You can shoehorn this into every post you make.....Dems were supposed to be the protection, instead they became a part... and it STILL does not address the fact that divided government prevents rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy that are more responsible for the inequity than anything else you mention.
The ONLY Party that still protects SS & Medicare and tries to create jobs by building things is the Dem Party.
You will not see a single initiative from the GOP House caucus that will address a sing issue you've raised.
No, not "Exactly" at all. You are still wrong in saying Clinton started it. And you are wrong, and have become as boring as listening to Gaetz, in your incessant knocking dems for a mindset the whole developed world was into. One that Reagan and Thatcher pushed and one that yeah, a pragmatic Clinton carried on because he felt it was good for the USA and because it was the only way he had a hope in hell of being elected. That's the reality you appear to ignore. And obviouslt Delong's points didn't make a dent into your position either. Probably because you've been repeating it ad nauseam for how many years. Even though your goddamn premise is not as solid as you feel it is. Your seemingly naive purity is what it is. You could never win an election with your positions. Life is about fucking compromise. You black-and-whiteers lend nothing to debate. Read it for sod's sake:
NAFTA and other trade deals have not gutted American manufacturing — period
By J. Bradford DeLong Jan 24, 2017, 8:10am EST
Politically speaking, there was no debate on United States international trade agreements in 2016: All politicians seeking to win a national election, or even to create a party-spanning political coalition, agree that our trade agreements are bad things.
From the left, we had Democratic presidential primary runner-up Bernie Sanders — and a remarkably close runner-up he was — slamming trade. From the — I do not think it’s wrong but it’s not quite correct to call it “right,” at least not as Americans have hitherto understood what “right” is — but from somewhere, we had now-President Donald Trump. Listen to them: The rhetoric is the same.
It goes like this: The jobs America wants to have — the good jobs, the manufacturing jobs — have gone. First came NAFTA, in 1993. Then there was China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, which granted China a normal country's freedom to export to other countries, and obligations to accept imports from other countries. Finally, there was the not-yet-implemented (and, as of this week, officially dead) Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Such agreements will leave, or have left, "millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache” (Trump), have "lost [us] … manufacturing jobs” (Trump), and created “catastrophe” (Trump). The agreements amount to "the death blow for American manufacturing” (Sanders), they “undermine our independence” (Trump), and they "forced American workers to compete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world” (Sanders), all while causing "massive job losses in the United States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories” (Sanders).
And what did we hear from the center establishment? We had popular vote–winning (but Electoral College–losing) Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. She stated: “I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president. …”
The rhetoric of all three candidates resonates with the criticism of trade agreements that we heard way back when NAFTA was on the table as a proposal — not, as today, something to blame all our current economic woes on. The independent Ross Perot and Republican insurgent Pat Buchanan claimed NAFTA would produce "a giant sucking sound [of jobs] going south” (Perot), that we’ve “wrecked the country with these kinds of deals” (Perot), that the deal added up to “anti-freedom, 1,200 pages of rules, regulations, laws, fines, commissions — plus side agreements — setting up no fewer than 49 new bureaucracies” (Buchanan).
The political truthiness has been flying thick and fast on this subject for decades now. Politicians are taking claims that have a very tenuous connection to economic reality — claims that feel true — and running with them, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes because of cynical calculation.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
