You may have read the piece in the Wall Street Journal: “America’s Unworking Men”. I agree with the comments that the Democrat Party benefits from increasing joblessness. It makes sense when we consider the Democrat model for expanding their political power:
1.) Strengthening control from the top through the regulatory and tax power of the Washington-Wall Street Axis. This is the “corporate socialism” (a.k.a. Fascism) that makes the Clinton Crime Syndicate the preferred political puppets of the lobbyist class, the bureaucrat class, and the “too big to fail” money firms. The money side of this Axis replenishes the Democrat Party coffers, and the political side of this Axis maintains laws and regulations that diminish competition from the little guys (i.e. Dodd-Frank adding cost to regional and small banks that put them out of business, thus increasing the relative power of the big banks).
2.) Increasing the ranks of the dependency class, which is the bottom-up manner of creating and maintaining a New Democrat Majority. Importing waves of unassimilated illegal aliens creates an Old World peasant class. Solidifying the ranks of the jobless, who become ever more reliant on government support, provides political support for the peasant class. The result is the Democrat Plantation – a voting majority that perpetually keeps in power the Washington-Wall Street Axis in return for sanctimonious, moralistic platitudes about “compassion for the little guy.”
Bill Clinton pursued policies that expanded business opportunity, which in turn led to more job creation. He did this because he was a DLC Democrat who wanted to bring moderate, business-oriented Republicans into a new, centrist, Democrat Party. Basically, he wanted the Democrat Party to be a suburban middle-class party.
Barack Obama pursued the opposite agenda. He put ideological class and racial warfare above all else. There would be no “Sister Souljah Moments” in Obama’s Democrat Party. Instead, we see an embrace of Black Lives Matter. On the economic side, Obama pursued a stimulus package that did little for job growth but provided a lot of paybacks for Democrat operatives and fundraising bundlers. Then, after getting past the crisis, he gave his regulators free reign to expand their political power at the expense of the entrepreneurial class. In essence, he abandoned the moderate, business-oriented Republicans in exchange for increasing and radicalizing the ranks of the new peasant class.
Will Hillary Clinton favor her husband’s DLC Democrat Party model or her predecessors Social Democrat model? Her close ties with Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms suggest the former, but I see little indication otherwise that she intends to dismantle the Democrat Party that now thrives on promoting class and racial divisions, radicalizing unassimilated illegal aliens, and tearing down moderate whites with a contrived “white privilege” message. The Clinton Crime Syndicate is all about pay for play and raw power. The Obama model is in place. There is no reason to think that she will set aside that model for the previous model of embracing entrepreneurialism and job creation.
Clinton will remain very close to Wall Street. The question is whether she will favor policies that facilitate job creation, such as a corporate tax rate cut that brings corporate capital back into the USA, or policies that foster more dependency. My sense is the latter, both because the Democrat Party has shifted so far to the left, and also because policies that enable more jobs and middle-class purchasing power wind up creating more Republican voters.
I suspect the Clinton Crime Syndicate will be pro-Wall Street, though she will trot out populist rhetoric to energize the base before elections, while also favoring the growth of the big regulatory-welfare state that kills jobs. Cronyism on the top and welfare dependency on the bottom will be her model, and the result will be a much poorer nation with Latin American style corruption all around.