GOP should be tried for economic treason...

Collapse entails the onslaught of a new dark age. There will be no getting back to basics under those circumstances. Think of six century Goths wandering around the remains of the City of Rome being unable to decipher the meaning of the Victory Columns.

 

The GOP allowed that, by allowing offshoring of our manufacturing so corporations could max out their profits as they took away the job creation engine that America has to have. Corporations would have never offshored if they were not given free access to our markets, to act as parasites.

Again, if you do not allow your own people to make what they consume, you will never have enough living wages jobs to employ them. It is just a law that cannot be weaseled out of, or finessed out of. It is basic economics as it applies to keeping your own people employed.

 

All dark ages end, as we saw with the great depression. It just takes intelligence operating in the interest of the people to do that. We already know how to employ our own people, but it does not allow the maxing out of profits by the top. It just allows them a reasonable profit. This was talked about by FDR long ago, as he took on the greed of the top. As Sanders says, they cannot have it all.

 

Did you forget about Bill Clinton?

- - - Updated - - -

What was it Santayana said about the past and memory?

 

All you're talking about is international outsourcing. But domestic outsourcing (hiring foreigners legal & illegal) is just as bad as far as to "make it impossible for much of America to earn a living", while millions of jobs are being swiped away by cheap foreign labor, fully supported by Democrats.

Really, the only difference between the 2, is that in domestic outsourcing these pertain to the jobs that can only be done INSIDE the US (landscaping, construction, janitorial, hotels, etc)

 

I think I mentioned illegal and legal workers taking American jobs and depressing wages in the interest of only the corporations. So, you offshore living wage jobs to cheap labor only the interest of maxing out the income of corporations, and then you allow in both illegal and legal immigration to take other jobs and depress wages, helping out...corporations. This is an element of trickle down, which is a philosophy that if you allow business to do anything they want to max out profits, and you tax them less, reduce regulations on them too, that this will create a larger middle class than the economic model that did not allow offshoring, illegal and legal immigration to take jobs and push down wages. Of course, that trickle down when it included the offshoring and the immigration would in no sense help out anyone but the top dogs. Which is what Reagan brought back, and the academics today call it neoliberalism. And it is.

The democrats stopped representing the working people by the time Clinton came in, and bought into the Reagan/Bush neoliberalism. He effectively changed the democratic party who are now the corporate democrats and do not represent the economic interests of americans anymore. So neither party represents working people, and as I said, a consumption based economy can only provide for its own people when they are used to make what they consume. No way out of this. So obviously neither party cares about Americans being able to support themselves anymore. Of course the dems, want to replace those jobs with safety nets which cannot allow one to thrive, and the repubs want to take even those awa

And my point is given this fact, the GOP and some of the democrats have committed treason upon the majority of people in America, and should be hung, or at least shown the door, and we need to elect people who actually will represent the majority in America instead of only representing the rich. For if not, they will be hung anyways as this nation implodes from being turned into a two class society, the rich and the poor.

 

Clinton joined in with the neoliberal GOP who had set out to change this nation, in favor of the rich, with trickle down. So he should be hung along with the GOP.

Obviously as the people of the depression died out, we forgot about the past, and of course the right wing has spun the past to weasel out of what their ideology did in an earlier time, the gilded age times that led to the crash and the depression. So we allowed Reagan to bring back that same kind of thinking that could not create a large middle class, but could concentrate the wealth in the top.

 

Do you really believe working class and middle class people are represented by Democrats? If so, why?

 

1. With all that in mind, we should elect Donald Trump (wo's talking for the PEOPLE)

2. Immigration helps out many more VESTED INTERESTS than just corporate top dogs.

Immigration vested interests

1. Spanish media needing Spanish-only speakers (ex. Univision, which Jorge Ramos, a top Trump critic is a news anchor for).

2. Businesses wanting cheap labor to boost their profits.

3. Churches wanting parishoners to fill their empty pews.

4. Unions wanting members to replace their declining memberships.

5. Ethnocentrist organizations wanting immigrants to multiply their race, for racist reasons (ex. La Raza- "the race")

6. Democrats seek VOTES (and get them).

7. Terrorists come in to enact terrorism (ex. the 9-11 hijackers came in on visas)

8. Anchor baby parents who become LEGALLY entitled to welfare benefits by having the pregnant woman give birth on the American side of the border. And then help themselves to a lifetime of benefits (more immigrants are receiving welfare benefits than native-born Americans).

9. Mexico - remittances$$$ from the USA are their second largest source of income (second only to their oil exports) Mexico also benefits immensely by dumping their poor people on the US, as we then stupidly pay their poverty bill for them. Other countries also benefit from remittances and poverty dumping.

10. Mexico's reconquista of the American southwest. I take the Mexican govt at it's word when it says that is exactly its plan.

 

Agree 100%

 

I think blaming both parties is more apt than just blaming one. I agree that consuming what you make or manufacture, as long as the supply and demand is there is the ideal way to grow the economy. But I disagree going back to 1981, after 1983 our economy was booming and we were close to full employment or had as many people employed as possible considering. Losing our industrial and manufacturing base along with technological advances such as robots replacing auto assembly workers, computers etc. has put a lot of people out of a job. Loss of the family farm for corporate farming also has added to the loss of jobs. I bring up farming as I was born and raised on a farm, 120 acres and we, dad, mom and the family made a good living, at least enough to keep us happy.

I am not a financial guru, far from it. But what I think is how we go about taxing businesses, adding regulations and mandates has driven a lot of those businesses overseas to get away from the tax and regulation burden. Remember a lot of businesses first moved from the northeast and midwest to the south to get away from those same taxes, regulations and mandates. Then when most became federalized, those businesses moved overseas.

I also think all these free trade agreements beginning with NAFTA under Clinton and the WTO has also caused what remained of our industrial and manufacturing base to also flee. No more tariffs or other laws to regulate what comes into this country. That is now done by the WTO. Then too you had the majority of Americans fall in love with cheap goods, at least less costly when made in China, India, Korea, etc than here and Americans buy these goods up by the thousands. Ever look around your house to see how many things are made and manufactured overseas?

The expanding middle class of the 1950's and and into the 60"s is a thing of the past. The reason is as you stated, we lost our ability to manufacture, no not ability, but we can not manufacture or make goods as cheap as they can overseas. That includes shipping the items to the states. But the expanding middle class of the 50's was caused by an ideal situation. Remember WWII that left Europe devastated. Asia was still backwater and with the exception of Japan which was also had their manufacturing base destroyed, ours remained unharmed and ready to make whatever was needed and sent it overseas to Europe and Asia and have us here at home buy our own goods.

We had no real competition during the late 40's and the 50's. We ran huge trade surpluses instead of deficits and we actually had a couple of years under IKE where our national debt was reduced. A real surplus.

I do not think a new deal is going help. That too was unique to its time and we were in a complete different situation. I think we are stuck in a service economy due to technology, the WTO and all these free trade agreements and most Americans not willing to pay more for goods made in America when they can get them cheaper from overseas.

But this is how I see it, there is no returning to the conditions and the economy that lead to the expanding middle class.

 

NAFTA was put together under Bush-41. TPP negotiations began in 2005. Manufacturing jobs have declined everywhere since the early to mid-1990's. China in that time has lost more manufacturing jobs than the US presently has. The 1950's were a cold, dark, gray and dismal decade, not some soaring era of American exceptionalism.

 

So basically you're saying that Republican created over 50% of the present debt.
Plenty of blame to go around and this idea that that roses grow from the butts of Republicans when it
comes to fiscal responsibility is pure BS.

 

Sanders is a Marxist. He only understands how to ruin things. The LAST thing this country needs is a "leader" like Sanders. He can't even stand up to two women trying to take his microphone away at a podium. What the hell kind of leadership is that? How is someone that weak supposed to defend this country against foreign enemies?

 

Actually, the 1950s was a good era for the American working and middle classes. Those classes were growing. Now, not so much.

 

Sounds like the best solution to all this is the anti-outsourcer > Donald Trump. (that includes both international outsourcing and domestic outsourcing (AKA immigration/visas)

 

One doesn't need to even contemplate the economy to see Obama's disastrous record (foreign policy, race hustling, affirmative action discrimination, immigration, Muslim ass-kissing, etc).

 

correction:

it was your hero Bush who created the Great Recession, started two needless and treasonous wars, opened the door to illegal immigrants and tried to grant them amnesty, kissing up to Neocons and Israel, and wanted to start a third war on Iran


that is TREASON as is those who defend him

 

The idea that America transforming into a "service-based" economy was a good thing took place across partisan lines. It wasn't really so much a Democrat vs Republican issue, though there were plenty of people on both sides who were futilely trying to convince everyone this was a terrible thing.

I was trying to warn everyone about this years ago. Unfortunately, the current mainstream thought of most economists holds the dogmatic belief that free and open trade is always a good thing, and holds unrealistic beliefs about how the country should adapt to the changing economy (i.e. that we can just "educate" everyone into productivity, that we need to focus on new innovation as the primary answer and that is going to solve all the problems, etc)

 

Republicans = welfare elitism and economic treason:



http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporate-welfare-programs-that-will-make-your-blood-boil/



The next time you hear someone complain about how the poor get “all this free stuff,” show them this.

A small number of incredibly wealthy Americans are ridiculing Bernie Sanders’ base for wanting “free stuff” when the costliest programs are, by far, corporate welfare and entitlements for the top 1 percent. Fox News has been working hard to tear down Sanders’ proposals to provide Medicare for all, institute tuition-free public college, boost infrastructure spending, and expand Social Security.

“That’s not fiscally possible unless the federal government starts seizing private assets,” said Bill O’Reilly.

But O’Reilly is wrong. The money for Sanders’ platform can easily come from eliminating the costliest entitlement programs for the top 1 percent and multinational corporations. Here’s a breakdown of the most superfluous giveaways to the rich and how much they cost the rest of us:

1. Tax Breaks for obscene CEO bonuses ($7 billion/year)
Currently, the biggest corporations are exploiting a 20-year-old loophole that allows them to write off inflated compensation packages for CEOs, billing stock options, and performance-based bonuses to taxpayers. In 2010, the Economic Policy Institute found out that the biggest corporations cost Americans $7 billion by writing off inflated executive pay. Between 2007 and 2010, this loophole accounted for more than $30 billion in corporate welfare. According to The Guardian, fast food industry CEOs cost taxpayers $64 million through this loophole.

That $7 billion could singlehandedly fund the annual budget for the National Science Foundation — which, as I recently reported for US Uncut, funds 11,000 scientific research projects each year and has funded 26 Nobel laureates in the last 5 years.

2. Tax cuts for luxury corporate jets ($300 million/year)
Currently, corporations can claim a huge tax deduction every year by writing off purchases of corporate jets, lavish cars, and chauffeurs as “security” for their top executives. A Bloomberg analysis from 2011 showed that these tax breaks for some of the wealthiest Americans cost the rest of us $300 million each year. While that may not sound like much, that’s approximately 50 percent of the annual budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren that protects Americans from the financial sector’s most predatory schemes.

3. Big oil subsidies ($37.5 billion/year)
According to Oil Change International (OCI), the U.S. government spends anywhere between $10 billion and $52 billion per year on corporate welfare for the fossil fuel industry — one of the wealthiest industries in the world. OCI estimated that total combined subsidies to big oil approached $37.5 billion in 2014, which includes $21 billion on production and exploration subsidies.

These subsidies alone cost more than what we currently spend on providing rental assistance for low-income families. In 2013, the department of Housing and Urban Development allocated a total of $34.3 billion toward tenant-based rental assistance ($19 billion), project-based rental assistance ($8.7 billion), and general public housing programs ($6.6 billion). These programs helped 4.5 million families — half of whom are elderly — keep a roof over their head.

4. Pharmaceutical subsidies ($270 billion/year)
As US Uncut has previously reported, the pharmaceutical industry costs taxpayers roughly $270 billion a year when accounting for the cost we pay for life-saving drugs whose patents have been bought up by Big Pharma. This is over $1,914 per household in corporate welfare. This is partly due to the Medicare Part D bill that George W. Bush signed into law in 2003, which prevents Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. But the biggest drug companies also make a pretty penny (a combined $711 billion in profits between 2003 and 2012) by buying patents for drugs that were largely developed with taxpayer-funded research, then jacking up the price by absurd amounts after cornering the market.









... more ...

 

While I agree with the OP on free trade destroying our country, I disagree that it is a republican action. It was both parties. It is counter productive to blame one party when it was the government. As a conservative, I want free trade only with countries that equal our regulations(fair playing field). We should not have one product here from China.

 

Government reports gain of 211,000 jobs. Official unemployment rate remains at 5%


http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-jobs-Official-unemployment-rate-remains-at-5



The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated Friday that 211,000 seasonally adjusted new jobs were added to the economy in November. Of those, 197,000 were in private sector and 14,000 in the public-sector. November was thus the 68th straight month of new private job creation and 62nd straight month that new public jobs have been added. The official unemployment remained unchanged at 5.0 percent.

The BLS revised its earlier October tally of new jobs from 271,000 to 298,000 and in September from 137,000 to 145,000 Taken together, all those numbers seem certain to give the Fed the assurance it needs to raise interest rates this month, though the increase will no doubt be small, a 1/4 percent boost being the likely rise. Jim Puzzanghera writes:

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet L. Yellen on Thursday downplayed the risk of the U.S. falling into recession next year and indicated central bank policymakers are ready to raise a key interest rate this month, in part to give them flexibility to lower it if the economy slows. [...]

“We are contemplating raising them. But we have said that we expect that process to be gradual,” she said. “And we want to make sure that, having achieved this progress in the labor market, we maintain it and don't put it in danger.”
However, Elise Gould at the Economic Policy Institute wrote Thursday that it’s still too early for the Fed to be raising interest rates given the weakness in wages:

The reality is that we need to see strong wage growth that is consistent and strong enough so that labor share of income returns to pre-recession levels and the labor market achieves a full recovery. Then, and only then, should we begin a conversation about raising rates
Wages for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cent an hour in November to $25.25 after rising 9 cents an hour in October. Wages for private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees remained unchanged at $21.19.



more ....

 

IIRC we tried that once by passing the Smoot Hawley Tarrif Act in Sept of 1929 (it went into effect in June of 1930). The next 10 years didn't work out so well. Free trade results in products being produced by those with a comparative advantage resulting in the lowest price for all global consumers. Countries which practice import substitution by creating trade barriers (tarrifs) produce economies stifled by inefficiency due to lack of competition. This lesson has been learned by the economies of countries around the world following the lead of Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK. China is a prime example of this realization today. China is a communist country which realized via Deng Xiaoping (who took over when Mao died) that to maximize economic growth they had to be competitive in the global economy. And they certainly are. The problem in the US today is not free trade, it is the free fall of economic freedom. The Obama economic policies have resulted in the US ranking in economic freedom dropping to 12th in the world (we were 2nd in 2002) due to ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, increase in small business (pass through) income tax by 10%, and the suffocating increase in regulations which hit small businesses the hardest.

 

US Treasury: Obama Has Officially Fixed The Economy Bush Wrecked



http://www.occupydemocrats.com/us-treasury-obama-has-officially-fixed-the-economy-bush-wrecked/



US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has some good tidings for all Americans: our economy is doing better now than when President Obama took office and that after much trial and tribulation, we have finally recovered from all the damage that the Bush Administration did to our economy. Mr. Lew appeared on FOX Business to say that

“where we are now, we’re seeing steady growth, we’ve seen enormous job creation over this period of time, we’re seeing the unemployment rate around 5 percent, and we’re seeing that growth in spite of the fact that there’s a lot of headwinds from a slower global economy.” ‘

While acknowledging the problems that still face our nation like a sky-high rate of income inequality and growing debts, he also noted that we’re in a much better place to tackle them. One of the most important issues that must be quickly resolved is the business tax code, which lobbyist and Republican meddling have sen spiraling out of control and depriving the government and our economy of much-needed revenue; as it is all being hoarded overseas by traitorous multinational corporations who care only for the wealth of their stockholders.

“The corporate tax code has so many loopholes that the statutory rate is among the highest in the world. As a result, companies are undertaking maneuvers such as “inversions,” in which companies move their legal addresses overseas. We have a broken business tax code, and I think that’s something that we have recognized for years and proposed tax reform…I hope we can sit down and work together in a bipartisan basis to deal with this.”

Indeed, there is still much work to do. But these pronouncements from the US Treasury are a welcome sign of progress to come and a celebration of achievements already made. President Bush left our nation’s economy in the gutter, for which President Obama has been constantly blamed. It’s time for people to recognize that no matter how many times Trump repeats his lies on television, the economy is in fact doing fine, the world is not about to end and President Obama has been one of the most successful presidents our nation has ever seen.






When it comes to the economy, Democrats are fare more effective in improving things than are the Republicans.

Thank you President Obama!

 

You are arguing for more government and less economic freedom. You also want less consumer choice and supplier competition. That doesn't make sense.