Middle Class?Follow

I'm still waiting for someone to detail one policy the Dems acted on in the last 4 years which helped the middle class.

Healthcare.
Payroll Tax Cut
Repealing DADT
Ending the war in Iraq
Killing Bin Laden
Pushing for Quantitative Easing
Rescuing GM
Unemployment benefits extensions.
Foreclosure avoidance policies through HUD.
FHA streamline refinancing.
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Lilly Ledbetter Act

Wait, one? Really? You can't find one? You really are rock fucking stupid, aren't you?

At the risk of stating the obvious you did not say anything about the last few years. You asked what have the democrats done for the middle class, I cited the works of Bill Clinton a democrat who arguably did more then any other president for the middle class in America. JFK may have started the American dream but Clinton was the one who insured it for at least a generation of Americans.

He recovered the middle class from destruction of the Reagan era, and Bush term, and Bush Jr. finally killed them off in his tenure.

What has Obama and the Democrats done in general. Well specifically he stopped job loss, and led to its current growth. Be it through private or public investment his policies have allowed the middle class to stabilize. What policies affected this.

Tax Relief.
Health Care Reform.
Economic Stimulus.

Those three specific policies have allowed the middle class to stabilize, and this is being reflected in the turn around of American economic health. The country is not booming yet, but it is now outpacing Canada as the #1 growing economy in the industrial world, a title Canada held since collapse began in 2007 as it was largely unaffected by the recession.

To say that the Democrats have not fought for the Middle class is absurd, they have done nothing but change policy to support the middle class. From spending to saving. Of course you would need to acknowledge factual math and I know you hate truth.

Clinton revived the middle class that was lost under consecutive terms of Republican trickle down economics. You say that it was the time frame that was the thing. Oddly enough it was the Clinton White House that promoted that time frame. The invested billions of dollars into new technology and expanding and improving old technology. The Clinton White House created Silicon Valley, arguably the greatest hotbed of innovation since The Manhattan Project. On top of that his state produced 12 consecutive years of balanced and surplus budgets, which he later accomplished as president with the nation economy of the most powerful economic nation in the world.

How did he do it? He invested in the middle class through:

Tax Relief.
Health Care Reform.
Economic Stimulus.

The middle class is the representative body of the economy, it was almost killed off in the 80's and was destroyed in the 00's. Clinton delayed its destruction in the 90's and the very economic advisers Clinton had, are the guiding hand in Obama Economic policy. Pretty good company I would think.

Fact is the Republicans don't give a care for American prosperity, you may be patriotic, but you are not for American prosperity, Prosperity is not a thing that happens over night, prosperity is a thing that take time to grow an nurture. Clinton began growing it, and then it went ignored for 8 years, and needed to be started again. The same thing happened in my country do you remember when your dollar was worth 1.50 CDN? I do. I also remember how after half a decade of financial sacrifice (following your countries savings and loan crisis) my nation grew to having a higher valued dollar than yours in the early 00's long before the recession.

That is because in my nation we had a growing middle class, and in your nation your president Bush was killing the middle class.

But I know you don't like factual conversations so I will just TLDR with this.

Obama said that likes the middle class, I do too, so I can relate.

Edited, Sep 6th 2012 11:59pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Sep 7th 2012 12:00am by rdmcandie

But I know you don't like factual conversations

Possible. Difficult to tell in this instance as you haven't provided any fucking facts that relate to the conversation. Am I supposed to hand-waive away obvious ******** like "Clinton created Silicon Valley" and respond to....what again? I understand that you have no fucking clue what you're posting about and that usually bluffing your way through indignantly is enough to save face, but not this time. I'm extremely familiar with the Clinton administration. I worked in it. I'm also familiar with the "economic team" you refer to. Larry Summers is borderline retarded. Those guys could fuck up the organization of a one car parade. They are the reason the stimulus was ludicrously undersized. The policies they enacted under Clinton, primarily deregulation paved the way for the very crisis they had to deal with.

So. please, spare me your douchebag attempts at taking the moral high ground and go back to betting on which lake is going to freeze first or trading maple syrup futures or whatever it is you useless ******** do when you aren't too busy weighing in on US politics.

It's ok, I compensate by watching US politics.

Our politicians aren't nearly as crazy which is a good thing but rather boring popcorn fodder so I watch the US sitcom..err politics, instead. QC on the other hand has lost its marbles once again so I might have to tune into that a bit more for the lulz.

"So I've been looking over the blueprints for the parliament buildings"

"Yes, they look quite nice"

"You know what would boost productivity and lead to better governance?"

"Incentives to enhance cooperation among the politicians?"

"No, a bar, an exclusive bar, with a view."

"MY GOD YOU'RE A GENIUS!!!"

That depends on how you're using the term "always". Employment is a function of revenue. Should be obvious, but I state it just in case there might be some people reading this who haven't realized that you can't employ someone unless your business earns enough money to do so. Similarly, job creation is a function of profits. Assuming that profits means money earned in excess of that which was spent earning it (which includes existing labor costs), then to create new jobs you must have some profit to do so.

Does this mean that every single time anyone's profits increase they'll hire more people? No. But as a trend across the economy, the greater the average profit rates of businesses the faster new jobs will be created. Everything else being the same, if you increase profits in hand by 10%, job creation will tend to go up 10%. You just have to understand the difference between employing people in existing jobs and actually creating new ones.



Really? you need a cite to accept that if you need $1M seed money to open a new factory, and your existing factories generate $250k/year profits, then the difference between a tax rate of zero and a tax rate of 20% is the difference between it taking you 4 years to open your next factory or 5 years (250*4=1000 vs 200*5=1000). So if that new factory represents 100 new jobs, then you're changed the average job creation rate for that business from 25 jobs a year to 20 jobs a year. Even the most mathematically challenged should also notice that the rate of decreased job creation is exactly proportional to the rate of tax increase.

This really requires no more than some basic math skills. Assuming that the owner is saving up to open a new factory anyway, this math works. We can assume cases where he's not, but then he's not regardless of tax rates. So among those businesses who would create jobs, they will create them faster if the tax burden on their businesses is lower. It's pretty much axiomatic if you stop and think about it.




No, it's pretty stupid really. There's a pretty obvious problem with that and its effect on the middle class. Can you figure it out? I'll give you a hint: You've just created a financial incentive to hire more total workers while paying the same amount for labor. Basically encouraging sweat shop style labor and discouraging professional skilled (and higher paid) labor. Your example is a great case for why government attempts to meddle in the free market tend to have unforeseen consequences.

Apparently, garbaji, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. In your scenario there, we give the employer a constant tax break in the hope that he will open new factories or whatever and make new jobs.

In my scenario, the employer creates the jobs in order to receive a guaranteed tax break. Can you noodle out the difference?


ALSO: What idig said, which, y'know is what I said.

Edited, Sep 7th 2012 5:28pm by Bijou

Gee Gbaji, since corporations are breaking all records in profits, there should be no unemployment problems at all! Unless it's not about profits, but DEMAND!

I don't get the bullshit gbaji's slinging. Profit doesn't promote growth; profit promotes accumulation of wealth. This is the kind of hoax that perpetuates the "trickle-down" economic joke. You can't grow unless there's a demand to be met. There's no demand if there's no consumer or customer.

Hey now, that's insulting to capitalism. It loves gay marriage...