g. RND being brought to the market, with nothing new in the pipeline) and a lot cheaper tech.
I am not advocating for defense contractors making swaths of money. But you stated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have destroyed wealth. That's not really true. The housing bubble busting, for example, destroyed wealth, as many families' wealth was tied into the value of their home. No one actively lost money because of the wars. Yes, the money added greatly to the deficit and could have been used for infrastructure here. But you can't assume that that money would have simply been spent on items like efficient engine R&D.
As for productivity, let me be more clear, too. Productivity per worker (i.e., widgets made) are also at historical highs. Corporations are very lean.
Where do you think the majority of scientific and engineering progress has been derived from? I don't like war but this explanation is far from comprehensive in regards to the economics of war.
You claim that the middle class hasn't produced. What exactly do you mean by that? If you mean that workers for large (and small) corporations haven't produced as well as they have historically, then why are corporations making record profits? Certainly a small number of executives can't be making the difference.
How have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan destroyed wealth? On the contrary, U.S. defense contractors (some very large employers) have made quite a bit of money as the defense budget has swelled. Hence the outcry over sequestration.