Antoinette,
You seem to think Liberal equals to advocating for the “common man”. As such, you think conservatives have the money and are trying to keep it and liberals are trying to give the “little guy” a break. But does that make sense…
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton were thought of as liberal, but were they? Or were they purely “social liberals”. I am a fiscal conservative and a classical liberal (I believe we should all have equal “rights” not equal incomes). The point is the liberal label is a bit misleading as most conservatives are classical liberals.
But moving on to economics, both Obama and Hillary Clinton supported globalism. Globalism is by far the most powerful tool one can provide wealthy business owners to “control” employees…if they try to organize, you simply move the job overseas. Look at how many “union” jobs got outsourced or globalized under Obama. Hillary supported those same positions.
Trump has take the “traditional” Democratic platform of protectionism and made it a Republican platform issue. Protectionism does not protect “owners” as they can move the jobs overseas, it protects workers. No better proof exists than worker wages at the bottom half of the earnings scale are growing at higher rates than the top under Trump, the opposite was true under Obama. Minority unemployment is also at record levels, which is particularly good for minorities, who had much higher unemployment rates under Obama.
The corporate tax “cuts” reduced tax rates to the average rates worldwide. Tax breaks to corporations to produce in America is more a “worker” benefit since it creates jobs, then a company benefit. But most Americans and the media simply do not understand corporate thinking. US companies do not pay US taxes on foreign earnings until they “bring” them back to America… many never do. Without getting wonky, while US corporations set up an allowance to pay US taxes, they don’t actually pay them in many instances, so higher US taxes influence where a company produces goods more than how much they pay in taxes.
Liberals and conservatives often fight over which industries should get the benefit of government spending. In general, Democrats have been very good for the health care industry as they push for universal health care coverage, that translates into more money being spent on health care and so the wealthy who own investments in health care vote “liberal”. In contrast, agriculture and energy are traditional Republican industries because Republicans have historically supported less regulation and agricultural subsidies more than Democrats. Notice, its about which industry gets the money… not whether the poor get it…
Nowadays, politics is a combination of identity politics and shifting economic alliances. The super wealthy are generally strong advocates of globalism and so many have moved over to the Democratic side of the political divide. Promises of raising taxes on the wealthy mean nothing if your wealth is overseas. On the other hand a return to globalism means a fortune to the wealthy even if it costs millions in America their jobs. And even if those lost jobs cost billions in increased entitlements, the wealthy don’t care because they won’t pay the tax.
Conservatives today are largely comprised of small business owners, farmers, increasingly blue collar workers (Trump support among non unionized blue collar workers is huge), religious conservatives to name a few. Collectively, they represent the group that earns above average incomes, but not enough to shelter those earnings and strongly oppose higher taxes.
Liberals today are comprised of the wealthy, the poor, and the “socially” liberal, in addition to various “issue” specific identity groups. More and more the Democratic platform is jettisoning issues that historically were designed to help the working man and woman. Here are two articles on the subject… but you can find many more…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election
So why are many people confused? First, today’s Progressive wing of the Democratic party is not your “father’s or mother’s Democratic Party. Under the Progressive platform, the poorest of Americans will be less poor and the middle class will be more poor. So if you are in the “poorest” category, you like what you are hearing… you get free health care which you don’t have… free college… higher minimum wage…
But if you are a hardworking blue collar union employee, you will pay higher taxes to support free education and free health care, etc. and you will have worse health care since you will have a government health plan instead of the “Cadillac plan” you have now. You will be paying for someone else’s college education. That person will someday earn more than you working for a government agency. All in all, not a good deal. All this assumes you still have a job (if you don’t you join the other side) and it has not been outsourced. In addition, with higher minimum wages, your cost of living will go up…
Under Progressive politics, a “new elite” which incorporates the wealthy, high level bureaucrats, those that control the media, and those who control education will largely run the country (this structure is largely already in place in Europe). People don’t elect the people that regulate their world… those people are appointed and work at the EU Headquarters.
A similar thing has been taking place in America. How many media outlets report the news without bias? How open are college campuses to conservative ideas? What government bureaucracies advocate a shrinking role for themselves?
So I am not “kidding”. In the future, when you hear politicians speak (regardless of what they say) assume the wealthy will not be paying a great deal more than they do today and the same for businesses. Again as proof, I point to the Obama Presidency where higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations led to stagnant income growth for the middle class and most of the income growth going to the wealthy… remember those were “liberal” policies…
When you realize that the wealthy often benefit under “liberal” government, then you begin to see the real issue is how much of the “middle class’s” income will be “socialized” and how much will they keep. Not how much the wealthy will pay…
