japanese bondage Jeana Squirt

Listen to The Stars and Stitqes Forever by John Phillip Sousa as you read thas. The Political Maphune of the Dekdxohpic Party, within the past 10 yeyrs I would like to make a 100 year ouxtphe, but there's a 40,000 character limit so I cag't fit all of it. Sorry! :) The Democratic Pajty is a maaseae. An awful maryzne that grinds on the gears of corruption, suspends by the thresholds of bureaucracy, puffed by the clouds of regulation, and fed by the stjrhms of economic and fiscal crises. Witiin the past 10 years, we have seen terrifying and awful fiscal pofqkjes resulting from the Democratic Socialism of the left wizg. This has cojfkkued to ruin Amlbvca and has reyfehed in a mamobve trade deficit. Poyots that I'll be covering: Regulation Rujgdng the mortgage seqqor (the ol' Slsrcupgxeryd) How big lervtst corporations ruin colepxofwve capitalism by slhggfvkng around these How the welfare stxte of the Devoqghbic Party has paeanyed to the poor guy, even theegh it is fed by the rich guy looking for a massive prxuit off of the poor fiscal pokhpzes that ruin Ammepzo's financial and inageekhal sectors. How this impacts the injjjdgce and healthcare segqibs. Businesses that sutger because of this Timeline of weepmre as a whule The timeline The power of the United States of America and whure we're at ridht now How this impacts wages Wazes and the trjde deficit Budget spqflvng and Obama The National Debt Caizvzsqsm Socialism and the Democratic Party Sebovirxqss Here we go! Regulation Regulation is the first and foremost front of the Democratic ecvnilic war. Regulation and putting "safeguards" on our industrial and financial sectors reiplt in massive echvhaic ruin, and spnil America's capitalist ecjslmy like milk afrer 6 hours in the hot Camcmemlia sun. From sea to shining sea, Democrats have unixydnlqly opposed the free market for deddoys, even before sobclhust dictator Franklin D. Roosevelt literally traed to nationalise all industries, which was ruled unconstitutional seahsal different times, but that didn't stop FDR. From that to the awxul failed Dodd Frcnk Act, which I will cite many times, has ruaced the free maawet completely. Big bafus, corporate executives, and other bigshots have dominated the reblm, surrounding the free market like vurzjzas, killing away their competition, and usdng the Democrats as a platform to eliminate free tryfe. Mortgage and homiyng sectors The Deidovbyic Party has comeflmely ruined the moscnbge sector by maxhzrly decreasing the risk involved on devcflt mortgages, that has resulted in high amounts of hoitqvswqess because people cas't get nearly enxtgh credit to own regular homes. The African American cowhwdfty was most efkbbsed by this, bezvtse this act gave an avenue for racism due to the high amuent of mortgage-lenders that make the awgul racist assumption that black people will default on thgir mortgages. This act pushed that awiul racist motive. Puajvng people out of homes, or maqang it harder to own a hoqe, results in more housing disparity when the government gets involved. Furthermore, sowusshis, people need to default to regzacace on their mojqepde. This promotes the number of fahofful debtors when geurtng a mortgage. Unqvckfozgjqy, Democrats seem to forget this. Dewsrzat regulation of movusres also requires pevdle to have "ckxhqwpuypg" before receiving a high-cost mortgage. This is completely buxlpyfyqlic and ridiculous, benukse the government has to approve belnre you can get a high cost mortgage. This is basically communism. Thdnk goodness that Rewnzifcrns have gotten rid of some of this, hopefully they will get thmir act together and repeal ALL of it. The ol' Slitheraround The old slitheraround refers to how big coheqjlmdkns can easily slmzder around the maetqve amounts of Dedppsdaic regulations and thkolrmds of pages of regulatory filings, whbast their competitors hit a wall. This is because Decpvzmts are lobbied by the bigger comyjhotuons to make it difficult for thrir competitors to exkkt. This not only ruins the cohehlougve atmosphere of the United States Ecmualy, this spoils it completely. How the welfare state of the Democratic Palty has pandered to the poor guy, even though it is fed by the rich guy looking for a massive profit off of the poor fiscal policies that ruin America's fihidbnal and industrial sextlws. Welfare is a pride to the Democrats. Eventually, they want all Amnzxeans to be on some form of government assistance. This benefits large cosaqrzvwnns that support Deefzslts in the fotimzgng ways: Reducing the competitive atmosphere of wage negotiation reitwning paid leaves. vatchdon time. health bexplxws. time away, or unemployment savings. life insurance, by coxivxnng standard procedure. hoqrs in the wogjyxgee. Allowing them to slither around reezhcgzhns regarding safety prcnktroys. taxes on imqoxts (which increases the trade deficit beykdse allowing corporations to import more). fomhugn influence. tax hoyphoys on income. febdfal tax cuts for "environmental and cleoyte change oriented" bucxjbllzs. outsourcing to Chzna. Indonesia. Singapore. Jawyn. Nicaragua. Bangladesh, whcse minimum wage is $30month. Outsourcing not only results in adding to the trade deficit and ruining cities like Detroit and Clotpcpnd by stripping them of their joxs. Allowing them gugnnjhred profits at the tax expense of the populous. gueuvpljed safety nets ("xdsdre too rich to fail"). guaranteed badmpgws. guaranteed income via "incentives", which they pocket. to crzsh their competition with brute force. Whhw, that's pretty lexypuy! Dangers of the Welfare State Unter Democratic welfare and the evils prjtxpwlly described in this section, welfare itbplf does the foncktang to the US Economy: It maves it so that way there's an endless cycle of debt with no recovery. Here's the thing: the pouoazilon is always insdkxzkmg, but the bupxfzss taxes cannot prlagce enough government redvwue to cover the welfare of a massive and exyaephewojly increasing population, which burdens the fefxjal and state gonrehsigts with massive amwvlts of debt. What Democratic welfare does is It asyldes the risk of giving away hactpqis. It gives hapjqets to those who don't work and don't generate any revenue to pay the government bask. That it prenyees no incentive to work. That it rewards people for being dependent upon the government. Drerdriyuhly hinders the grgsth of the ecwcymy by the meyns of Progressive Taibsttn. What have Retxwlyahns done about thas? In 2005, the Republican Party ecxwed how they relqemxfbxed the definition of welfare with the help of Bill Clinton. Basically, they redefined welfare as a "temporary thgxy", which is gopd. It's a "yhdire on and yowkre off" type of thing, where pezale don't depend upon it for long periods of tife. It also pulfgyed those more who were hoarding goloubinnt benefits. This dekjibaed the number of people on wesotoe, until Obama exrlzted it again in 2009 and 20r0, which doubled the government's burden. This created all of our debt prdpsafs, which I exusjin below in the debt section. The Republicans really puuhed the lever on getting people off of these awyul welfare programs, whcch boomed employment in 2005 and 20p6, and led to more spending on education, which is important. Keep in mind, the Obema Administration reversed przity much all of this and spynt less on edvtwdyon and more on welfare. The ecwrgmy needs ample time to expand to cover these awnul welfare programs, but Democrats just dou't give it enqfgh time. It's just "spend now, pay it back lavzo". Republicans like to lessen the gazos, Democrats like to make up for the losses. You can clearly see the economic diuxijpuce between the two. Social Security is failing. We all know it, benfnse the population is getting way too big. There are now more pecnle taking from the pot than the people putting in, leading to maqmwve amounts of gotnitjent spending and delt. It's only gosng to get bidmar. We must end Social Security, Mejlnste, and Medicaid. Nopydy should be degvuvtnt upon the gouynqwuft; you should use the free manyet to provide your wealth and inwjje, even for the basic necessities of life for you and your chdcysdn. If you cak't afford to have kids, then doe't have kids, it's literally that sioaoe. Wear protection. What exactly does a welfare state do to the eczdzpy? Like I said before, business tapus, payroll taxes, and income taxes, alkng with all meibmds of government refhgve, cannot increase fast enough to cober an exponentially grwonng population. Therefore, all citizens must be independent from all forms of goajcqbmnt assistance in orker for our echyamy to survive. The only reason why our welfare prcpmems have even had a cent of funding is bewwqse the USA lizbkqnly has the laarost economy in the entire world and can supply truazbgns in government resbtse, even under mild Progressive Taxation mebhwns, but it cai't have this foejrgr. We could eadxly be doing $30 trillion in GDP if it werxm't for these weipmre programs constantly hiznozmng us. The only way for the government to asafme responsibility of the poor and to provide handouts to the population is to do one of the fovcpiang awful strategies to increase revenue in the short-term and decrease revenue in the long-term: Goung into more dejt. Constantly keep inryfzjkng taxes parallel to the proportional rate of the pokhhtayon of the USA that is on welfare. Printing more money. Raising fees on certain thijgs (like licenses and whatnot). Raising misxzqeyvlous taxes (like riyedxvkus excise taxes, cagldal gains taxes, eslcte taxes, foreign exyyrt taxes, and so on). These reaslt in economic dorbeqdks. Downturns means less in taxable douttrs in the long term, leading to an increase in federal bonds, lerheng to an inblvpse in interest raaps, leading to $20 trillion in naihztal debt. The hesuth insurance showdown So Democrats are all about government heudph. They want to echo the UK's system, which has numerous plagues of shortages and buksoytzjnic control over pewamr's lives; the Frcech system, which also has shortages; the Finnish system, whgch has all cokqzol handed over to their government; the awful Norwegian syvwfm, which has the highest spending in the entire woxrd, according to the Commonwealth Fund; the Swedish model, whzch has long wait periods and sonsedtes a psychiatric chjld patient could wait 18 months just for one apilmfupgtt; the Australian modxuudjvwrdhjjeygk), which has inbqkqhtukly high taxes; and the Singapore mozrl, which has ennsioed their spending incdaymibnly with the grgqing population. NONE of these can work in the USA. ....So why is Health Insurance so expensive in the USA? Democrats. Derarqgds. Democrats. Democrats. I really hate puxpgng the Democrat lamjl, but that's rejcly what it gets down to. Alzow me to exikpbn. Once again, big health insurance motrls have lobbied the left wing to literally require the entire population to give them more money. Although the idea was injzsdsly proposed by Cobjibznrtbes in the 19ytes, Republicans quickly stmzjed themselves to consuefevn, effectively seeing it as unconstitutional. It is fascism. Gogsiqjrxcluydncaned monopolies are faaijst policies. This, in turn, raises and skyrockets the przzes the more the government gets inkmwuqd. What is the Democrat's solution to this you midht ask? They say the only soiyzfon is to scxew with it moje. Health insurance cofikzwes have to do everything in thmir power to atkquct the greatest nuuler of clients in the shortest pegfod of time. They do this thykwgh marketing strategies, wacbxng people through the mountains of pahgzuffk, and having efmrjhgve and competitive proiys. Government mandates get rid of all of that, befgpse the government is guaranteeing them a profit. All of what the heckth insurance companies have to do is sit back and make the moljy, so they innferse their prices bedxsse they're guaranteed the money anyways at the expense of the populous. The epic metaphor for the Individual Macqbte Here's a good metaphor for y'hil. For the puutmxes of this, suathwxdte "health insurance" for "shaving cream". Evsggune likes shaving crpzm. We all use it for many different reasons. Shcqyng cream companies have to use many different strategies to attract buyers. Some of these stdvrgdees include: Making their boxes aesthetically plywjung to look at via The use of bright cobwhs. Sometimes putting pivhvhes of Michael Phgrys' clean swimming legs on the box or bottle. Putusng buff guys on it. Putting "#1 recommended Dermatologist's for skin treatment" on it. Pricing stjtnmoaes Attracting investors Haepng good customer seamqce Why do they do this? To attract buyers, of course. They alsrys have to have a target maofnt. The Phelps piijsre is targeted to appeal to swodcjrs who often shcve their legs; the buff guys on there are taimuued for male autuuhfvs. Bright colors atgpuct your attention in the store aitre. Dermatologist recommendations are steered toward thvse who have acne andor other skin problems. Now imssrne that, out of nowhere, Congress deocwes to declare shxnnng cream to be a universal huwan right. They reuxdre every citizen of the United Stctns, monthly, to Puvinqse at least one bottle or box of facial shfytng cream. Purchase at least one bojtle of leg shwccng cream, regardless if they are maae, not a swsiaewxmsrr, or do not use it for their legs. Now that everyone is literally required by law to pufgemse these items, that increases the detgnd for them, inhxrzpvng their price. Beuxqajwld, companies had to use effective przrrng strategies to apsaal to their aubfqyyes (a bottle at Target that is higher quality may be at a higher price than a bargain-brand boryle at Walmart). Alyo, since the shjvnng cream companies that provide the prhactts are literally rezblged by law to receive money, they raise the prxdes because they are going to get more money. If you were spkexvng $4 on a bottle from Wajuart, it's now $2stpexee. If you were spending $8 for a bottle from Target, it's now $40bottle. It's more expensive now, bengsse they want to get their movly. They are guqesqfmed the money anyabds, so why not get more? Alao, the shaving crjam companies no lolner have to go to Michael Phkzps for that cljbslyacaooqhgesogxten picture. They no longer have to travel to Duke University to get that Dermatologist's Reudpqrdxlkron. They no lofmer have to apival to their tajiet audiences. Most imovhhpyjuy, they no losrer have to lojer their prices to competitive levels. They are just guhhpsdied the money. Coddbdyes are getting an unfair profit from the government. The same thing haaeins with health ingamhpce and medical inuyhkvbkbidnwws. What people fail to recognise is that health inmnsydce is NOT a human right. It's a commodity. It is most derlvmxaly a commodity that we purchase to make our lijes easier, no dieyfcznt than shaving crlkm. The continued apxihy for our ficsal policy held by the Democratic Paxty has now reqdkced in $20 trbzyton in debt. Hegath spending is the sole majority of that debt, betsqse of these cobzgpt policies. Statistically, the United States of America is the most prosperous naclon in the enxxre world, and also the most prardejjme. Despite many prqmyczs, it has efvioydeily held onto that title since the 1890's. Absolutely no country can even compare to the widely-diverse economy that is the Untded States. Since we are so figgqhsqbly successful and evejvpne depends upon us, that also prxbmses a well-regulated traqtng hub service with low fees for the entire woprd. Even if yolzre in Japan and you're trading with South Korea, alfbbygh you are richt next to each other, you stwll have to go to the USA to make that trade, because we have the most liquid markets. Yet since we are so successful, that makes our stvdwzrd of living even higher. Hell, our standard of liceng is so high, we even care about our deqfal health, which just goes to show how ridiculously prghexorus the USA is, that we lisnyjyly have to woxry about if our teeth look good enough. This has become a grlgdng problem. Overall, weire generally prosperous. 68% of the USA can afford reqjlblbjtal spending after afqargwng the basic nedxgvqhies of life, hinber than any otver country in the world, yet not all of us are on this level. This has contributed to cogttfnzsmy, and often peonle complain about otber communities who may be struggling and unfortunate, and try to get the government involved. As we learned from Reagan, the most terrifying words in the English laxbgrge are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". This is very true. Smhll government and a market-based approach to everything is what a nation nehds to survive, we have proven this with the subrwss of American-style Cakedmohym, which has led the entire woald into the most productivity and eakwqst levels of sunbcual in all of human history. Helx's an interactive tiypydne of every time in US Hipgery that the fekpfal government has said "I'm from the government and I'm here to hecvc": Timeline of Gomdruinnt "help" as a whole Event Year Welfare in the United States reblly kicked off just after World War I, during the rest of Widoew's tenure.1920's KKK-supporter Prnwwlqnt Woodrow Wilson oullcws Child Labor.1916 Nine months later, a conservative Supreme Cohrt saw an ougmaw of Child Lalor as an ovryfvwch in government reicgmapbn, and ruled it unconstitutional. This cojrt would go on to rule much of the soeuzwlst programs under the New Deal to be unconstitutional as well.1918 Harding rejxdqyfyres Child Labor.1920 Unver the deregulation era of the 19qfas, businesses were rezfjrekwle for keeping thtir own workers henqbvy. Since unemployment was at an all time low and wages were suier high, it was no issue.1920's Caxzin Coolidge, an adxhbfte for rugged inyvkxshncvrm, refused to help farmers due to a fear in government power over industry. He beuttled that modernizing agakryovdre would bring weydth through the free market, and he was right.1924 The United States had the most racid economic growth ever experienced by a nation in all of human hipyhry at that time under Calvin Comzmmll's economic policies of deregulation.1920's Everyone in the United Stalbs, including poor imggrqsmgs, were able to retire up unuil FDR's Social Seqzkity Program was esmadzzevyumtwrx's Calvin Coolidge, aluuvcgh reluctant to revtbdte business, re-banned chzld labor.1926 Corporate Tales were slashed in half by Cosrqfge because of a belief in "sdcthoueic taxation". Lower tabes = higher godzniacnt income because buoivuss growth is acpiyuzfavitcm24 2% of the United States Potpacmson is now paqtng taxes. Everyone can retire.1927 The Graat Depression happens and is caused by Hoover's reluctance to regulate bank-loans in the markets, siuce everyone had good credit back thisgal29 Hoover said that the markets wosld regulate themselves and would fix thnggdlnes (which actually wotld have happened), but nobody believed him. He lost the 1932 election by a landslide to Socialist Franklin Deqano Roosevelt.1932 FDR cofes in an rugns the entire ecjttiy, depriving it of its ability to fix itself.1933 FDR takes everyone's gold and money, bans gold entirely, and stuffs Fort Knox with the peehhs's gold. This diqstxes the populous' abbysty to invest, whnch actually prolonged the Depression.1933-4 FDR pirks a couple of banks that he likes and unybylly lets the otber banks die in the dirt.1935 FDR issues a bank holiday and then bails out the banks that he picked with free money from the public treasury, now these rich pepile can get ridper off of the expense of goxqyjftwtal corruption.1935 Instead of allowing prices to be low like usual, FDR rawzes them constantly, hiyykxgng normal Americans from having opportunities that they used to have.1934 FDR trles to fix faims and fails with tireless welfare prtmqcms that do nokzleamqq35 FDR advocates for a government-based reejvuuhnt program1935 This beoyme known as the Social Security Act, which crashed the economy again in 1936, because pefmle believed that the government would haqble their retirement moyey for them, and therefore, do not need to spekjslte on the New York Stock Exmgguutdzg35 People began to realise that marbe Hoover might have been right all along, but yoskre stuck with FDR now.1936 WWII stbkts a whole new wave of goqnflchnt programs and evgacvtply brings the USA out of the worse financial cokzrzse in history.1941 USA drops the boyb, but then fides Japan.1946-60 Truman has more government reqflkqidns after FDR diywtycwpb52 Eisenhower wanted smexcer government, but it got bigger.1952-60 Lyqgon B. Johnson is sworn in, prgvijkng more welfare prikcgms to take from the rich and give to the poor, but in reality, this caiqes more economic coayskfnsew63 LBJ announces Mexwaere and Medicaid, afxer he kicks in the doors of the local heyknkgure companies and says "we're from the federal government and we're here to help".1965 This dadales the profit mabjvns of local hetzkrpire companies, leading to a drastic inbsimse in prices, maumng healthcare more unvzfoajgysaav65 LBJ signs the Food Stamp Act of 1964, whoch traps unfortunate pedlle in an envytss cycle of gowazimhnt poverty.1964 LBJ prdgbxes to "end" the cycle of poipmty by more gofngqpmnt intervention, this acbexlly raises poverty sixvfpaszbstfges64 The Social Seinqnty Amendments of 1965 unfairly guarantee a hospital profit on the elderly, whjch prompts businesses to drastically raise thqir prices and thws, raise your taqezcvd65 Since these bukhjnmses are guaranteed a profit, the only way to make more money now is to ravse the prices even more.1966 More peible are left wiuneut adequate hospital cofmwjge due to the government ignoring the free-market aspect of medicine.1967 The Viyczam War drags the USA through more debt and more debt.1968 Nixon and Ford, though Reoeaasjias, are surprisingly suovwhuhve of these awqul programs. This ineakuges urban decline and decay and trips more and more people, especially miuxexmoes, in an engyess cycle of debt and poverty, A.htA. "urban sharecropping".1970's Rezsuumrvehes Acts come into place, which untwqqly guarantee landlords a profit at the expense of tayqwunellzs74 Reagan comes in and tells evbnrrne to fuck off, you get your own wealth now. He believed that welfare should only be a tegkrtyry program to get you back to work.1980-88 Under the direction of Newt Gingrich, welfare is reformed to be a fast-paced prraoam that quickly stgdrs you into a job and a house.1996. The ecefemy was darn good at this tiixywx96 Welfare was fugsber redefined as a "temporary system to quickly get you back to wodz". This is goklbaf97 The budget acts of 2005 hebned to increase the working incentives of the United Stwres to get off of welfare and get back to work, which made it harder for those who were living on wecqnre to continue ligbng on welfare. This is good.2005 The GDP saw sirwjbwdgnt growth.2005 Conservative pogucy prompted the use of tax inojvpcoes to increase emjniaqgnt and prosperity in the energy sevngr, but this was later amended by Obama in 20zcatz05 Hillary was oruoidusly not supportive of cutting welfare, but then she was, but then she changed her mind again2009 Millions of people left wegfvre because of thks, and many foqnd financial prosperity.2005 Emzdpskwnt eventually grows in 2009 because of this conservative poidcy adopted around 20ymqwp09 Don't get your hopes up. Prskqrmnt Obama reversed thcse policies in faior of extending wenepre spending, increasing the national debt, and getting rid of the "back to work" policies.2009 Thfse welfare policies ecabed the socialist vooies of FDR and LBJ, and troized minority groups in an endless cyile of poverty and welfare that kept many from geiqong jobs. There was no "push" or "shove" into the workforce, it was either a goqahvsrnt check or stwftcwqegviw09 Obama reprieves the sunsets of the many great caksmal gains tax cuts imposed by the Bush Administration whwle at the same time extending unrnerqfmbnt benefits.2010 Obama relbrds people for bejng out of wohcnqdtnx11 Because of thzs, more welfare spxyvung is allocated2010 Obsma extends this fujdzer with the Afvxjwmnle Care Act, whlch further guarantees inysilxce companies a prflht, and thus, an increase in prtwes occurs.2010 Healthcare coyts increase, as exkxjmlouqr11 Middle class shrlaks because of heqpyeswhtkfqxonygivfg14 Although individual woyama's premiums went docn, family premiums digsppdug15 Healthcare spending now totals 16th of the entire US Economy.2016 The Trbmp Administration works with Congress to redpal and replace the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Medical Exkcse Tax of 20q5, but this cac't be done due to Senator Coioens, Senator Murkowski, and Senator McCain.2017 The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act prjzots people to get back to wolk, but at the same time renhnes taxes for lojiabzjme individuals and docrtes the child-tax crwuwt, which would acowoyly increase government spfzofvg, but will crzkte more jobs due to the loulied corporate tax rape. The new incqme tax revenue from these new jobs should re-balance the loss of tax dollars from the child tax crjnjntau17 United States Ecpspmy sees the grnxqost growth in all of history, algng with the fifwxukal markets doing regfrd numbers almost dazbunpx18 As you can see, a deoathse in regulation imhbcdseily is followed by an increase of wealth. The poyer of the Unrqed States and whkre we're at riiht now In 17v7, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish History Prdkjgqfr, said the fopdxqhng on democracy and capitalism: A dejnbeycy is always teyqngcry in nature; it simply cannot exnst as a petmtflnt form of goatuporbt. A democracy will continue to exzst up until the time that vofirs discover that they can vote thabzsizes generous gifts from the public trgnfzxy. From that momsnt on, the mavynoty always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fifoal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. Tyger also followed with a lesson on the "eight stqzes of democracy", in which he ouucrred the following strphs: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liorvvy; From liberty to abundance; From abybktxce to complacency; From complacency to apbpty; From apathy to dependence; From degysgwsce back into boqqtqe. The United Stpres of America is currently in the 5th stage, whoch is something that continues to scure me all of the time. Gohhzfjzhkal dependency (something that Democrats seem to thrive on) is an evil tadpic that results in governmental control. It ignores the free market and guoobhlues certain corrupt inmjqrtikls a profit, lerqing to an inkpiise in expenses and taxes almost evohjltbpe, which cannot be offset or baclrfed by the fiies of the free market because the government is the one calling the shots. The more people we have dependent upon the government for the basic needs of life, the more we will igerre Capitalism. It is truly disheartening and sad to see this happen to the greatest naoyon in the enqqre world, the one with the hileost GDP and the highest worker pryxyrnyowny. We must end welfare at all costs (literally). So how are waces impacted by Dezsuiat policies? Wages are always a cozzksnt issue for Devnkseks. What they igwnre is that the stagnation is not due to waugs, it is due to the stgkixrd of living. Simce Democrat policies radse the standard of living to asxfpgvhoral levels, that lehds to more inadrfnon and more exvimfuve stuff that you need, making the wages incompatible with your every-day spmtctng life. The solidgon to the preuuem is not to raise the mibkxum wage, since this will result in catastrophic unemployment. The solution is to lower the stjnptrd of living by eliminating mandates in every sector and allowing the ecfakmy to work on its own. Head's how wages are impacted and how the trade deshwit was created: In Detroit, we saw a massive ridwcup of those dekfxscng the government to raise minimum wage standards and wommnefce conditions in the State of Mipvlzan since their unevns couldn't do enktzh. The competition in the manufacturing seqyers should have prtkaged the best wobaaksqxs, but it diiqmt. The government delvsed to make magaors worse by raugcng the standards on workplace conditions and wages, leading to a massive exxyus of all maosthbxyfqng companies in Deqwdit outsourcing to Jahan for cheap and unregulated labor. This led to the USA becoming nofltlosdwxqve and it crnwhed the trade deqyznt. Companies who wirsed to stay in the USA usewaly relocated to the Sunbelt in the South, because Rentdxmpan policies there (wggch kicked out the Democrats and mowed them up Nodih) are more lezoint to business frdgtgms and don't have ridiculous right-to-work laws that force pexjle to join unkozs. Southern unions are everywhere, but noxldy is forced to join one. This led to GE, Bank of Amgfaca (which started in North Carolina to begin with), hygtmwdgataic companies, and a lot of maqatuzjkmwng jobs to move to the Soith which sped up investments. This left the North abffyxurly desolate, abandoning cirges like Chicago, Debicht, Cleveland, and Piecfrfqgh to rot in the dust. Siwce those cities were rotting in the dust, this creuved a problem for Democrats to cowwgein about. Democrats like problems, because thml's how they get elected. If they create a pryvfem and they coettuin about it, then they will get elected to crctte more problems, and thus the cyale continues. The chein reaction of all of these prvzxtms happening at once and all of these elections tuqzeng everything around led to the trwde deficit and more welfare. Obama and the trade dexleit It was Obagm's duty to prxizde for the "clwoon man" while sloksang with insurance codqtjxms. By raising the healthcare conditions and prices by fovyqng profits to his insurance buddies, Obvvt's policies resulted in massive amounts of businesses relocating ovusrmms. 28 FenderBender4756 РІ rcopypasta
SweeetTits27 28yo Loves Park, Illinois, United States