Biden: Middle Class Sunk Hillary's Campaign?

In a PBS interview, Joe Biden stated that Hillary lost because she didn't "talk" to the middle class.  His actual statement was:

"What happened was that this was the first campaign that I can recall where my party did not talk about what it always stood for -- and that was how to maintain a burgeoning middle class..."

The problem I have with that statement, is the phrase, "burgeoning middle class" The middle class isn't growing, it is shrinking; and those in the middle class know it. Pew Research found that the middle class has fallen from 62% of our population in 1970 to just 43% in 2014.  And, Democrats still fail to understand that it is their policies that have weakened those in this coveted social class.  For example, when you heavily raise the minimum wage, money is drained away from the middle class to give those at the bottom a larger-than-normal raise.  In another example, the affordability clause of the employer mandate of Obamacare states that when an employer must offer health insurance, it cannot cost any more than 9.56% of an employee's household income.  So again, the middle class is hurt because in order to limit the cost of insurance for low-end workers, other classes of workers, such as the middle class, are forced to pay more for their insurance.

In my opinion, Hillary lost because people in the middle class did not benefit from Democrat governance under Barack Obama.  It wasn't because of "talk".  Talk is cheap.  It is always actions that ultimately matter, not words.

References:

Joe Biden indirectly knocks Clinton's failed campaign: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/joe-biden-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html?sr=twcnni033117joe-biden-donald-trump-hillary-clinton1152AMVODtopPhoto&linkId=36046121

The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground | Pew Research Center: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/

ObamaCare Employer Mandate: "Coverage offered to employees must be considered affordable (can’t cost more than 9.56% of employee household income) and must provide minimum value (must have an average cost sharing of 60%). If coverage isn’t affordable employees can use the Marketplace and the employer can be fined" http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-employer-mandate/
 
pb

The Left is Still in Denial as to Why Hillary Lost

The political left and the left-wing media are still in disbelief that Hillary Clinton lost the election.  But, instead of looking inwards for answers, they continue to float the idea that "conspiracies" were responsible.

Just a few days ago, the New York Magazine reported that a group of  "prominent computer scientists and election lawyers" believed that the loss was a result of hacked voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania -- citing irregularities such as lower vote counts where voting machines were used. Then in that same article, the confidence in their hacking theory is immediately tempered by this statement:

"While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review."

Just last Friday, the Washington Post theorized that in fact a Russian propaganda effort threw the election; along with the hacking of emails from the Clinton camp and the Democratic National Committee.  However, as above, the veracity of that story was also weakened when the following was written:

"There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders."

The only problem with the above "speculation" is that team Clinton members never disavowed any of the hacked emails as not being "real".  All they ever said was that they were being released because Putin wants Trump to be President.  Hillary's campaign chief, John Podesta, even "suggests" that Trump had before-hand knowledge of the email hack and data dump in the last few weeks.  "Suggests" is not a proven fact, but Time.com thought the story was fit to print.

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about "fake news". The implication is that somehow, the political right is the primary "faker" of news stories intended to hurt Hillary Clinton.  Well, the above stories are only a few from the mainstream media that are solely based on speculation and not fact, in an effort to undermine President-elect Donald Trump. Maybe the agencies writing these types of stories should think about the fact that a lot of people may only read a paragraph or two of a long story and come to the conclusion the voting machines were hacked; not reading further to understand that this was simply an unproven assumption.  Obviously, "fake news" comes in all flavors.

References:

Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

Clinton Refuses to Disavow Hacked Excerpts From Paid Speeches: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/clinton-refuses-to-disavow/2016/10/08/id/752349/

Hillary Clinton Adviser Suggests Donald Trump Campaign Knew About Hacked Emails: http://time.com/4528049/hillary-clinton-john-podesta-emails-hackers-russia/

Treasury Selling GM Stock Last December -- A Wee Bit Of Insider Trading?

Back in December, the Treasury Department announced that they would sell off the last remaining shares of GM stock that it owned since the bailout, and since becoming publicly-traded once again in 2010.  It also sold a block of shares in November.  This was somewhat surprising since GM's stock price was largely on a tear due to good sales activity ; moving from just under $20 a share in mid-2012 to a record of more than $40 a share last December; and, as such, it was looking like the chances that the taxpayers would be left holding the bag with billions of dollars of losses were being diminished by the prospect that the stock price would continue to rise.  But, rather than hold out for that prospect, Treasury's sell left the American tax payer a $10.5 billion loss.

Now, as it turns out, Treasury's selling when they did was near perfectly timed because, from that point forward, the stock leveled off and, then, began falling throughout this year.  In fact, the stock price is off about 15% from its December highs.   It was almost as if Treasury knew, somehow,  that GM, because of their 10-year avoidance of an ignition switch problem, would result in having to recall and repair millions of automobiles and potentially suffer millions of dollars in lawsuits and fines, all of which could send the stock price into free fall.

While I applaud the fact that Treasury was able to "cap" taxpayer losses by selling when they did, the whole thing smells a bit like "a little bird told me" that the government was about to lower the hammer on GM's ignition problem.  Now, I can understand that previous liquidations were done while the stock price was falling, and those actions would be naturally done to minimize further losses.  But, to sell when they did, while the stock price was rising,  makes no trading sense unless it was known that the stock was at a peak. 


References:

Treasury sells rest of GM stock, ends bailout with $10.5-billion loss: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-general-motors-bailout-treasury-stock-20131209,0,4629861.story#axzz2xkoFDjLm

GOP: Stop This Woe-Is-Me-ing Over The Romney Loss

Ever since the election, Republicans and their pundits and political analysts have done nothing but try to understand why Romney lost.  All too often, they have concluded that the party needs to be more inclusive. That Romney lacked believability.  He had RomneyCare around his neck and, therefore, he couldn't take on ObamaCare in an effective manner. Then, there's all the other silly conclusions that people have come to; too many to waste time on in this blog.

But, they are all silly conclusions.   Romney, like Hillary Clinton, just couldn't win against such a historically significant Obama fact: The first black president of the United States.  After all, Hillary was a seasoned U.S. Senator with experience at being in the White House for eight years.  She was very well known on the world stage; because, as the President's wife, she met many world leaders and traveled to many countries.  Her en vitae stacked higher than her opponent's: A less-than-two year Senator from Illinois.  Even so, she lost to Obama.

People keep voting for Obama on an emotional basis and not on his past or current job performance.  Believe me, if he was white, he would have lost in a landslide; and, Romney's loss was not as significant as the GOP makes it out to be.  Enough with the "woe is me attitude".  The fact is that, in many ways, the Republican party is the dominant party in America.  Of the 50 states, 30 of the Governors are Republican.  26 states have GOP dominated legislatures.  In the U.S. House of Representatives, Republicans own 242 seats; and, the Democrats have only 193.  And, yes, the Republicans don't own the Senate; but, they should have been a lot closer if two tea party candidates, Akin and Mourdock, hadn't stumbled on abortion.

Then, there's the Presidency.  Since FDR and the beginning of  our 2 term limit, there have been 6 Republican Presidents: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.  The Democrats, on the other hand, also had a total of 6 Presidents: Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.  But, of those Presidents holding two terms, the Republicans lead 3 to 2.  So, even for the presidency, Republicans have not only held there own but, in terms of reelection, have actually done better.

Right now, many Republicans are calling for a change of their principals and values to be more inclusive and more attractive and more electable.  But, I say that, if you look at the above facts, the Republicans have always done well.  One 2012 loss to Obama doesn't tell the true story.  The fact is that history has proven the American electorate easily tire of both political parties.  That's why neither political party has ever achieved an extended string of presidential power. Clearly, if history repeats itself, there will be a Republican President the next time around.