In 2006 the Democrat Party understood that the American people were frustrated with the national debt. The concern was so predominate that it caused concerns for an over-heated economy. Working Americans slowed their spending, started paying cash for more products and became disenchanted with a Republican Party that legislated more in the vein of “Democrat-lite”.
Democrats presented themselves as the bold new party of fiscal responsibility. They promised to go back to the days of spending restraints, balanced budgets, and lowering the deficit. Instead, Americans got an Operation Barbarossa on the fiscal stability of the nation: an attack that has stalled the economy on most every front. An attack that’s left the American People quaking in fear and trepidation about the national debt and the futures of their offspring for generations to come. A confection of every strain of (dare we say it?) Marxism that could be concocted within the confines of the US Constitution. National polling shows that 75% of Americans understand the nation is heading in the wrong direction. A direction opposite of what Democrats promised back in 2006.
These Democrats and their supporters (mostly public sector unions, those dependent on tax payer dollars for their substance, and self-identified Marxist organizations) herald the 1936 teachings of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes ignorantly opined that the private sector was adversarial towards the economy that public sector, and subsequently; policies were needed to balance the paradigm. For example, if a private sector ditch digger originally made $20,000 annually (approximately ten bucks an hour) then public sector should offer $22,000 annually with added benefits- thus forcing the private sector position to re-think its economic model. What it doesn’t take into account is the captive market of the public sector- the fact that tax payers can’t reasonably shop for a better price for a comparable service. “Pay the louse or lose your house” is the reality. The opposite is the reality in the private sector. For most every purchase, the prudent customer shops for a combination of the best product versus the best price available. This is the problem with Keynes’ assertions.
America experienced that very situation and Democrats developed a “minimum wage”. At some point this may have been a good idea. The idea, though; has turned into a monster that has reached beyond the economy and disrupted the lives of the American family. There was a time in recent history where a family could live on a single income; and if things got “tight” the other spouse could enter the work force long enough to regain financial stability- then return to regain the original arrangement. Most often the situation focused on the nurturing of children and homemaking. The model was a chosen model for each family to make: specifically because the financial stability of the nation allowed the decision. Furthermore, the minimum wage became a political tool. Unions for example use the “wage” as the standard for their negotiations. For example, the entry-level job at McWherevers that gets an increase of 10% results in the union member getting a 10% wage increase as well- thus making the wage a political tool to pay off loyal union members. This is Keynesian applications “gone wild”.
Keynesian economic models were tweaked between the Great Depression and the 1970’s when they nearly drove the nation into a second Depression. Still, well meaning politicians such as Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter tried to augment or broaden their applications: with dismal results. Americans, ready to abandon the model elected Ronald Reagan . Reagan offered a supply-side model (Democrats call the model “trickle down” as an attempt to divide Americans- not because the model doesn’t work, but because it negates their ability to re-pay unions with someone elses money). The model says “if a government charges 0% for taxes it takes in nothing. If it charges 100% for taxes, it takes in nothing. Somewhere in between those two numbers is the optimal percentage that allows workers to keep more of their wages while supplying sufficient levels of cash flow for the government. The model, coupled with decreased Keynesian interference has proved itself to be more effective.
Todays voter has been educated on the differences between supply-side and Keynesian that they no longer need a champion for the model- THEY arechampions in themselves- and the politically minded resent their knowledge of the issue. Americans understand the ONLY reason to continue to gravitate to Keynes model is to perpetuate the political advantage of unions and tax-paid employees- which explains why the Democrat Party continues to support this destructive model.
Because Democrats CANNOT operate without the wide-spread support of the unions, they CANNOT make the best decision for America and perpetuate the viability of their Party. Which puts them in a position of being adversarial towards the welfare (as in “condition” not “free stuff” That clarification for liberal readers) of the nation- and the private lives of American workers.
On the other hand we see President Obama who believes in socialism: and is dragging the rest of his party down the primrose path promised by Karl Marx. There is no reasonable refutation of this premise as a fact.
Americans agree that the first responsibility of the upcoming election is to fire Obama- but just as important is the need to remove the Democrat quislings for their willingness to harm the nation to perpetuate their influence with labor unions.
