What happened to the Democrat Party?

Yet again proving Americans don't know what Socialism is.

The Democrats are centrist liberals. Perhaps the next election will push them farther left, remains to be seen. But socialist? Jesus, you've never seen an actual socialist have you.

 

What, if any, are their viable solutions to the many problems faced by average Americans? Everyone knows they will serve the super-rich, so my question will likely remain unanswered, as usual.

 

Even after all these years, right-wingers see Khrushchev when the word socialism is mentioned. They cannot conceive a country where everyone benefits. They still want to protect the fat cats and be content with the ever-dwindling scraps they receive from "trickle down".

 

I beg to disagree. I don't believe Unions have that kind of positive effect on the economy, largely because of the reasons you noted. If Unions were really good, everyone would join one. If Unions were really good, government support would be obvious. Because the goal of every regime, every politician and every government is to be self-sustainable.

Especially in today's world. What happened in 1956, died in 1956 and isn't coming back. In today's world, what's efficient for companies is the maximization of value. That would always be the case, but for jobs(especially in the post-ACA world. Dumbass law.) today that means actually having less workers.

That might scare you, but it's true. It's now a liability to have more workers than you can realistically compensate. Since health care's become a "right" for example, that's no longer a carrot to dangle. But then, what about work packages? They become more expensive as you have to replace that: IE: More sick days, vacation days, etc. Which in of themselves is how companies lose money since the workers aren't working.

The calculus becomes: "Since they're not working anyway, why hire them?" But I have bad news: More Left-leaning policies are going to lead to lower wages. Specifically, Flex-wage work. Mandated flex-wage that is. It's on the next agenda of the pro-feminist groups.(Madam Hillary herself supports it.) But like I said, this is going to kill wages.

Why? Simple. Men do not have to work flex-wage jobs, they do not need to. Flex-wage in general would lower your wages since you work less days, less hours and less total hours. It's a part of our flawed wage scale to begin with, but Madam Hillary isn't going to bother with the wage scale. You see, that's a little above the pay grade of a politician lol. So instead, laws will be made to demand more flex-wage.

But without any adjustments to the wage scale(IE: More focus on production rather than hours worked), this is how it's going to play out: More men are going to work full-time jobs(They don't want to nor can they afford to lose more income than they have.) and women are going to work flex-time jobs. Doesn't this look "segregated" to you? Although entirely by market forces, that's exactly how it's going to turn out.

Furthermore, businesses will be inclined to move more towards the full-time workers because they will be more productive over time than the flex-wage workers. In America's 21st century though, these economic forces will be substituted with cries of sexism(Well, they pretty much already are shouting that pre-Madam's plans.) and a load of discrimination claims(though it's not discriminatory in nature it's just pure business.).

Those claims, and the damage done to a business will cause the businesses in the U.S to react, as full-time jobs are wiped out completely. Bringing the Left to the utopia long desired: Flex-wage jobs. More of us can be at home! Well, yes, but our wages have plummeted as a result. No business is going to pay more than what comes in. No matter how many protests there are.

There's only two ways to fix the wage discrepancy in the United States. The first is an adjustment to the wage scale, where hours are no longer the determining factor, but production is the determining factor. This, however will be a mixed bag for people. The Democrats are going to have to give up the "Equal pay" war cry, because "equal pay" is fictional. That is to say, money is not and never was proportional on the market place. The experienced lawyer charges a hefty sum for his services, the inexperienced lawyer cannot charge as much. They do the same work, but their value is never proportional.

The same goes for men and women, individually and collectively making different career decisions and therefore filling into various different income brackets. A male whose a janitor makes much less money than female CEO's(who in turn, are rather multiplying these days.). The Democratic paux argument that there's some kind of sexist discrimination in pay, will not allow a production-based system in the US.

Because obviously in some areas, males will be more productive, and vice-versa so will females in other areas. It'll equal itself out, and then inevitably one of the sides must by nature make a smidgen hair than the other. Is this really 'income inequality'? Only from the standpoint that the dollar signs don't add up.

I argue that if both genders are self-sufficient, if the economy chugs on, then income inequality has been significantly lessened. If we tackled poverty effectively, than the median wages for all would increase. Indeed, only a self-sufficient economy can do justice to all Americans in our country regardless of race, class, sex or orientation. For us to ever move towards such an economy, it is important that we reject the myth that there's some pay discrimination, and the harmful lawful effects brought to businesses as a result of that mythology.

The second thing, my own personal invention is that the economy must move towards contracts and labor. It's amazing that Unions, in spite of their so-called representation do not represent the workers for whom they claim. Instead, they seek a percentage of dues from their members, argue at best for some modest increase and then reap the benefits from that. Unions in the 21st century are a dead animal, as we've always fought against them because of their self-loathing interest.

And so, I've wanted to create our income system to be more like a sports league. With a salary cap, negotiated salaries and an agent. If Businesses set a cap for themselves, they can control costs. With a contract, people have a consistent income and are more secure in their jobs. With an agent, they have someone who is personally vested in THEIR profits, not the Union's.

I've wanted to supplant it with the state-of-the-art, Federal supported job facilities.(Since the present job training programs suck major ass.) in conjunction with big and small businesses. It costs too much to train workers? Want to lower your costs? Sure, we'll train them for you, top-notched. But you have to hire these highly qualified workers.

All of my economic reforms, based on the economic lessons I'd been taught would transform the US overnight into industrial superpower once again.

 

The Democratic Party including most liberals reflected the cultural consensus of the time where women were mostly domesticated, homosexuality was abnormal, and abortion was illegal. However those Democrats still wanted to regulate capitalism and have programs that helped people like FHA Home Loans, Social Security, and Unemployment Insurance. They also favored universal healthcare which Harry Truman was advocating in the 1940s. It was a great society for straight, white, men, whether you were working class or rich. However Democrats and liberals in particular had to change and meet the demands for rights and freedoms by people who had been left out like blacks, women, gays, and lesbians. Things had to change to make the country better for more people. If you think the party was wrong then maybe you're more of a Conservative Republican.

 

The answer is to get people to realize that if the cupboard is bare, they have to figure out some way to fill it up on their own. Government has a purpose, but it isn't to micromanage an economy. The purpose is to make it possible for people to go about their lives working and trying to better themselves, insted of working so that some nimrod on the other side of town who claims to have a bad back can get part of what you worked hard for.

If that isn't a viable solution, then...

 

Which "trickle down" are you referring to? "trickle down" economics or "trickle down" Government?



Reagan trickle down economics 4+% growth.



Obama's trickle down government, less than 2% growth.

One economic plan worked, one plan failed.....which one worked?

 

Brtblutwo still won't address the 'trickle down' that gave the Clintons $160 million. Of course, rich Liberals get an automatic pass.

 

Currently the Dem Party has a credibility problem with the people that they've been assuring since 2008 that rich old white people and especially career politicians are EVIL in that all they are fronting for the presidency are old white people who are career politicians.

Will even the average low information Dem Party voter bother to get off the couch and go vote in 2016 for that? Quick! Have Obama give them even more taxpayers' money in order to keep them bribed!

 

Ask the same question:

 

There isn't now or never was a "Democrat Party".

 

Correct. It is called the Democratic Party.

"Democrat Party" is an intended epithet that's been around for about 75 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

 

The most obvious explanation is the fact that there is no such thing as the Democrat Party.

The usage is a deliberate perjorative favored by far right wing Republicans, which you obviously are one, given this collection of stereotypes and canards.

 

Unions don't do a damn thing that the law of supply and demand wouldn't do if you'd quit importing a million or so unskilled workers every year.

 

Progressive Party Platform, 1912

I'll pick out a few points. Which party today is closer?

 

True, but calling them the Marxist Party confuses the core constituency of their low-information voters.

 

I waded through all that, and the one thing that struck me was this:

Just exactly what do you think an agent is? What do they do?

What you described is exactly what unions do. In your fantasy, evidently workers don't have to pay their agent. Evidently, "agents" come from a mysterious subset of humanity that works for free.

Employees are not working for profits, they are working for wages. If they were working for profits, the union would be on the Board of Directors, as they are in Germany. But when a Union gets a seat on the board of an auto company here, the right winger howeled (oddly, they had a different view when Lee Iacocca brought the UAW on the board at Chrysler).

 

You can assign whatever label you want to them.

Your label tells the audience more about you and your prejudices than it says about them.

And we know who the "low information" voters are. There is solid research on it. And they are the sort of folks who have Fox on whenever right wing AM talk radio isn't bellowing at them.

It's a childish little plug for people in this group to accuse everyone else of being "low information". People who listen to the right wing noise machine all day long think they're well informed because they are constantly bombarded by the right wing message, which they tend to take at face value (which is why so many right wingers come here and post lies they heard on talk radio shows and read in trash blogs only to get called out on them).

When they speak, they sound a lot like you.

 

The problem with the fools that use 'democrat party' is that they don't know it's an epithet. They believe it's proper English. Using that merely demonstrates their ignorance and their sources of "information".

 

I think they're fully aware that it is an epithet. If they aren't they're even more "low information" than we already give them credit for.....

 

Yes. They always were bitter scolds.


"Look, I'll Explain It Again: This 'Free Speech' Thing We're Always On About, It's Only For Our Side, Get It?"

This story about sums it up as well as the Democrat Party's journey from open free expression to government mandated uniformity of thought, speech, expression and outlook.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/reed-to-speak-about-atlanta-fire-chief-book-contro/njg9W/

 

No, we're on the same page. The difference is that liberals want the high taxes without the loopholes that create re-investment. They do so like to spend other people's money.

 

Sure we would. We did that well because we were basically the only game in town after WW2. You want to get rid of all the competition be my guest. maybe WW3 will suffice. Dems are good at starting wars

 

Except that Americans aren't unskilled. Despite what you may believe, America is not a nation of migrant workers, LOL. Importing migrant Mexicans doesn't really have anything to do with employment of the American worker. So your argument holds no water.

 

The young favor republicans