How do you expand the middle class

[The Rabbi]

The point of the thread being expanding the middle class...

It is better to have too much education than too little as common sense, logic, every study ever conducted, and the graph above points out.

A culture can't have too many college graduates.

OK so you were responding to some other post and just linked mine for some reason known only to yourself.
Obviously we have too many college grads because their unemployment rate is over 40%.

The thread of the title is expanding the middle class; your diversions about "starting pay compared to 20 years ago" is a sideshow.

You're simply making up the 40% unemployment number.

OK, so you were responding to my post, but your response was irrelevant because the comment was a sideshow. Do you even read what you've written?
How about we start a huge program to teach every college graduate Sanskrit. The evidence is that people fluent in Sanskrit earn higher incomes than people who are not fluent in Sanskrit. It would result in a more educated workforce, resulting in higher wages, right?
That is precisely your argument. And it fails grossly.

 

[Nosmo King]

Let me see if I have this straight. According to Conservatives, the best way to expand the middle class is to coddle the rich and wait for them to shower us with their largess in the guise of business investment. Despite the fact that businesses are sitting on mountains of money, the stock market is trading in record territory and the labor market is in favor of the employer, all it takes now is to repeal health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, remove restrictions from pensions and loot them and, just for good measure, impeach the President of the United States on purely political grounds.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think that by putting as much money in the hands of the middle class will cause the economy to boom because the middle class spends on consumer goods while the rich sequester their money in off shore accounts.

Which position makes more sense?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Let me see if I have this straight. According to Conservatives, the best way to expand the middle class is to coddle the rich and wait for them to shower us with their largess in the guise of business investment. Despite the fact that businesses are sitting on mountains of money, the stock market is trading in record territory and the labor market is in favor of the employer, all it takes now is to repeal health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, remove restrictions from pensions and loot them and, just for good measure, impeach the President of the United States on purely political grounds.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think that by putting as much money in the hands of the middle class will cause the economy to boom because the middle class spends on consumer goods while the rich sequester their money in off shore accounts.

Which position makes more sense?

Curious...Where EXACTLY does this money that you plan on "putting in the hands of the middle class" come from? As it stands right now - Harry "Howdy Doody" Reid is calling for massive tax increases to the tune of 1.2 TRILLION dollars. Is THAT the money you're talking about?

Is it your assertion that, in order to redistribute wealth, you take money FROM the middle class to give BACK to the middle class??

I wish that liberals would finally get it through their thick heads that government is NOT the answer.

 

[candycorn]

so just how many waiters with bachelor degrees do we need.....?

right now we have an overabundance of college grads looking for work....so it's obvious that education is not the only answer.....it is only a piece of the solution by helping to provide the innovation needed for a growing future....

the only way we are going to help the middle class is to get the damn government out of the way...

education - more government control is definitely not the answer
regulations - we are drowning in regulations - this prevents startups and expansion
taxes - too much especially for the smaller businesses
capital - will continue to sit on the sidelines or go elsewhere unless the above improve
leadership - Democrats are leading us into socialism...which by definition destroys the middle class and chokes the economy

Politically speaking, educated persons seem to support Democrats far more than Republicans. Maybe "the smart ones" as you call them know something you don't?

bwahahaha....

your 'educated' liberal pinheads can come out of their ivory tower now....their stupid methods have been proven wrong....once again....

else why would we be having this discussion in the first place....?

I guess there is no "maybe" about it...

When, at the behest of their "leaders", shunned education, investing in education, and generally tried to equate educated with being somehow "soft", you see the result we have today.

Are there problems in education? Sure. We do not stress the STEM fields anywhere near as much as we should or could. We spend millions on baseketball and football coaches who have minimal effect on even their own student's successes. We have replaced real learning with the striving for a degree by trying to shoehorn every subject into some 4 year plan.

Educators need to do a better job, bottom line.

The two barriers to getting an education are primarily access and costs. We can't do much about access but we can do something about costs. And we can do it in a way that won't break the bank and deliver a very good ROI for both the current workforce and future generations.

 

[candycorn]

OK so you were responding to some other post and just linked mine for some reason known only to yourself.
Obviously we have too many college grads because their unemployment rate is over 40%.

The thread of the title is expanding the middle class; your diversions about "starting pay compared to 20 years ago" is a sideshow.

You're simply making up the 40% unemployment number.

OK, so you were responding to my post, but your response was irrelevant because the comment was a sideshow. Do you even read what you've written?
How about we start a huge program to teach every college graduate Sanskrit. The evidence is that people fluent in Sanskrit earn higher incomes than people who are not fluent in Sanskrit. It would result in a more educated workforce, resulting in higher wages, right?
That is precisely your argument. And it fails grossly.

Again, the uniquely conservative schism of hearing one thing and comprehending another rears it's ugly head once more.

More education is better than less education. College graduates have a lower unemployement rate than non college graduates and they make more money than people like you.

 

[Nosmo King]

Let me see if I have this straight. According to Conservatives, the best way to expand the middle class is to coddle the rich and wait for them to shower us with their largess in the guise of business investment. Despite the fact that businesses are sitting on mountains of money, the stock market is trading in record territory and the labor market is in favor of the employer, all it takes now is to repeal health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, remove restrictions from pensions and loot them and, just for good measure, impeach the President of the United States on purely political grounds.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think that by putting as much money in the hands of the middle class will cause the economy to boom because the middle class spends on consumer goods while the rich sequester their money in off shore accounts.

Which position makes more sense?

Curious...Where EXACTLY does this money that you plan on "putting in the hands of the middle class" come from? As it stands right now - Harry "Howdy Doody" Reid is calling for massive tax increases to the tune of 1.2 TRILLION dollars. Is THAT the money you're talking about?

Is it your assertion that, in order to redistribute wealth, you take money FROM the middle class to give BACK to the middle class??

I wish that liberals would finally get it through their thick heads that government is NOT the answer.

Wage disparity. The fact that 90% of the wealth is held by 1% of the population. Tax breaks for the rich that ordinary wage earners cannot possibly afford. The policies that built the wealthy class for the very few at the expense of the vast middle class.

All that has to change and change now if we're to expect any system other than a mirror image of Kenya.

 

[candycorn]

[


No question about it; we need to stress the skills and trades more than we've done. The idea about having the last 2 years of high school be available to technical education was a good one.

Both "liberal" and "conservatife" sites have had stories on how brick and morter colleges cannot survive, at least like we see now. Technology allows for lectures to be streamed, and social media will allow individual time with instructors like the old "office hours" and "after class." There is a larger opportunity to cheat by hiring ringers to write a paper or take a test, though. And, there will always be a hands on component. You can't teach how to pull a transmission out of a car or how to present a legal argumrne or sales presentation without some actual face time.

And you would think that this president would be the one that could trumpet a resurgence of vocational education and trades and make it stick. I think he missed a golden opportunity.

We'll always have kids lining up for medical and legal fields. And it's not only the occupation of turning a wrench or pounding a fender...it's the self satisfaction of knowing that if your car breaks down; YOU can fix it. I wish I knew what my mechanic knew....

 

[Whereisup]

1. Expand research, which produces middle class jobs and more than pays for itself in the long run.

2. Allow taxpayers to take the cost of a hand made article made in the United States as a tax deduction. That would support more artists and craftspersons, many at a middle class level. Whenever an artist or craftsperson created something very popular, help the creative person to get that design into production as a manufactured product for export.

3. Have a yearly test of business knowledge that people could take, with a reading list of top university textbooks. Have the people who do well on the test (the others could take the test again in future years) draw up a plan for a new small manufacturing business that looks promising. Help those with good business plans start their new businesses. For example, loans should have very low interest and the maximum yearly repayment would be 10% of gross per year. Many new businesses fail because it often takes time for a new business to become profitable, but they go under because they have high loan payments. By making loan payments a small percentage of gross receipts, new businesses would not be destroyed in the beginning by high payments. Similarly, have the new entrepreneur own the building the new business is in, and include that in the 10% of gross receipts repayment schedule. In that way, the new business wouldn't fail due to high rent payments.

As the new businesses grew, their loan repayments would increase as their receipts rose.

Jim

 

[RandallFlagg]

Let me see if I have this straight. According to Conservatives, the best way to expand the middle class is to coddle the rich and wait for them to shower us with their largess in the guise of business investment. Despite the fact that businesses are sitting on mountains of money, the stock market is trading in record territory and the labor market is in favor of the employer, all it takes now is to repeal health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, remove restrictions from pensions and loot them and, just for good measure, impeach the President of the United States on purely political grounds.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think that by putting as much money in the hands of the middle class will cause the economy to boom because the middle class spends on consumer goods while the rich sequester their money in off shore accounts.

Which position makes more sense?

Curious...Where EXACTLY does this money that you plan on "putting in the hands of the middle class" come from? As it stands right now - Harry "Howdy Doody" Reid is calling for massive tax increases to the tune of 1.2 TRILLION dollars. Is THAT the money you're talking about?

Is it your assertion that, in order to redistribute wealth, you take money FROM the middle class to give BACK to the middle class??

I wish that liberals would finally get it through their thick heads that government is NOT the answer.

Wage disparity. The fact that 90% of the wealth is held by 1% of the population. Tax breaks for the rich that ordinary wage earners cannot possibly afford. The policies that built the wealthy class for the very few at the expense of the vast middle class.

All that has to change and change now if we're to expect any system other than a mirror image of Kenya.

And it has been this way for the last 50,000 years. The rich ALWAYS get richer and the rest of us make them richer. What the hell is your point? Go out and "take" the rich guys money and what? give it to YOU? Then you're rich and the cycle continues. Give it to the "all knowing and powerful Oz?" So that our omniscient government can then give back to us? Of course, after taking the vast majority of it for themselves and their bogus "needs".

Remember, Harry Reid entered politics with a net worth of $82,000. He is now worth 25 MILLION. Do we take HIS money as well? You know, the money that he took in bribes, payoffs, book deals? etc? What about that fat-assed Hillary? Do we take HER money? Should we, every time that OBarry writes a book, get the profits from his sales? Nancy Pelosi (the idiot) and her old man are rich - do we take their money as well?

Didn't think so. We'll just take it from all the other "fat cats". You know, those sleazy bastards that employ millions of Americans. Those same worthless no good son of a guns that built America. Those same rich capitalists that put their riches on the line everyday to finance innovations. Those same guys that pay billions in taxes every year.

There IS a reality to life. The vast majority of us struggle with making ends meet our entire lives. Get used to it. If you are naive enough to believe that it will ever change, then there really isn't much anyone can do to help you

 

[RandallFlagg]

[


No question about it; we need to stress the skills and trades more than we've done. The idea about having the last 2 years of high school be available to technical education was a good one.

Both "liberal" and "conservatife" sites have had stories on how brick and morter colleges cannot survive, at least like we see now. Technology allows for lectures to be streamed, and social media will allow individual time with instructors like the old "office hours" and "after class." There is a larger opportunity to cheat by hiring ringers to write a paper or take a test, though. And, there will always be a hands on component. You can't teach how to pull a transmission out of a car or how to present a legal argumrne or sales presentation without some actual face time.

And you would think that this president would be the one that could trumpet a resurgence of vocational education and trades and make it stick. I think he missed a golden opportunity.

We'll always have kids lining up for medical and legal fields. And it's not only the occupation of turning a wrench or pounding a fender...it's the self satisfaction of knowing that if your car breaks down; YOU can fix it. I wish I knew what my mechanic knew....

Bravo!!

The trades are slowly going to illegals. Why? Little Johnny and little Cindy are too "good" to get their little hands dirty. They expect to go to XYZ College, Major in English and come out expecting $80,000 per year.

And why not? Their president has told them repeatedly that "College is the way to go" and they fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

I don't have any stats to back this up, but I can see a time (10-20 years down the road) where we have 5000 College graduates applying for 18 jobs. Today, the majority of degrees are completely worthless.

 

[The Rabbi]

The thread of the title is expanding the middle class; your diversions about "starting pay compared to 20 years ago" is a sideshow.

You're simply making up the 40% unemployment number.

OK, so you were responding to my post, but your response was irrelevant because the comment was a sideshow. Do you even read what you've written?
How about we start a huge program to teach every college graduate Sanskrit. The evidence is that people fluent in Sanskrit earn higher incomes than people who are not fluent in Sanskrit. It would result in a more educated workforce, resulting in higher wages, right?
That is precisely your argument. And it fails grossly.

Again, the uniquely conservative schism of hearing one thing and comprehending another rears it's ugly head once more.

More education is better than less education. College graduates have a lower unemployement rate than non college graduates and they make more money than people like you.

So you agree we should start a program to teach Sanskrit to every college grad in the country because people who can read Sanskrit make more money than people who dont?

 

[The Rabbi]

Let me see if I have this straight. According to Conservatives, the best way to expand the middle class is to coddle the rich and wait for them to shower us with their largess in the guise of business investment. Despite the fact that businesses are sitting on mountains of money, the stock market is trading in record territory and the labor market is in favor of the employer, all it takes now is to repeal health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, remove restrictions from pensions and loot them and, just for good measure, impeach the President of the United States on purely political grounds.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think that by putting as much money in the hands of the middle class will cause the economy to boom because the middle class spends on consumer goods while the rich sequester their money in off shore accounts.

Which position makes more sense?

Well, if my job were inspecting toilets for a municipality I suppose the liberal view would make more sense.

However if I had studied economics I would know that growth comes from investment. And investment occurs in environments where profit can be expected. And an environment of high taxes and costly and changing regulations is not conducive to profit making. The result would be companies hoarding cash and waiting for the environment to change, or investing in other countries that did provide a promising economic environment.

Fortunately I did study economics so I know the truth. Which is why I'm not inspecting toilet for a municipality somewhere.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let me see if I have this straight. According to Conservatives, the best way to expand the middle class is to coddle the rich and wait for them to shower us with their largess in the guise of business investment. Despite the fact that businesses are sitting on mountains of money, the stock market is trading in record territory and the labor market is in favor of the employer, all it takes now is to repeal health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, remove restrictions from pensions and loot them and, just for good measure, impeach the President of the United States on purely political grounds.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think that by putting as much money in the hands of the middle class will cause the economy to boom because the middle class spends on consumer goods while the rich sequester their money in off shore accounts.

Which position makes more sense?

Curious...Where EXACTLY does this money that you plan on "putting in the hands of the middle class" come from? As it stands right now - Harry "Howdy Doody" Reid is calling for massive tax increases to the tune of 1.2 TRILLION dollars. Is THAT the money you're talking about?

Is it your assertion that, in order to redistribute wealth, you take money FROM the middle class to give BACK to the middle class??

I wish that liberals would finally get it through their thick heads that government is NOT the answer.

Wage disparity. The fact that 90% of the wealth is held by 1% of the population. Tax breaks for the rich that ordinary wage earners cannot possibly afford. The policies that built the wealthy class for the very few at the expense of the vast middle class.

All that has to change and change now if we're to expect any system other than a mirror image of Kenya.

OK I see I'll have to translate into Moron so you can understand his question.
You're calling for "putting money in the hands of the middle class." His question is where you want this money to come from. Someone has to pay for it. You want to tax incomes 90%? If you do what incentive is there for anyone to become an actor? Or supermodel? Or business owner? You're working for the gov't 90% of the time. Why bother doing that? Yet those activities are what provide jobs and income to all the supporting people.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Curious...Where EXACTLY does this money that you plan on "putting in the hands of the middle class" come from? As it stands right now - Harry "Howdy Doody" Reid is calling for massive tax increases to the tune of 1.2 TRILLION dollars. Is THAT the money you're talking about?

Is it your assertion that, in order to redistribute wealth, you take money FROM the middle class to give BACK to the middle class??

I wish that liberals would finally get it through their thick heads that government is NOT the answer.

Wage disparity. The fact that 90% of the wealth is held by 1% of the population. Tax breaks for the rich that ordinary wage earners cannot possibly afford. The policies that built the wealthy class for the very few at the expense of the vast middle class.

All that has to change and change now if we're to expect any system other than a mirror image of Kenya.

OK I see I'll have to translate into Moron so you can understand his question.
You're calling for "putting money in the hands of the middle class." His question is where you want this money to come from. Someone has to pay for it. You want to tax incomes 90%? If you do what incentive is there for anyone to become an actor? Or supermodel? Or business owner? You're working for the gov't 90% of the time. Why bother doing that? Yet those activities are what provide jobs and income to all the supporting people.

The one thing that I have learned in my short time here is that liberals live in some sort of strange place that never takes into account the "reality" of living.

Very good friend of mine from way back went to school forever. Received his PhD in Music. Now works in a coffee shop. He is 57 years old. Yet, he still, to this day, trumpets the idea that the "rich" are somehow responsible for his station in life.

I mean, what do you say to someone like that? How stupid do you have to be.........

 

[zeke]

Let me see if I have this straight. According to Conservatives, the best way to expand the middle class is to coddle the rich and wait for them to shower us with their largess in the guise of business investment. Despite the fact that businesses are sitting on mountains of money, the stock market is trading in record territory and the labor market is in favor of the employer, all it takes now is to repeal health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, remove restrictions from pensions and loot them and, just for good measure, impeach the President of the United States on purely political grounds.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think that by putting as much money in the hands of the middle class will cause the economy to boom because the middle class spends on consumer goods while the rich sequester their money in off shore accounts.

Which position makes more sense?

Well, if my job were inspecting toilets for a municipality I suppose the liberal view would make more sense.

However if I had studied economics I would know that growth comes from investment. And investment occurs in environments where profit can be expected. And an environment of high taxes and costly and changing regulations is not conducive to profit making. The result would be companies hoarding cash and waiting for the environment to change, or investing in other countries that did provide a promising economic environment.

Fortunately I did study economics so I know the truth. Which is why I'm not inspecting toilet for a municipality somewhere.

IFis a big word. Cause IF you had studies economics you would have been talking about demand as a driver of growth and profits. But either you missed those classes or simply forgot all about demand driving growth. Who knows with you.

What I do know is cuts in regs for corporations and cuts in taxes for the corps and ultra wealthy won't do jack shit for middle class consumer demand. And 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Damned government spends the other 30.

You sure you studied economics??

 

[zeke]

Wage disparity. The fact that 90% of the wealth is held by 1% of the population. Tax breaks for the rich that ordinary wage earners cannot possibly afford. The policies that built the wealthy class for the very few at the expense of the vast middle class.

All that has to change and change now if we're to expect any system other than a mirror image of Kenya.

OK I see I'll have to translate into Moron so you can understand his question.
You're calling for "putting money in the hands of the middle class." His question is where you want this money to come from. Someone has to pay for it. You want to tax incomes 90%? If you do what incentive is there for anyone to become an actor? Or supermodel? Or business owner? You're working for the gov't 90% of the time. Why bother doing that? Yet those activities are what provide jobs and income to all the supporting people.

The one thing that I have learned in my short time here is that liberals live in some sort of strange place that never takes into account the "reality" of living.

Very good friend of mine from way back went to school forever. Received his PhD in Music. Now works in a coffee shop. He is 57 years old. Yet, he still, to this day, trumpets the idea that the "rich" are somehow responsible for his station in life.

I mean, what do you say to someone like that? How stupid do you have to be.........

Yea I have a good friend. He came from a pretty poor background. Has a high school education. Works hard, has a million dollars of rental property. Pays his taxes. Married to the same woman forever with no gay children. Goes to church.

And this friend doesn't embrace one single Republican talking point out of the entire spectrum of talking points. Doesn't believe a single thing a Republican says. (shaking my head)

I mean, what do you say to someone like that???

 

[RandallFlagg]

OK I see I'll have to translate into Moron so you can understand his question.
You're calling for "putting money in the hands of the middle class." His question is where you want this money to come from. Someone has to pay for it. You want to tax incomes 90%? If you do what incentive is there for anyone to become an actor? Or supermodel? Or business owner? You're working for the gov't 90% of the time. Why bother doing that? Yet those activities are what provide jobs and income to all the supporting people.

The one thing that I have learned in my short time here is that liberals live in some sort of strange place that never takes into account the "reality" of living.

Very good friend of mine from way back went to school forever. Received his PhD in Music. Now works in a coffee shop. He is 57 years old. Yet, he still, to this day, trumpets the idea that the "rich" are somehow responsible for his station in life.

I mean, what do you say to someone like that? How stupid do you have to be.........

Yea I have a good friend. He came from a pretty poor background. Has a high school education. Works hard, has a million dollars of rental property. Pays his taxes. Married to the same woman forever with no gay children. Goes to church.

And this friend doesn't embrace one single Republican talking point out of the entire spectrum of talking points. Doesn't believe a single thing a Republican says. (shaking my head)

I mean, what do you say to someone like that???

I have friends like that, as well. They are "old school" democrats who never fell into the well of "communism" as the "present day" liberals have.

Most of these guys, like myself, believe that politics and living are two completely different animals. The liberals of today look to the government for some sort of magical "answers". There are none to be had because the idiots in government (regardless of party) are completely ignorant to "life".

and, quite frankly, I don't want government "answers". Their idea of "answers" is usually destruction and over-reaction.

Remember, there WAS a time in this country when democrats were actually reasonable people. Yes, as hard as it may be to believe, there was a time. In a land far, far away...

 

[candycorn]

OK, so you were responding to my post, but your response was irrelevant because the comment was a sideshow. Do you even read what you've written?
How about we start a huge program to teach every college graduate Sanskrit. The evidence is that people fluent in Sanskrit earn higher incomes than people who are not fluent in Sanskrit. It would result in a more educated workforce, resulting in higher wages, right?
That is precisely your argument. And it fails grossly.

Again, the uniquely conservative schism of hearing one thing and comprehending another rears it's ugly head once more.

More education is better than less education. College graduates have a lower unemployement rate than non college graduates and they make more money than people like you.

So you agree we should start a program to teach Sanskrit to every college grad in the country because people who can read Sanskrit make more money than people who dont?

Again, whatever it is that is in your ears or covers your eyes that prevents you from comprehending Englsih needs to be removed.

Take care.

 

[candycorn]

Let me see if I have this straight. According to Conservatives, the best way to expand the middle class is to coddle the rich and wait for them to shower us with their largess in the guise of business investment. Despite the fact that businesses are sitting on mountains of money, the stock market is trading in record territory and the labor market is in favor of the employer, all it takes now is to repeal health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, remove restrictions from pensions and loot them and, just for good measure, impeach the President of the United States on purely political grounds.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think that by putting as much money in the hands of the middle class will cause the economy to boom because the middle class spends on consumer goods while the rich sequester their money in off shore accounts.

Which position makes more sense?

Well, if my job were inspecting toilets for a municipality I suppose the liberal view would make more sense.

However if I had studied economics I would know that growth comes from investment. And investment occurs in environments where profit can be expected. And an environment of high taxes and costly and changing regulations is not conducive to profit making. The result would be companies hoarding cash and waiting for the environment to change, or investing in other countries that did provide a promising economic environment.

Fortunately I did study economics so I know the truth. Which is why I'm not inspecting toilet for a municipality somewhere.

IFis a big word. Cause IF you had studies economics you would have been talking about demand as a driver of growth and profits. But either you missed those classes or simply forgot all about demand driving growth. Who knows with you.

What I do know is cuts in regs for corporations and cuts in taxes for the corps and ultra wealthy won't do jack shit for middle class consumer demand. And 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Damned government spends the other 30.

You sure you studied economics??

Life has made him it's bitch.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let me see if I have this straight. According to Conservatives, the best way to expand the middle class is to coddle the rich and wait for them to shower us with their largess in the guise of business investment. Despite the fact that businesses are sitting on mountains of money, the stock market is trading in record territory and the labor market is in favor of the employer, all it takes now is to repeal health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, remove restrictions from pensions and loot them and, just for good measure, impeach the President of the United States on purely political grounds.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think that by putting as much money in the hands of the middle class will cause the economy to boom because the middle class spends on consumer goods while the rich sequester their money in off shore accounts.

Which position makes more sense?

Well, if my job were inspecting toilets for a municipality I suppose the liberal view would make more sense.

However if I had studied economics I would know that growth comes from investment. And investment occurs in environments where profit can be expected. And an environment of high taxes and costly and changing regulations is not conducive to profit making. The result would be companies hoarding cash and waiting for the environment to change, or investing in other countries that did provide a promising economic environment.

Fortunately I did study economics so I know the truth. Which is why I'm not inspecting toilet for a municipality somewhere.

IFis a big word. Cause IF you had studies economics you would have been talking about demand as a driver of growth and profits. But either you missed those classes or simply forgot all about demand driving growth. Who knows with you.

What I do know is cuts in regs for corporations and cuts in taxes for the corps and ultra wealthy won't do jack shit for middle class consumer demand. And 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Damned government spends the other 30.

You sure you studied economics??

There's a tremendous demand for sitting and watching porn all day. I dont see it paying especially well.
So much for your argument.
You'd better spend your time reading Sowell's Economics, A Citizens Guide, then posting trite drivel on this site.