Are Democrats for The Middle Class?

[Ubiquitor]

It's always amusing when people argue about which party is for the middle class when the fact of the matter is neither is. They both want the middle class gone. They want the rich paying them and the poor begging them to vote to give them free stuff.

The GOP has a reputation of offering free stuff and that's why the poor vote for them?

No, that's why the rich vote for them.

 

[Jarhead]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

The problem is that the middle class has been for the Dems, and the mistaken idea that domestic tranquillity can be achieved through bread and circuses provided to the masses on borrowed money.

Rome proved the error of that kind of thinking.

The War on Poverty has created a dependent class seething in anger, and the middle class can no longer even afford to move out into the 'burbs.

The middle class is paying for being dupes of the Dems for so many years.

Here in NY, the "burbs" is exactly where the middle class lives. I cant speak for what you see, but ALL I SEE is middle class...lower middle to upper middle in the suburbs. The middle cant afford Manhattan...and to be honest, it is becoming expensive to own property in Queens and Brooklyn as well...so you have mostly rentals there.

 

[Roadrunner]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

The problem is that the middle class has been for the Dems, and the mistaken idea that domestic tranquillity can be achieved through bread and circuses provided to the masses on borrowed money.

Rome proved the error of that kind of thinking.

The War on Poverty has created a dependent class seething in anger, and the middle class can no longer even afford to move out into the 'burbs.

The middle class is paying for being dupes of the Dems for so many years.

I disagree. I believe the middle class is pretty much divided.
When I was poor...and there was a time where I was truly poor...actually homeless for a short period of time....I liked what the democrats had to say...and I believed "the man" was out to get me and "the man" only cared about making money. When I woke up and realized my future was in my hands, I changed my whole thinking....and started to like what the more conservative politicians said. When I was middle class I voted republican across the board.....when I achieved success, I stopped voting party line and started voting based on what I deemed best for the state I live in (NY)......and on the most part, that was GOP for federal, and a mix at the state level.

Didn't take much time being poor to get my ass back into school, and get ready to make a decent living.

 

[Jarhead]

It's always amusing when people argue about which party is for the middle class when the fact of the matter is neither is. They both want the middle class gone. They want the rich paying them and the poor begging them to vote to give them free stuff.

The GOP has a reputation of offering free stuff and that's why the poor vote for them?

No, that's why the rich vote for them.

Just so you understand without the spin...

It is not "the rich" vote for them.....

The "business owners" vote for them because the GOP believe that the backbone of the economy is the business owner and therefore they back legislation that is designed to make it easier for the business owner to thrive, thus opening the door to hiring people.

And yes, those people tend to be "the rich".....but my way is a more mature and less spun way of presenting it.

 

[Roadrunner]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

The problem is that the middle class has been for the Dems, and the mistaken idea that domestic tranquillity can be achieved through bread and circuses provided to the masses on borrowed money.

Rome proved the error of that kind of thinking.

The War on Poverty has created a dependent class seething in anger, and the middle class can no longer even afford to move out into the 'burbs.

The middle class is paying for being dupes of the Dems for so many years.

Here in NY, the "burbs" is exactly where the middle class lives. I cant speak for what you see, but ALL I SEE is middle class...lower middle to upper middle in the suburbs. The middle cant afford Manhattan...and to be honest, it is becoming expensive to own property in Queens and Brooklyn as well...so you have mostly rentals there.

I have been looking for houses between Atlanta and Athens.

Huge swaths of middle class people trapped in old subdivisions turned to shit, and too in debt to move out further into the country.

I don't see how people live like that, all clumped up together.

 

[Edgetho]

dimocraps are about the acquisition of power.

Period.

For over 150 years, dimocrap filth were for, and practiced, the oppression of the Black Race. In 1964, LBJ saw and took an opportunity to obligate Blacks to the dimocrap scum party for 'the next 200 years'

dimocraps are about power. They will sell you down the river, they will sell your soul and their own souls for power.

That's all they're for, that's all they have EVER been for and that's all they will ever be for.

They will adopt any political stance, support any political idea, back any group of people and cast aside any other group that they think will benefit them.

Always have, always will

 

[Jarhead]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

The problem is that the middle class has been for the Dems, and the mistaken idea that domestic tranquillity can be achieved through bread and circuses provided to the masses on borrowed money.

Rome proved the error of that kind of thinking.

The War on Poverty has created a dependent class seething in anger, and the middle class can no longer even afford to move out into the 'burbs.

The middle class is paying for being dupes of the Dems for so many years.

I disagree. I believe the middle class is pretty much divided.
When I was poor...and there was a time where I was truly poor...actually homeless for a short period of time....I liked what the democrats had to say...and I believed "the man" was out to get me and "the man" only cared about making money. When I woke up and realized my future was in my hands, I changed my whole thinking....and started to like what the more conservative politicians said. When I was middle class I voted republican across the board.....when I achieved success, I stopped voting party line and started voting based on what I deemed best for the state I live in (NY)......and on the most part, that was GOP for federal, and a mix at the state level.

Didn't take much time being poor to get my ass back into school, and get ready to make a decent living.

Funny thing...when I was "blaming the man" for my problems, I lost my job and went into poverty.
When I realized it was my fault and no one elses, I sold my first company in 5 years (almost to the day) after I "turned a new leaf"....
I am now retired and still in my prime. Several years before I see 60.
So all those that want to criticize my ideology....it worked for me.....like it or not, it worked for me....and it is working for my children as well.

 

[Sonny Clark]

There's no middle class for the Democrats, it's the poor (us) and the rich (them). No in between.

Exactly my point. There is the upper 1%, some mythical group somewhere that is putting it over on the rest of us, and "Us".

FYI - The upper 1% is not a myth, they exist, are very much real, and in control. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with either Democrats or Republicans. The upper 1% consist of a mixture of all political persuasions. All socioeconomic "classes" consist of a mixture of political persuasions.

It actually is a myth. People unlike Europe things here are fluid. Look at the top 500 wealthiest people this past year. Now compare that to the same list 40 years ago. There are hardly any of the same people on it.

We're not talking about the fluctuations in the numbers, or the individual wealth of each. We're talking about the class as a percentage. They are real. How can anyone deny that there is a class of very wealthy, and that class is the minority class? It doesn't matter if the names change, the percentage is still there. Yes, some enter and some exit. Yes, names change. But, even though the numbers are increasing, their percentage remains basically the same. It is NOT a myth. The wealthy are real. The percentage is real.

That might be the most asinine comment I've seen here in some time. And that's really saying something.
Yes, of course what you say is sort of true. In the sense that in any economy some people will be in the top 1% while other people will be in the bottom 1%. Because income is not equal. Even the Soviet Union had a top 1% of income earners and a bottom.
So what?

Exactly my point. Of course it's true. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with Democrats, or Democrats helping. ( refer to the title of your post ) So, please tell me what is asinine about me stating the obvious? Please explain. Look, I don't make this stuff up. We're constantly flooded with stats about class, and the percentage of each. Rarely, if ever, is a political party referenced to either helping the upper class, or harming them. And, when it does happen, there's absolutely nothing to base it on, nothing. Remember, we've had a wealthy percentage since the beginning of man. And, surely you know that the upper 1% has existed through many administrations, both Republican and Democrat. So, the bottom lines is, there is no party for the top 1%. The top 1% has done well for many decades now, regardless of the make up of Congress, or who occupied the oval office.

So, again, what is asinine about me stating the obvious? Please explain. Thanks.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

The sign is a bluff. Do you ever play cards? It has no standing in court whatsoever and does not have any legal basis whatsoever. Every truck is responsible for the damage they cause other vehicles on the road and can be sued. The sign is meant to discourage people from suing by convincing them they cannot do so.

And of course none of this has to do with Republicans or business owner accomodations, but I'm sure it all makes sense in your head.

 

[candycorn]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

 

[candycorn]

Never mind that the effect of Democrat policies over the last 6+ years has been the decimation of the middle class. We wont go there.
But Dems are supposed to be the party of the lower class. Yet they constantly pander to the "middle class", as we see with Obama's new giveaways for community college and the like. Hillary is pro middle class. Kerry ran on a middle class tax cut. Now of course they cant do that since most middle class voters pay no income tax so they have to go for giveaways like student debt forgiveness. But I digress.
The issue is that about 98% of Americans see themselves as middle class. So Dems have to craft their rhetoric, if not their polciies, to supporting the middle class,e ven though more traditionally they were the party of the working class.
But in reality they are the party of the special interests. They are the party of the race pimps, gays, trial lawyers, barking-mad eco-nazis, peaceniks, ivory tower eggheads and the like. Certainly nothing fo rth emiddle class, whom they regularly despise and jeer. Recall Obama's "bitterly clinging" rhetoric.

The problem is that the middle class has been for the Dems, and the mistaken idea that domestic tranquillity can be achieved through bread and circuses provided to the masses on borrowed money.

Rome proved the error of that kind of thinking.

The War on Poverty has created a dependent class seething in anger, and the middle class can no longer even afford to move out into the 'burbs.

The middle class is paying for being dupes of the Dems for so many years.

Seething in anger? Oh...okay.

Who is angry?

I am retired.

Impossible to be angry.

Dunno...you wrote it.

 

[candycorn]

dimocraps are about the acquisition of power.

Period.

For over 150 years, dimocrap filth were for, and practiced, the oppression of the Black Race. In 1964, LBJ saw and took an opportunity to obligate Blacks to the dimocrap scum party for 'the next 200 years'

dimocraps are about power. They will sell you down the river, they will sell your soul and their own souls for power.

That's all they're for, that's all they have EVER been for and that's all they will ever be for.

They will adopt any political stance, support any political idea, back any group of people and cast aside any other group that they think will benefit them.

Always have, always will

IF they sell you down the river...how do they turn around and sell your soul?

 

[Papageorgio]

Who gets laws to help them, the rich and the poor, not the middle class.

We live in a plutocracy and of course the plutocrats will write laws in their favor. It is what they do.
The poor get some laws written for their situation because their situation sucks so bad and it is better for the plutocrats to have a rather quite poor class as opposed to them protesting and rioting in the streets.

So us in the middle are working, raising our families and trying to do the right thing for the most part. And I think that MOST middle class people don't want ANYONE but ourselves looking out for us.

No matter how many laws are written for the poor, I wouldn't change places for anything.

Now IF somehow I could get my hands on 100 million dollars, I would gladly be a rich plutocrat.
But I ain't holding my breath on that happening.

So yea, a little bit of populism would really help the middle out. But if that don't happen, we will still find a way to keep from being poor. Even if we aren't filthy rich.

Then how can you say the Democrats are for the middle class? They are not, neither are the Republicans.

 

[Jarhead]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

 

[Jarhead]

Who gets laws to help them, the rich and the poor, not the middle class.

We live in a plutocracy and of course the plutocrats will write laws in their favor. It is what they do.
The poor get some laws written for their situation because their situation sucks so bad and it is better for the plutocrats to have a rather quite poor class as opposed to them protesting and rioting in the streets.

So us in the middle are working, raising our families and trying to do the right thing for the most part. And I think that MOST middle class people don't want ANYONE but ourselves looking out for us.

No matter how many laws are written for the poor, I wouldn't change places for anything.

Now IF somehow I could get my hands on 100 million dollars, I would gladly be a rich plutocrat.
But I ain't holding my breath on that happening.

So yea, a little bit of populism would really help the middle out. But if that don't happen, we will still find a way to keep from being poor. Even if we aren't filthy rich.

Then how can you say the Democrats are for the middle class? They are not, neither are the Republicans.

He cant. He dodged the whole thread when he saw what we all said. He is simply anti republican...and the democrats are for everyone.
His posts are strictly partisan and nothing more.
He likes to vent. You can tell when he is having a bad day. He comes on here and rants and raves about how unfair life is.

 

[Jarhead]

dimocraps are about the acquisition of power.

Period.

For over 150 years, dimocrap filth were for, and practiced, the oppression of the Black Race. In 1964, LBJ saw and took an opportunity to obligate Blacks to the dimocrap scum party for 'the next 200 years'

dimocraps are about power. They will sell you down the river, they will sell your soul and their own souls for power.

That's all they're for, that's all they have EVER been for and that's all they will ever be for.

They will adopt any political stance, support any political idea, back any group of people and cast aside any other group that they think will benefit them.

Always have, always will

IF they sell you down the river...how do they turn around and sell your soul?

You responded to that rant? And you actually expect to get a legitimate answer?

 

[Sonny Clark]

There's no middle class for the Democrats, it's the poor (us) and the rich (them). No in between.

Exactly my point. There is the upper 1%, some mythical group somewhere that is putting it over on the rest of us, and "Us".

FYI - The upper 1% is not a myth, they exist, are very much real, and in control. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with either Democrats or Republicans. The upper 1% consist of a mixture of all political persuasions. All socioeconomic "classes" consist of a mixture of political persuasions.

It actually is a myth. People unlike Europe things here are fluid. Look at the top 500 wealthiest people this past year. Now compare that to the same list 40 years ago. There are hardly any of the same people on it.

Check the cemetery. After 40 years, you will probably find some there.

I have already stated that the names change. But, we're talking about the percentage, not the names on a list. Of course people die, even wealthy people die. The names change, but the percentage doesn't move much one way or the other. We're talking about the super rich and those considered to be very wealthy.

 

[candycorn]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Correction...they "should" have insurance.

 

[jasonnfree]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Judges are wise to frivolous claims usually. Tort reform was about protecting big corporations from legitimate lawsuits.

 

[candycorn]

dimocraps are about the acquisition of power.

Period.

For over 150 years, dimocrap filth were for, and practiced, the oppression of the Black Race. In 1964, LBJ saw and took an opportunity to obligate Blacks to the dimocrap scum party for 'the next 200 years'

dimocraps are about power. They will sell you down the river, they will sell your soul and their own souls for power.

That's all they're for, that's all they have EVER been for and that's all they will ever be for.

They will adopt any political stance, support any political idea, back any group of people and cast aside any other group that they think will benefit them.

Always have, always will

IF they sell you down the river...how do they turn around and sell your soul?

You responded to that rant? And you actually expect to get a legitimate answer?

From Edge? Legitimacy? Now that's funny.