How Should The Democratic Party Win Back Less Educated Whites?

Hostile much? The point is something HAS changed, the economy has noticeably improved under Trump. First you said it was deficit spending and I pointed out why that was wrong, then you said it was offshoring manufacturing and I pointed out why that was wrong, so you're 0 for 2 and now just getting pissed off because you're wrong instead of actually saying anything.

 

Nope the Obama spending was the recovery from the Bush disaster. And somehow the Bush tax cuts didn't make for a great recovery. As for the Regan tax cuts no ne is sure since governmrnt spending under Regan increased significsntly.

There is no actual evidence that lowering taxes causes the economy to prosper over the long term. We are seeing the typucal Republican claptrap with Trump who is lowering taxes and increasing spending at the same time. The defecit will go up for sure and the evonomy isn't doing all that great. The only real beneficiaries are the rich who get massives returns from stockbuybacks and dividend increases.

 

1. There's plenty of evidence to show that high tax countries' economic growth lags behind countries with lower taxes, and the same holds true for over time. http://www.uhy.com/major-eurozone-nations-struggle-with-average-tax-burden-now-nearly-44-of-gdp/

2. Blacks, Hispanics, and the general public are all benefitting from Trump's tax cuts. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...-hispanics-do-better-with-him-than-obama.html

 

Offer them more education for less money. My understanding is that lots of poor people can't afford several thousands of dollar per semester for college and that people with college level education generally make more.

Free college is right in there

And the Republican's saying we can't afford that because it's necessary to give the Kochs and their ilk another trillion or so in lower taxes is not.

 

What would you like to learn? It would take 20 minutes to find a free resource to enable you.

 

Your race oriented post title should be " how the Democrat Party should win back un indoctrinated whites".

 

It's not enough to just offer the subject. Learning must be certified, that is actually the main purpose schools of any sort exist for, to certify that one has been offered the subject and then demonstrated a reasonable degree of competence in it, through either tests, internships, practicums etc etc. What you suggest is a good idea but until you can get a reasonable number of employers to accept it to the degree they accept college credit and/or degrees it won't be the same thing, will it?

 

The democrat party already owns the less educated whites AND the more indoctrinated whites.

 

The lesser developed countries haveva higher growth rate which has nothing to do with the tax rate. The US had a much higher growth rate in the past and taxes were definitly notlower thsn they are now. The republicans have been cutting taxes for decades and yet amazingly the GDP growth rate continues to decline.

And your fox news link say nothing about blacks and hispanics benefitting from Trump tax cuts. The continue to do better under Trump because of what Obama put in place. Employment continues to improve brcause so far Trump hasn't managed to donanything too stupid other than vastly expanding the national debt.

 

Then please give us the details of what obama put into place, that was not already in place. And you do understand that with the job losses coming from the housing bubble bursting and the crash, recession, that obama could really only go up in people being hired back as the recession cycled, right? But we still need the details you referred to.

Here is the inconvenient truth though about growth and jobs, other than part time welfare drawing jobs as we saw under obama. And understand, I do not blame obama for these kind of jobs which replaced jobs lost from the crash. For we learned long ago, in the early 70s while I was in college, after even a cycle driven recession, the economy will readjust and pare down jobs, many lost forever, and even more so if the recession is created by a financial crash. You lose the fat in other words. And what added to this loss of jobs is that offshoring to slave labor continued, in both the service sector and manufacturing. Jobs that were paying more in the service sector, were offshored to places like India. Most have noticed this when trying to talk to perhaps your bank? And other institutions and businesses.

So, the inconvenient truth is rather simple and easy to discern. Offshoring jobs that paid living wages, eventually will leave you with a low wage service sector economy to replace those jobs lost. And many will be part time. It has created an economic model which just cannot have decent growth in living wage jobs and GDP. And that is the truth that globalist apologists always have to ignore or worse, dismiss. This ain't rocket science although some people will try to complicate it to hide the obvious nature of this. You see attempts at this all of the time from the globalists. And many economics profs these days are globalists, make no mistake about it. I was educated prior to globalism and got a different education on this matter.

 

From the link: "Since taking the reins from President Obama, President Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress have embraced free-market and pro-liberty economic policies. Now – after a year of reducing regulations, approving a tax cut, and encouraging stricter standards for numerous welfare programs at the state level – the economy is thriving. Working-age minorities are benefitting in ways they have rarely, if ever, have enjoyed in the modern era."

Try reading next time.

Growth rates are not contingent on wealth or poverty. Very poor countries with excessive tax rates and onerous regulations grow more slowly than very rich countries with low tax rates and light regulations, and vice versa. If we learned anything from the 1980s, it's that there's no limit to how rich we can get.

 

Yet there is a limit to how many rich you can have at the top. For most of the rich depend upon the work of the non rich in order to get rich. Just a fact you cannot honestly refute. There is no way in hell therefore that if we were all motivated, and smart, that but a small percentage could ever be rich. Who would do the work it takes for a few to become rich? So get rid of that pipe dream, and put the opium down. I understand your ideological belief about this is as addicting to you as opium is. And addicts are addicts.

 

Says absolutly nothing about how the minorities have benefitted from tax cuts. Try reading with comprehension next time.

Perhaps with a bit of effort you can find out how much minorities have benefitted from the Trump tax cuts. Zero cone to mind.

 

The OP is a symptom of the arrogance and ignorance of who the Trump voters really are. In fact many of the Trump voters voted for Obama twice, why? Because they are Democrats but the Democratic Party has shut the door in their face. Trump isn’t the cause of this he is the symptom. Democrat disdain for their own voters pushed many of them over the edge.

 

Certainly couldn't teach you to read!

 

In answer to the benefits of the Trump tax cuts for the poor and middle class here is an analysis:

http://theweek.com/articles/768718/republican-tax-cut-dud


With the 2018 midterms barreling towards us, there probably won't be any more major bills coming out of this Congress. Its legacy will be the tax overhaul passed in December of 2017. As far as reasons for re-election, that's what Republicans will have to point to.

Unfortunately for them, those massive tax cuts are proving a total dud.

The tax cuts had two selling points. First, while the bulk of the cuts would go to the wealthy and business owners, the idea was this would spur more investment. That would lead to more jobs and higher wages for everyone. Second, the package also included cuts and benefits that would help out people across the income spectrum.

Let's take each point in turn.

A smattering of corporations have announced pay hikes and bonuses since the tax cuts went into effect. In February, CNN tallied it up to roughly $6 billion in new money going to workers. But the new payouts to shareholders, particularly in the form of stock buybacks, announced in the same period? $171 billion and counting.

Nominal wages are also still on the same anemic growth path they've been on since the recovery from the Great Recession began. They show absolutely no reaction to the tax cut. Once you adjust for inflation, hourly wages of blue-collar workers who aren't in management positions actually haven't budged since President Trump took office.

Now, defenders claim the buyback flood is actually a sign the tax cuts are working as advertised. Under bog standard free-market theory, buybacks and shareholder payouts just take money out of less productive endeavors so it can be invested in more productive endeavors. To asses the tax cuts, you have to track where the money goes next, after shareholders get their payday.

Well okay, fair enough.

The Commerce Department regularly keeps track of new capital goods orders, and those actually fell slightly right after the tax cut passed. The numbers then recovered, but only enough to put them back on the same trend line they were on before the tax cuts. The same goes for small businesses: The percent planning a new capital investment in the next three months didn't even twitch in reaction to the tax overhaul. Once again, they're still on the same modestly upward trend that started with the post-2008 recovery.

Just looking just at these numbers, you'd never know the tax cut happened.

"Since the outlines of the tax cut had been known since September, businesses had plenty of time to plan how they would respond to lower tax rates," economist Dean Baker wrote. "If lower rates really produce a flood of investment we should at least begin to see some sign in new orders once the tax cut was certain to pass."

Everyone should've seen this coming. In the last few decades, the financial markets have evolved from a mechanism for allocating investment into one that liquidates jobs and productive activity and spits the cash out to the wealthy. Corporate profits have been booming for years even as rates of business investment collapsed. Just in 2014, shareholder payouts pumped $1.2 trillion into financial markets, but only $200 billion was recycled into new investment.

The tax cuts are ultimately just another way to shower corporations with bigger profits. If that was going to lead to more investment and job creation, we should've seen it years ago.

What of the tax breaks for American families?

Even if the tax cuts don't spur investment, they could put more spending money in Americans' pockets, and boost job creation that way. Or buy the Republicans more goodwill with voters, at the very least.

But when Politico asked voters in February whether they noticed a pay uptick thanks to the tax cut, only 25 percent said "yes." Half said "no." The rest simply didn't know or didn't have an opinion.

Again, this isn't surprising once you run the numbers. Former Treasury Department economist Ernie Tedeschi worked out how the amount of income American families bring in every two weeks should change in response to the GOP's tax package: A third of families will either lose money or see no change. Another 22 percent will only see an extra $1 to $20 every two weeks. Another 19 percent will only see an extra $20 to $50.





And that's total income for families, meaning a meager increase is often split between two spouses' paychecks.

It's little wonder few people are noticing it.

Of course, this whole critique ultimately takes Republicans at their word; that they really did mean for the tax overhaul to increase jobs and wages and put more money into working families' pocketbooks. Maybe we shouldn't.

The Republicans had to rely on a procedure called reconciliation to get the tax cuts past the Senate filibuster. And reconciliation requires bills to be deficit neutral after the first 10 years. The GOP found enough tax hikes to offset the cuts for corporations and the wealthy, making them permanent. But not the tax breaks for families, which are scheduled to expire in a decade. And Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) recently told CNBC he opposes further legislation to make those cuts permanent, because they were done "solely to get the corporate side down."

If the point of the bill was actually to just shovel even more money to the wealthy, and everything else was just a song and dance to get the heist through the political process, then the tax cuts aren't a failure.

They're actually a roaring success.

 

Good post and insightful into what the reality very well may be. And this fits in with my own thinking on this subject, being an FDR kinda guy.

I have said for years that providing the owner class and elites with more money from tax cuts will have very little effect in trickling down to improve the quality of jobs being created in this economic model. Now, back when americans provided most of their own goods and services, such a tax break, depending upon where the economy was in cycle, might be a stimulus for jobs, better jobs, more consumption, etc. But when your ROI is overseas, in slave labor areas, or in mexico or other areas that pay cents on the dollar in wages, this will siphon off domestic investment and for obvious reasons.

Getting economic growth, over the paltry 2 to 3 percent, and adding living wage jobs cannot be done to any degree in our current economic model, for we have moved away those sectors which would have responded to it domestically. Not rocket science, but an 800 pound ape sitting quietly in the corner that globalists just refuse to even notice.

 

This Democrat Party racist topic has been started as a new thread at least a dozen times on this forum.

Of course the Democratic Party NEVER wants any stats on the educational level of black and Latino voters who vote Democrat. Without black and Latino high school dropouts or otherwise without a high school degree, the Democratic Party would only qualify as a 3rd party. If you also eliminate people with a welfare lifestyle voting Democrat and you might as well declare the Democratic Party is in competition with the Libertarian Party over which Party gets more votes.

So, the real question is how can Republicans win more votes from uneducated blacks and Latinos?

Yet the answer to that is easy. STOP ILLEGAL MIGRANTS from taking low skill jobs from uneducated blacks and Latinos.The more a person has a good job and the higher the economic level, to more likely the person will vote Republican.

 

The only way the DP will ever win back working class whites, is to read and make the changes needed as seen in Frank's book, Listen Liberal!

And he will also tell you, as a liberal why trump won, and it had nothing to do with racism as the fake liberals want you to believe. Instead it is about a people that the Princeton Study evidenced have not been stood up for nor represented in DC by either party for decades. But the hillary dems prefer to blame it on racism. For only that will allow them not to evaluate their own treasonous party.

 

I don't think you understood what the Princeton study actually said.

 

It said that average americans hardly were represented at all, spanning the two decades that they looked using congressional record. Special interests got most of the representation.

And of course one can easily observe the plights of working people who now have several part time jobs at low wages to replace the lower middle class jobs that they lost.

 

You are confused as to what that point would be? Lower rates higher realizations more tax revenues

You are the one pointing the lower realizations under the Clinton rate as better than the four times higher than the Bush43 with it's double revenues.

Why compare realizations during a peak growth period to realizations during a recession when higher realizations are one of the goals and outcomes?

About as disingenuous as you can get.

How many times have I posted the data.

So you agree higher realizations are better?

What's the distinction you are trying to make?

I have fully supported my claims with the historical numbers you have yet to refute them.

I have to do no such thing.

How is comparing periods of prosperity with periods of recession fair when comparing tax rate performance on economic growth and revenues?

See above.

You are the one claiming it was better to have the lower realizations under the Clintons rates not me. I prefer higher realizations and higher revenues. If you in fact due believe higher realizations are better then please state so.

 

EPIPHANY PLUS​

The Democratic Party should welcome

Family Values White People too.






Oh and of course stop the discrimination against the largest pool of qualified persons,
Straight, White Men claiming it is P.C.
Anyone But, - is a message observed when looking at Democratic Party Candidate pictures.

 

Fortunately for the Republicans, that looks unlikely to happen any time soon. They are doubling down on the "white men are all racist" canard.