In an article at the New York Times, they write, "A Quinnipiac University poll in Colorado, a crucial swing state, released last week indicated that 58 percent of voters said they wanted the next president to “change direction from Barack Obama’s policies".
Other than Obama's proposed TPP trade deal (which is horrible), what "economic" policies does this "58 percent" disapprove of? After all, Obama proposed raising the minimum wage and closing corporate loopholes to raise revenues to fund more infrastructure spending (to put more people back to work) — as well as equal pay for women, and a host of other good ideas that he and the Democrats can't get passed by the GOP. It seems to me that if this "58 percent" didn't like what Obama was doing, they should have voted Democratic in the last mid-terms — so that Obama could actually get his proposals enacted.
A Hillary Clinton advisor (Terry McAuliffe) said "things are booming”, but that is just for the top one percent — so he is totally out of touch, as will be Hillary if she tries running on that line. She wants to propose a plan to offer "incentives" to corporations that increase profit-sharing with employees. (What "incentives" — more tax breaks?)
And if the Republicans think they "ought to focus on national security", what ideas might they have — besides just sending troops to the Middle East without raising taxes to pay for a new war?
In another article by the New York Times, they write, "With the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign underway, and millions of Americans still hurting financially, both parties are looking for ways to address wage stagnation. That’s the good news. The bad news is that both parties are offering tax cuts as a solution. What has hurt workers’ paychecks is not what the government takes out, but what their employers no longer put in." (At least somebody gets it.)
Paul Krugman: (also at the New York Times) "It’s repeated so widely that many people probably assume it’s unquestionably true. But it isn’t, there’s no evidence that a skills gap is holding back employment. Rising inequality isn’t about who has the knowledge; it’s about who has the power." (Well said my man!)
Krugman again, in another post (at his blog): "If my math is right, the 90s ended 15 years ago — and since then wages of the highly educated have stagnated. Why on earth are we still hearing the same rhetoric about education as the solution to inequality and unemployment?" (Because the "job creators" need their excuses for paying low wages.)
Robert Reich at his website: "We’re all becoming independent contractors. The rise of 'independent contractors' is the most significant legal trend in the American workforce – contributing directly to low pay, irregular hours, and job insecurity. What makes them 'independent contractors' is the mainly that the companies they work for say they are. So those companies don’t have to pick up the costs of having full-time employees. It’s become a race to the bottom. Once one business cuts costs by making its workers 'independent contractors'' every other business in that industry has to do the same – or face shrinking profits and a dwindling share of the market ... They take these jobs because they can’t find better ones. And as the race to the bottom accelerates, they have fewer and fewer alternatives. " ( Just As I earlier noted: The trend in using temp workers doesn't look temporary.)