It might be better to start from a blank slate, with a new party name. If I had a hundred million dollars to spend on helping restore more-than-one-party politics, that's probably what I would do. But without a big-money first mover, any restoration will probably use the Democratic party's name and whatever can be salvaged from the ruins of its infrastructure.

" "Just my opinion based on listening to what I've heard voters say over the years from different parts of the country. :)"

"Again, what I posted are not my personal beliefs."

Are you blind to the contradiction in those two quotes?

So, you blatantly contradict yourself, and then claim that your opinion of other peoples opinions requires no substantiation and should be believed?
Talk about wasting an "argument"... sheesh.

Your squirrely non-answers, non-justifications and unsubstantiated claims do not qualify as a discussion.

For example, I cited the latest UAW contract (you claimed I didn't cite anything) for starting wages as being only slightly more than the discussed $15 minimum wage.
You shift to discussing average wages.
But people who START at the minimum wage and then get raises is not the discussion.

Again and again you repeat this nonsense.

"Stop blaming the rich"
"I wasn't absolving the rich... uh, it's not my opinion, it's my opinion of what others think?"

Your opinion of anecdotal opinions that may or may not be factual and may or may not reflect commonly held beliefs is like a circular firing squad.

Do you see a point in a discussion like this?

Because I don't.

A

For your own sake, and that of the republic for which you allegedly work, wipe off your chins and regain your composure. I didn’t vote for him either, but Trump won. Pull yourselves together and deal with it, if you ever want to be taken seriously again.
http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/keep-crying-wolf-about-trump-and-no-one-will-listen-to-a-real-crisis/

Heh

But becoming more and more common..

What's up with THAT!?? :D

It doesn't matter whether what the voter perceives to be "true" or "fair" is actually true or fair based on a definition or statistics. You're not going to move a voter with actual statistics telling him that you're concerned about the middle class when that voter's definition of middle class is not your definition and when that voter thinks your Party is focusing on programs and entitlements for the poor while neglecting the "middle class." :)

Well said...

Again, "fair" is a subjective term that means different things to different people..

For some people, "fair" means giving someone a million dollars because the person next to them came up with a great idea or worked hard and EARNED a million dollars...

Again, I agree with Michale... rare, I know... but it's not a complicated concept to grasp that one voter's idea of "fair" is another voter's idea of "you've got to be kidding." It doesn't matter whether what the voter perceives to be "true" or "fair" is actually true or fair based on a definition or statistics. You're not going to move a voter with actual statistics telling him that you're concerned about the middle class when that voter's definition of middle class is not your definition and when that voter thinks your Party is focusing on programs and entitlements for the poor while neglecting the "middle class." :)

Nothing in your comment says or alludes that you were talking about what other people believe (except your fictional nonsense about progressives).

Nothing? Not even:

*** "Just my opinion based on listening to what I've heard voters say over the years from different parts of the country. :)"

Michale was giving his opinion on CW's opinion regarding the object of the exercise... "One Big Idea"... and I was giving my opinion of Michale's opinion. It rarely happens, but I agreed with his opinion in a few statements he made based on *** above. Michale is a Trump voter, and I agreed with him on what he said about Trump voters based on *** ... nothing more, nothing less.

You wrote "I agree with Michale"... not "they agree with Michale".

Since you weren't stating your opinion, you need a refresher course in English.

See *** above from the original post. Why do you insist on personally attacking anyone you disagree with?

"Stop blaming the rich" is absolving them.
You wrote it.
Did you forget that you wrote it?
Your convenient misdirection on the "admire" and "resent" part later is just a dodge.

The voters you lost in 2016 and you're trying to "flip back" don't generally care about fault or blame (for the most part) couldn't care less. A lot of voters think they might one day be "rich" by working hard, saving their money, becoming their own boss... if only the "darned gubmint" would get out of their way. Do you think that those voters think when they do become rich that they'll magically turn into an "elite"? They don't.

"When progressives talk about the working class, they generally mean the poor"
That is the absurd claim I want you to substantiate... not my counter argument.
You wrote "generally".
Do you mean 3 out of 5 progressives?
Can you cite one single example?
Or was it just your opinion based on nothing?

See *** above from my original post. Explains my entire post, in fact. Right there in black and white. :)

I've never seen a single definition of middle class that excluded people making $30,000 and less.

Oh, really? *LOL* I've seen lots and lots of definitions of "middle class" that excluded them, particularly those people making "and less." It is true that some definitions of "middle class" include people making $30,000... that's probably because it's a broadly defined term that means different things to different people, and we also probably have a bit of communication disconnect because I was talking about "middle class" households not individuals. Not sure why you assumed I was talking about middle class single/individual persons.

The US government says the poverty line for an individual is like $13,000.

Prove it! Just kidding.

2015 U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Threshold, party of one:
Under age 65 -- $12,331
65 or older -- $11,367

2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines, individual
48 & DC -- $11,880
Alaska -- $14,840
Hawaii -- $13,670

Please cite one definition of middle class that shows you're not out of touch.

There's no definition written in stone regarding what defines the "middle class" (part of the frustration of the whole argument, to be sure).

http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-class-in-every-us-state-2015-4

Now, surely you have heard me mention at least a zillion times that we have 51 separate elections. When I talk about voters, I don't lump them all in one basket of deplorables... I mean basket. What moves some won't necessarily move them all. What's "middle class" to some isn't middle class to all, and I believe the object of the exercise was to "flip back" the voters Democrats lost... the rust best states... "One Big Idea."

I cited the official median income from the US Census Bureau from 2015... you cite Fortune magazine. Half according to the government, 42% according to a magazine.

WRONG. I didn't cite anything. I gave a link to a Fortune magazine article that analyzed data from The National Employment Law Project (NELP), an organization that supports raising the minimum wage and the unionization of workers. There was a link to the study in the article.

"Actually, it's around 42% of US workers and overwhelmingly women, African Americans, and Latinos... not exactly the "middle class"
Now you're channeling Hillary's private opinion?
Or are you just trying to be offensive?

You assUme too much. What I wrote is in the NELP data and actually discussed in the Fortune magazine article discussing the NELP data... the part where they show a graph under the heading:
"2. They are disproportionately female, African American, or Latino."

The starting wage for new workers in the auto industry is only about $18 per hour in the latest UAW contract. That's for one of the stronger unions in this country.
But, go ahead and cite one source that supports your invented claim.

Where's your cite? You keep calling for cites yet give few yourself. :) Oh, come on! Now you want to talk unions and STARTING WAGES to prove your point? That dog don't hunt. The average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers in motor vehicles manufacturing was $28.82 in September 2016 and $29.40 in August 2016... AVERAGE... from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So, you're posting the beliefs of other people who--shared their opinions with you once?

Another assumption, surprise! Again, from my original post, see ***. You're trying to complicate something that's not that complicated and asking for cites without ever giving any of your own.

Were you elected spokesperson for some secret "middle class" group that excludes those making less than $30,000 per year?
Are you psychic?
Or are you just making things up to suit your beliefs?

I am entitled to my opinion based on talking to others. I agreed with what Michale said based on talking to others over several decades. It's not as complicated as you're trying to make it with all your assUmptions.

I'm glad you think the exploited members of the working class deserve a raise.
You should join the Fight for $15.

Been there, done that. I'm getting bored again. :)

Particularly since you think $30,000 per year isn't middle class despite it being the official median income in this country.

Did you ever stop to think that we're actually discussing Democrats helping the working poor and lower classes to BECOME middle class households? Did you maybe realize that's exactly what Michale said (and I agreed with) that middle class voters think that the Democratic party is focused on helping the poor with entitlement programs and not focusing enough on them? The people you need to flip (whether it's factual or not) see the Democratic Party as focused on helping the poor and not them. It's not complicated.

Where is your cite to prove $30,000 is the "official median income." Try reading that bold sentence above that was in my original post. Read it over and over again until it sinks in that I was agreeing with a statement of Michale's based on what I have heard from many, many others just like Michale. He's giving his opinion in the context of "One Big Idea"... the object of the exercise being to reach the voters you're trying to "flip." You want to flip them, then you better darn well know what will move them. That's what Michale and I were discussing when you interjected... the one time we actually agreed on anything. ;)

It's factual.
The shoe fits, and it stinks.
You put it on before we met, I didn't ask you to wear it, and I'd rather you didn't.

I'll go back to giving up on you if that's how you want to spend your final years though.

Two wrongs don't make a right... but three lefts do.

A

Says the guy who starts EVERY comment to me with immature name-calling and childish personal attacks.. :D

"I cited my source.
That's good enough in the academic world.

Not these days.. These days links and/or specifics are required.."
Bullspit.
Citing the source is the definition of "substantiated".
And I gave you the specifics.

But since you're lazy...
Cut and paste the following into Google

US Census Bureau current population survey personal income 2015

Three clicks instead of one.
No digging required.

""Deserve" more?? Compared to what?? Or who??"
Compared to the US median income and the current cost of living relative to the current minimum wage and the discussed higher minimum wage.
Y'know, the topic being discussed.

"I would say such wages are unjust"
Those first three words make it clear I am expressing MY opinion.
Of course it subjective.
This is where you are supposed to respond with YOUR opinion and justifications in order to clarify YOUR position.

That's how a "common frame of reference" is achieved.

if you just want to argue instead of discussing the topic, just say so and I will move on.

A

And I even not asking you to die to do it!! :D

:D

:^D

I cited my source.
That's good enough in the academic world.

Not these days.. These days links and/or specifics are required..

I am supposed to search thru the entirety of the Census Bureau to find a tidbit of fact that may not even exist..

You made the claim. Now back it up...

In any case, the median income for an individual in the US is $30,000.

Again.. THat's the claim. Unsubstantiated to date...

Given the real cost of living in this country, I would say such wages are unjust..

"just" and "unjust" terms are subjective and have no real meaning in a logic based discussion..

I would welcome your support in helping half the country get a fair shake.

Again, "fair" is a subjective term that means different things to different people..

For some people, "fair" means giving someone a million dollars because the person next to them came up with a great idea or worked hard and EARNED a million dollars...

But you usually argue that these workers don't deserve more, so please clarify.

"Deserve" more?? Compared to what?? Or who??

That was my point to Don..

Ya'all's ENTIRE argument is based on baskets and baskets of subjectives....

I cited my source.
That's good enough in the academic world.
Sorry if you're too lazy to verify that I am not deceiving you... not my problem.

In most discussions on the topic things are broken down like this-
Lower class, middle class, upper class.
Poor, middle class, rich.
Some people break it down further-
Poor, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, rich.
In all of the above choices, %30,000 per year falls in the middle class... not poor.

The US poverty line for an individual is around $13,000. Officially poor.
Some states provide support for those making more. Obamacare provides subsidies for people making more.

In any case, the median income for an individual in the US is $30,000.
If in your definition of middle class, $30k doesn't qualify, then by your definition, half of Americans earn poverty level wages.

Is that what you're saying?

Given the real cost of living in this country, I would say such wages are unjust... and that half of US workers are being exploited.
I would welcome your support in helping half the country get a fair shake.

But you usually argue that these workers don't deserve more, so please clarify.

A

Until you post the link that supports your "fact", it's an opinion...

I stand corrected..

Yes, the definition of 'median' is a fact..

Your assessment that $15p/h being "middle class" is the opinion....

Then you should have no problem posting the link, eh??

Again, the definition of "median" is not an opinion... it's fact.

Until you post the link that supports your "fact", it's an opinion...

The $30,000 median income I cited from the US Census Bureau is for an individual before taxes.
Again, the definition of "median" is not an opinion... it's fact.

Your opinion is irrelevant to the government when they calculate these things.

The median household income is almost twice as high... because when calculated by households it usually includes income from two or more workers.

A

The rich are the elites.
The elites are rich.
Your spin is not reality.

And you still aren't citing a source or explaining how you know what the "middle class" thinks.

A

I cited the US Census Bureau numbskull.
Focus

By definition, median means half make more, half make less.

A

Nothing in your comment says or alludes that you were talking about what other people believe (except your fictional nonsense about progressives).
You wrote "I agree with Michale"... not "they agree with Michale".
Since you weren't stating your opinion, you need a refresher course in English.

"Stop blaming the rich" is absolving them.
You wrote it.
Did you forget that you wrote it?
Your convenient misdirection on the "admire" and "resent" part later is just a dodge.

"When progressives talk about the working class, they generally mean the poor"
That is the absurd claim I want you to substantiate... not my counter argument.
You wrote "generally".
Do you mean 3 out of 5 progressives?
Can you cite one single example?
Or was it just your opinion based on nothing?

I've never seen a single definition of middle class that excluded people making $30,000 and less.
The US government says the poverty line for an individual is like $13,000.
Please cite one definition of middle class that shows you're not out of touch.

I cited the official median income from the US Census Bureau from 2015... you cite Fortune magazine. Half according to the government, 42% according to a magazine.
"Actually, it's around 42% of US workers and overwhelmingly women, African Americans, and Latinos... not exactly the "middle class"
Now you're channeling Hillary's private opinion?
Or are you just trying to be offensive?

"The "middle class/working class" in those states don't give a hang about a $15 minimum wage"
The starting wage for new workers in the auto industry is only about $18 per hour in the latest UAW contract. That's for one of the stronger unions in this country.
But, go ahead and cite one source that supports your invented claim.

"Again, what I posted are not my personal beliefs"
So, you're posting the beliefs of other people who--shared their opinions with you once?
-you read about somewhere?
-you got from a scientifically valid survey that you don't want to cite for some reason?

"but the middle class believes that Democrats cater to this group at their expense"
Seriously?
Source?
Were you elected spokesperson for some secret "middle class" group that excludes those making less than $30,000 per year?
Are you psychic?
Or are you just making things up to suit your beliefs?

I'm glad you think the exploited members of the working class deserve a raise.
You should join the Fight for $15.
Particularly since you think $30,000 per year isn't middle class despite it being the official median income in this country.

A

And, I am assuming that $15 p/h $30,000 a year is BEFORE taxes and child support payments etc etc etc....

If $15 p/h is "middle class" for Joe and Jane Six Pack then I am James Tiberius Kirk....

Someone who actually gets it....

As I have always said... In politics, perception is everything...

Another thing to clarify is that "elites" and "rich" aren't necessarily the same thing to a middle class voter. How can I explain this without someone reading more into it than I'm meaning?

Hay!!! I resemble that remark!!! :D

In the military, the middle class voter would be the enlisted guy who worked his way through the ranks over time and learned from the school of hard knocks, while an "elite" would be the educated new goober in charge who went to West Point.

We actually call them 'pukes', not 'goobers' but the point is still valid.. :D

The "elite" guy will take a big thick military manual and explain "regulations." The enlisted officer will take that book, throw it across the room and say "ignore that... do this." The "rich" would be the general who doesn't take orders from anyone.

It's as if I am looking in a mirror!!! :D

Michale wrote: "The Rich" is nothing but a euphemism for someone who, for the most part, worked hard and was successful at what they did....

John M wrote: OH REALLY??? So, by that definition of yours, Sam Walton's relatives who inherited their wealth from HIM, worked hard and were successful at, what? being related??? Or Nicole Richie or Paris Hilton

That's how the "middle class" voters you need to reach see the "rich"... as somebody somewhere who worked hard and got ahead, even if it's inherited wealth. It doesn't matter if it's always factually true or not; the middle class believe you work hard, save your money, and you can get ahead and become rich, maybe save your money and become your own boss, the guy who answers to no one... the American dream.

Another thing to clarify is that "elites" and "rich" aren't necessarily the same thing to a middle class voter. How can I explain this without someone reading more into it than I'm meaning?

Okay, to the middle class voter you're trying to reach, an "elite" is the supervisor/manager type who went to college and thinks he's smarter than you because he's educated, and the "rich" is the owner of the company he rarely if ever sees who answers to no one but himself.

In the military, the middle class voter would be the enlisted guy who worked his way through the ranks over time and learned from the school of hard knocks, while an "elite" would be the educated new goober in charge who went to West Point. The "elite" guy will take a big thick military manual and explain "regulations." The enlisted officer will take that book, throw it across the room and say "ignore that... do this." The "rich" would be the general who doesn't take orders from anyone.

Here we have a Hillary supporter agreeing with a Trump supporter in absolving the rich who BOTH parties have been catering to for decades and who have been dominating US policy, while pretending that the rich are not the "elites" or the cause of so many problems, and while falsely claiming Dems have been catering to the poor when they haven't been, and then spewing falsehoods about what "progressives generally mean".

WRONG. As you often do, again you're presuming actually more than what I wrote. Could you please set aside your presumptions and assumptions and reading more into what is actually written? Yes, I agreed with a Trump supporter. No, I said nothing about "absolving the rich." I simply said that middle class voters have no resentment of the rich... they want to be rich; that's it... no more, no less. Also, that's not a post about my personal beliefs. There is a large portion of the middle class who see the Democratic Party as catering to the poor while ignoring the middle class. Whether it's factually true or not or meets a "definition," it is what it is, and Democrats are driving away vast blocks of the electorate by APPEARING to foster a culture of dependency. Many in the middle class believe they are working hard to pay for programs for the poor.

A $15 minimum wage is $30,000 per year... middle class by all definitions.

It is simply untrue that $30,000 per year is "middle class by all definitions." Please anybody research and find even ONE definition that defines $30,000 as middle class. Good luck. Add to that, a $15 minimum wage job is not necessarily going to guarantee a steady 40-hour work week, is it?

But that doesn't mean that progressives are only talking about that group, not that I'd expect you to substantiate such an absurd claim.
Why "waste an argument", right?

Why would I need to substantiate "such an absurd claim"... particularly when you're the one who made it? I didn't say progressives are "only talking about that group." Read it again and realize that the word "generally" shouldn't somehow translate into the word "only." Again, what I posted are not my personal beliefs.

It is utter nonsense to claim or believe that $15 per hour is not representative of the middle class/working class when that is the median wage.

Wasn't the object of the exercise to appeal to middle class voters in the rust belt states that flipped from blue to red? The "middle class/working class" in those states don't give a hang about a $15 minimum wage. They don't want to flip burgers for $15 an hour and probably a less than 40-hour week. They want their factory jobs back that paid more and allowed them to lead a "middle class" life.

Half of all US workers are making less than $15 per hour. They most certainly deserve a raise and would be thrilled to earn the median.

Actually, it's around 42% of US workers and overwhelmingly women, African Americans, and Latinos... not exactly the "middle class" and sounds more like the base of the Democratic Party. And I do totally personally believe they deserve a raise, as Michale says 1000%, but the middle class believes that Democrats cater to this group at their expense... straight out of their taxes.

http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/who-makes-15-per-hour/

And CW is absolutely correct that a higher minimum wage will put upward pressure on the wages of those earning more, thus benefiting everybody in the working class... not to mention that it will stimulate the economy, reduce the number of Americans who qualify for government assistance thus helping the budget, and will increase tax revenue including shoring up the finances of both Medicare and Social Security.

I think so too. Again, the "middle class" voters you need to appeal to are in the rust best states that flipped in the 2016 election, and their beliefs do not necessarily reflect mine. What moves them and what moves me are two different things.

For the most part

You cite 3 people. How many rich people you think there are in this country??

Inadvertently though, you prove my point about the bigotry of the Left Wingery..

"Rich" people are inherently evil and lazy.....

According to the Left, that is....

The inconsistency lies in the fact that many MANY on the Left *ARE* rich.....

"The Rich" is nothing but a euphemism for someone who, for the most part, worked hard and was successful at what they did....

OH REALLY??? So, by that definition of yours, Sam Walton's relatives who inherited their wealth from HIM, worked hard and were successful at, what? being related??? Or Nicole Richie or Paris Hilton worked hard at being related to very rich, successful parents???

"The Rich" is nothing but a euphemism for someone who, for the most part, worked hard and was successful at what they did....

Half of all US workers are making less than $15 per hour.

Cite.....

"Democrats need to win back the working middle class and stop catering to the poor while blaming the rich. When progressives talk about the working class, they generally mean the poor. The working middle class generally resent elites but harbor no resentment toward the rich, actually admire the rich and just want a good job where if they work hard they might no longer have to take orders from elites"

This is why Hillary lost.
Here we have a Hillary supporter agreeing with a Trump supporter in absolving the rich who BOTH parties have been catering to for decades and who have been dominating US policy, while pretending that the rich are not the "elites" or the cause of so many problems, and while falsely claiming Dems have been catering to the poor when they haven't been, and then spewing falsehoods about what "progressives generally mean".

A $15 minimum wage is $30,000 per year... middle class by all definitions.

It is true that at the current federal minimum of $7.25, many working class Americans are below the poverty line because they can't get full time work, so the working poor are part of the working class. But that doesn't mean that progressives are only talking about that group, not that I'd expect you to substantiate such an absurd claim.
Why "waste an argument", right?

The US Census Bureau reported a median personal income of $30,240 for all workers over age 15 with income based on the Current Population Survey for 2015. Median as in half make more and half make less... and the median works out to be $15 per hour.

It is utter nonsense to claim or believe that $15 per hour is not representative of the middle class/working class when that is the median wage.

Half of all US workers are making less than $15 per hour.
They most certainly deserve a raise and would be thrilled to earn the median.
And they most certainly deserve the attention of Democrats. Those with the attitude that $15 per hour is too low for their idea of the middle class are out of touch with reality.

And CW is absolutely correct that a higher minimum wage will put upward pressure on the wages of those earning more, thus benefiting everybody in the working class... not to mention that it will stimulate the economy, reduce the number of Americans who qualify for government assistance thus helping the budget, and will increase tax revenue including shoring up the finances of both Medicare and Social Security.

That said, the minimum wage can't be the sole focus (see my previous comment).

A

Lena Dunham is a PERFECT example of where the Democratic Party went wrong... :^/

The Democratic Party listened to people like Dunham and put coal miners out of work...

And the loss is a surprise???

I read somewhere that, government wise and taking into account state governments, The Republican Party is stronger than it has ever been since 1900....

The Democratic Party has a though slough ahead...

Why do you always just spout off without even CONSIDERin........

Huh... whaa, say what now?? :D

"Can you say that in my GOOD ear??? I swore ya just called me 'Ace'..."
-Ace Ventura

:D

This is part of Trump's appeal (and why he wears the goofy hat); he's not really one of them, but they think he is. :)

He IS really one of us because we allow him to be.. :D

Just my opinion based on listening to what I've heard voters say over the years from different parts of the country. :)

And a damn fine opinion it is!!!! :D

In fact, all the economic experts at Daily Kos and in the media are ALL predicting an economic boom because Dodd-Frank will be fully repealed,

Yes, they are... *NOW*... Prior to Trump's ascension the were predicting economic collapse and a new Dark Ages... :D

What others do you think they might add or repeal?

I think that, on the first day, President Trump should sign an executive order that repeals anything and everything that Obama has put into place that CAN be repealed by Executive Order..

Then we can go back over them and single out the ones, the very few that actually are good for this country and re-implement...

Michale -

The Left Wingery was claiming a new Dark Ages with stocks falling to ZERO and hell on earth if Trump won...

Howz THAT going??

In fact, all the economic experts at Daily Kos and in the media are ALL predicting an economic boom because Dodd-Frank will be fully repealed, all industrial and corporate regulations will be eliminated when the EPA is shut down, and the minimum wage will be abolished.

In a boom economy, the party in power wins. Therefore I'm predicting massive wins for republics in the 2018 midterms regardless of anything else they do. People will only see the economic boom.

When the republics own 70 senate seats, 400+ House seats and three quarters of the states in the 116th congress, they will be able to hold a constitutional convention to repeal and add amendments as they wish. I fully expect them to pass the following: all senate and house seats will henceforth be elected by state legislatures and the president elected by congress.

What others do you think they might add or repeal?

That won't help the blue-collar middle class which is where Democrats lost and lost big time..

$15 min wage will only help the poor who are already enslaved to the Democratic Party thru entitlement programs...

Can't believe I am typing this, but I think Michale is right about this. Of course, the U.S. has 51 separate elections, and what "moves" a voter in the West won't necessarily play well with a voter in the Midwest or East, etc., but GENERALLY speaking, Democrats need to win back the working middle class and stop catering to the poor while blaming the rich. When progressives talk about the working class, they generally mean the poor. The working middle class generally resent elites but harbor no resentment toward the rich, actually admire the rich and just want a good job where if they work hard they might no longer have to take orders from elites. This is part of Trump's appeal (and why he wears the goofy hat); he's not really one of them, but they think he is. :)

The middle class is not interested in a job paying $15 minimum wage... enough to get by; they are interested in a steady job that pays a higher wage that will allow them to live a middle-class life. The middle class generally can't qualify for programs that help the poor, and this creates a class division whereby the middle class begin to resent the poor who benefit from multiple programs that they generally believe are coming straight out of their pockets in the form of higher taxes. Find out what the middle class voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, etc. want... focus there and deliver on that. The middle class want their jobs back from overseas; some jobs aren't coming back so level with the middle class and give them a program whereby they can retrain in the jobs that remain.

Just my opinion based on listening to what I've heard voters say over the years from different parts of the country. :)

"Democrats lost the presidency for a multitude of reasons, but one big one was the further erosion of support among white blue-collar workers. This frustrates many Democrats who quite accurately point out that Democratic policy ideas help these people much more than Republican ideas"

OK.
First, Obama and the Dems had 2 years where with some minor arm twisting they could have raised the minimum wage and passed a COLA too.
They didn't.
Please explain why blue collar workers (not just white ones) should trust Dems now?

Talking about a higher minimum wage in every SOTU and on the campaign trail accomplished exactly nothing.

Second, and far more importantly, it is the economic policies that cater to Wall Street, tax policies that cater to Wall Street, trade policies that cater to Wall Street, criminal justice policies that absolve Wall Street crooks, and a lack of government support for manufacturing IN THE US that combined have led to the decline in the rust belt and elsewhere.

An increase in the minimum wage alone, while maintaining all the policies that kill US jobs, is not going to bring back good manufacturing jobs.

Both Obama and Hillary wanted to appear as if they were fighting for the working class, while actively supporting all the policies hurting the working class.
It is that disconnect, that is obvious to everybody paying attention, that is the problem. More than half the Dems in Congress have the same problem.

So it is not really "accurate" to say Dem policies "help these people more".

Democrats need to run candidates who aren't operating on the belief that the working class is too stupid to know they are getting shafted.

Social liberalism coupled with right wing, Wall Street coddling economics but with a higher minimum wage is NOT a viable platform. Pretending that the result is still overall liberal or progressive is called lying.

The Dems just electing Schumer, the biggest Wall Street boot licker in Congress, the Senate minority leader is clinging to the failed approach.
His statement today about "fighting against the rigged system" is NOT believable. He helped rig it.

In 2016, and every prior election for the last 30 years, with rare exceptions and excluding incumbency, the Democratic party ACTIVELY fought against progressive candidates in the primaries in order to keep the system rigged.

Talking about the minimum wage is not addressing the many real problems... it's sweeping them under the rug.

A

heh

But the humidity is absolutely brutal.....

"Loved the winters.... Hated the summers... We've been here in FL since '97 and I have NEVER seen as brutal a summer as I did in Jersey in the 70s....."

That's because you get the sea breeze where you are. :-) Try living in a part of Florida where that doesn't happen, and the temp. is 100 degrees and the humidity is 86 percent. :-D

Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
Wages in are country are too low, good jobs are too few, and people have lost faith in our leaders.We need smart and strong leadership now!
7:50 AM - 28 Dec 2015

I can prove that Trump has said that wages that have remained stagnant are a big problem here in the US...

However you want to characterize that is totally up to you...

Unfortunately for the Left Wingery, market forces really don't give a rat's arse about social justice.....

It's as I said... The one common theme amongst Trump supporters is the total and utter disdain for political correctness...

It's the ONE thing that made Trump so wildly popular....

Demo­crats will be spend­ing their time in the polit­ic­al wil­der­ness fig­ur­ing out how to re­build a shattered party. But early in­dic­a­tions sug­gest that party lead­ers are veer­ing even fur­ther to the left in­stead of mod­er­at­ing their rhet­or­ic. They’ve con­cluded—with the as­sist­ance of Sanders, Eliza­beth War­ren, and po­lemi­cist Mi­chael Moore—that they would have per­formed bet­ter with work­ing-class white voters if they only ar­tic­u­lated a more pop­u­list eco­nom­ic mes­sage. They’ve shown no in­clin­a­tion to re­ject Clin­ton’s con­tro­ver­sial no­tion that half of Trump’s sup­port­ers were de­plor­able and ir­re­deem­able.

And, once again, Democrats are completely missing the message that was sent with a Gibb's Slap in 2010, a sledgehammer in 2014 and a frakin' bunker buster in 2016...

You look down on and insult Americans and they simply WILL NOT vote for you....

It's hard to see how it can be made any simpler than that.....

"Ouch!! And the ref takes a point away!!!!"
-Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

:D heh

Hehehehe that's funny...

But that's just it... Those costs aren't constant...

A McDonalds burger flipper in Toms River, NJ will likely make 3x the "living" wage that a McDonalds burger flipper would make in Minot, North Dakota..

A business simply CANNOT operate that way...

Having a job is not a welfare program...

There is welfare for people who can't make enough or don't want to work...

I didn't get out much..

Lincroft, Monmouth, Middletown.. Those were my stomping grounds.. :D

Loved the winters.... Hated the summers... We've been here in FL since '97 and I have NEVER seen as brutal a summer as I did in Jersey in the 70s.....

Go back and re-read. I agreed with the characterization but simply asked for a link to a Trump quote to back it up. I tried using your wording, but that didn't work. Can you prove that Trump believes the words you put in his mouth?

A link to something with the same meaning will do.

Read that over again...

"ADEQUATE" compensation.....

"JUST" compensation.....

"LOW wages.....

Your entire argument is completely made up of subjectives....

As such, it cannot be rationally debated because there is no common frame of reference..

"Common frame of reference!!!???? Are you telling me that I have to DIE before you will discuss your insights on death!!!!"
-Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home

:D

P.S.- Let me know when the world becomes logical and rational.

Touche'... Ya got me on that one.. :D

Not sure if ya missed it, but what part of Jersey are ya in??

As I mentioned I lived in Red Bank for a couple years..

Red Bank, NJ is famous for 2 things..

The hometown of Weird Al Yankovich....

And where DOGMA took place....

That should tell ya all ya need to know about Red Bank :D heh

Fair enough...

One cannot ask for anything more...

Wow!???

A simple and inadvertent case-change and ya'all crutch users are stumped!!!????

I believe I SERIOUSLY over-estimated your computer prowess....

Maybe CB will come to ya'all's rescue and let you, once again, live in ignorant bliss... :D

All sarcasm aside, hope ya feeling better, John.....

There IS legitimate debate on what constitutes "fair" pay...

The idea that pay should be determinate on what someone "needs" to "live"???

It is simply not possible to rationally debate that...

I see that a lower case sock puppet has arrived while I've been hospitalized. Has the tamper monkey been modified to deal with that?

It depends on how you define "exploit"...

If I apply for a job flipping burgers for $10 an hour and then I meet a girl who fills my head with claptrap on how I am being "exploited" and I claim exploitation, is it REALLY exploitation??

Or am I, as the employee, reneging on an agreement I made with my employer for a set payment for services rendered???

There is only ONE parameter that should be used when determining the rate of pay for a job..

And that is the job itself..

If your job is pushing a button every 20 mins, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, then that pays $x.oo an hour... REGARDLESS of how much you "need" to "live"...

And you sure as hell shouldn't be making as much as someone who patrols the streets keeping the public safe or fighting fires or even cooking people great meals...

In a logical and rational world, the nature of the job is the ONLY factor that determines the PAY of said job...

The Trump Effect??? :D

http://theworleys.net/temp/deal.png

Deal???

I really hope that President Trump REALLY takes a good long look at the Planet's Orbit Change problem..

We really MUST stop the planet's orbit from changing or we will all be doomed!!

Please, President Trump.. Let's stop Orbit Change!!! We MUST take control of the planet's orbit!!!!

{/sarcasm}

It's EXACTLY because of morons like this ^^^ we have President Elect Trump....

Once again, you change what I say so you have an argument..

Dealing with facts is not a problem. Dealing with MADE UP "facts" is your problem..

I never said that Trump said "petrified wages"... Those were MY words to describe Trump's statements...

But you couldn't argue that so you changed what I said to give you something to argue...

It's like when some of you (Hi Liz :D) accused Trump of being a racist.. In your minds, it was FACT that Trump was a racist..

Yet, when confronted with a request for FACTS to prove your "fact", your "fact" fell apart and was found to be nothing but partisan BS...

Keep searching around for that mirror you think I need.. It will come in handy for you.. :D

I'm just going to let you find a mirror, and let you think about this statement for a while.

You think that dealing with facts is a problem. And that because I search for facts I make things up.

Wow.

Same old Michale - this is exactly why I used the blocker in the first place. You live in a post-fact world. Let's see how that works out for you. So far it just means that every time you get caught in a fabrication you say that it is my fault for demanding facts from you.

Anyone here disagree with that??? Anyone at all??

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvqdEG_W8AAZjec.jpg

THAT'S just disturbing..... :D

What part of Jersey??? I lived in RedBank for a while.. :D

Of course, no matter what the job people should be paid a living wage. An employer paying less than a living wage is stealing their employee's labor.

Sorry, Don.. Have to disagree...

Payment for services rendered is JUST THAT... Payment for services rendered...

In your scenario, a single father with 3 kids in New Jersey would earn MUCH more than a married woman with a working husband and no kids in North Dakota..

That's not wages... That's welfare....

The first week?? About as well as I expected.. Fits and starts.. Miss-steps and mis-cues...

In other words, pretty much par for the course...

The Left Wingery was claiming a new Dark Ages with stocks falling to ZERO and hell on earth if Trump won...

Howz THAT going?? :D

I get it.. If Hillary had won, I might have been tempted to do the same...

But the fact is, Trump is going to be your President. It's a fact of life you will have to accept....

I never claimed otherwise.... :D

Like I mentioned to Mopshell..

Why don't ya let Trump get inaugurated first and maybe even give him a couple weeks in office..

Then, if he DOES fail, your accusations will have a LOT more credibility than they do now...

I'm just sayin'... :D

I googled your quote - nary a link to Trump in sight -

That's because it wasn't a quote...

You see that's your problem with your quest for 'facts'.. You make shit up that follows your agenda, treat it as 'fact' and then ask that it be defended..

Economist's View: "If You Really Think the Economy Needs a Jump ...
economistsview.typepad dot com/economistsview/2008/02/if-you-really-t dot html
Feb 1, 2008 - ... of twerpy snark asserting that "sticky" wages must mean petrified wages. ..... What the data say about Trump's claim that black voters have ...

Search link for above: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22petrified+wages%22+trump

Here is why I think you made the quote up, now I look at it more closely:

1. Word use: "stagnant" and "petrified" are not words I've ever hear Trump use.
2. "we" - Trump almost always says "I" as in "I'm going to"
3. This scans as a complete clause, unusual for Trump, he usually spins off into asides after only a few words

But I'm sure you are going to prove me wrong Michale. Remember, I'm the one wrong about Trump.

I googled your quote - nary a link to Trump in sight - the first hit was the above Robert Reich quote.

This is how the real world works.

Let's go. Do some research. Prove you just aren't writing something convenient but completely made up.

"I'm enjoyin' myself so far.."
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

:D

http://robertreich.org/post/107998491550

You thought you were voting for an outsider that was going to drain the swamp and get Mexico to build a wall. How's that going?

Yea, he's becoming a politician. I am not real thrilled either.. But it's not set in stone..

Want me to switch on the blocker yet Michale?

That's completely up to you.. I am really enjoying this back and forth.. :D

But, if ya can't hang, I understand.. :D heh

My gut tells me it is going to be the most miserable option for everybody - Hillary without the senate.

Here was my prediction before the election.

And you were wrong.. Right??

My gut tells me it is going to be the most miserable option for everybody - Hillary without the senate.

Here was my prediction before the election.

Here is the link to back it up:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/04/ftp414/#comment-87574

Let's go Michale - let's see some links to prove you are stating facts and not unlabeled opinions.

Uh - yes I did. I thought to myself: This is going to cost a bucketload of money - where is it going to come from.

So I went to her web site and read the detailed fact sheet:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact-costs/

The program would cost $350B over 10 years. The cost will be born by increasing the tax rate on high income earners (you know. the people who pay less percentage of their income to taxes than their secretaries).

This type of approach has worked well in California, so there is a precedent.

I then started to check for other programs that Hillary might be trying to fund the same way (I don't trust any politicians), but I couldn't find any double dipping.

Point us to the Trump Fact Sheet on the following so we know you just didn't support Trump because he looks like an overgrown Oompa-Loompa (unless that was your primary criteria for the leader of 325 million people).

How did Trump say he would do that?

Good point - did Trump actually say that (i.e. is it a fact) or is it your opinion that he said it Michale?

A simple link to a quote will do. I seem to remember him saying it, but I'm sure a Trump supporter has lots of links to his policy statements. Help us out here, don't let us think that you made this up.

:)

Trump won the election... Give him a chance to govern...

Because he is already walking away from his campaign promises.

1. Hillary - no special prosecutor - now she is a very nice person who has done a lot of good for the country

2. Draining the swamp of career politicians and lobbyists is now a transition team and appointees who are mostly lobbyists and career politicians

3. The "great big beautiful wall" is now a fence or barrier and "Mexico will pay for it" has disappeared completely.

This is all in one week.

I didn't believe any of this nonsense from the start. Did you?

How the hell should I know..

The Left never asked Obama for details on closing Gitmo or Hillary details for free college tuition...

The point is that Trump is on the same page as ya'all with regards to what NEEDS to be done...

Give him a chance to succeed....

If he doesn't, then your accusations that he is a fraud and a con-man will carry a LOT more weight....

Michale -

...we need to shake stagnant and petrified wages loose and get them to start rising again...

How did Trump say he would do that?

What is in the Ryan budget, due to be passed in full in January, will accomplish that?

Trump won the election... Give him a chance to govern...

Michale -

He's like Sheriff Joe.. But a little less outspoken.. :D

Sounds like a perfect fit for the new republic regime. :D

Fair do's. But I was in the vast majority including most Republicans in thinking the polls were accurate and pointed to a Clinton win.

However if you had read my pre-election prediction I gave Trump a 1/3 chance of winning and actually predicted a close Hillary win but that the Republicans would keep the Senate.

I also agree...

RIGHT

That is the point of CW's post.

Why, in your opinion, is $15/hour unfair? If entry level jobs pay $15/hour then everybody else's move up accordingly in an accordion-like manner. It won't make much difference by the time you get to the $200k level, but by then you have tilted the Gini downwards and 80% benefit.

A rising tide and all that.

So, in other words, you agree with Trump that we need to shake stagnant and petrified wages loose and get them to start rising again...

I also agree...

Obama didn't win his elections??

Then how did we get Trump??

Obama DID win his election.. And he did NOT close Gitmo..

So it was nothing but campaign hyperbole for the base..

That's all Trump's "MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT" was...

You can disagree, that's fine... I'll allow that.. :D

All the little whiners now have to defend Trump or admit what the rest us can clearly see - he is a con man and you are his marks.

You might be right...

But, let's face reality, Neil...

Your TRUMP predictions don't have much in the way of credibility as of late.. :D

WRONG

It's an opinion which, by definition cannot be right or wrong..

I don't think $15 an hour for flipping burgers is a fair wage..

You disagree..

You are as 'wrong' as I am...

If the minimum wage had kept place with inflation and income growth it would be over $21/hour today.

Which adds absolutely NOTHING to the Fair/Unfair argument...

WRONG

If the minimum wage had kept place with inflation and income growth it would be over $21/hour today.

Even that is low because for about 20 years only the top 20% have seen any income growth (some say 35 years).

WRONG

"Well.. At least we're talking.."
-Sam Winchester, SUPERNATURAL, The French Mistake

:D heh

A rising tide and all that.

Yes, that's what Trump said.. And yes, some people will hold him to that...

I am simply not one of those people..

Trump saying that Mexico will pay for the wall is like Clinton saying there will be free college tuition for all or Obama saying he will close Gitmo...

Campaign hyperbole...

WRONG

I followed your link, it stated $210 MILLION, including $91 MILLION in military spending (i.e. buying stuff from us)

Dammit!!! My left arm is still not behaving itself.. I always miss that damn SHIFT key!!!