Why aren't Democrats supporting policies that lift those at the lower end of the economic scale?

Democrats claim they want to reduce income inequality and lift those at the bottom of the scale. So why are they trying to kill policies that mean: "For the first time during the recovery, lower-end earners are getting more of the benefit"? I would think journalists and other Democrats would be cheering these excellent results, but they are not. For instance, Democrats say they are all for raising the minimum wage. Well, here's a real minimum wage rise, and it's already in place: President Trump's lower taxes and reduced regulations burdening corporations are obviously allowing benefits and wages to trickle down to the wages of workers. In other words, the market works. Worker wages are rising without the federal government passing an increase in the minimum wage. Instead of accepting that the market works (and different areas of the country have different costs and economic activity), Democrats want to kill opportunities by forcing an increase in the minimum wage, no matter how destructive it may be to small- and medium-sized cities, whose poor and middle class will lose opportunities to move up the economic ladder. Small cities can often compete against big ones on cost. If Democrats get the minimum wage hike they want, they will kill the competitiveness of those cities and the jobs of their workers.

And that won't be all the harm they do. A significant increase in the minimum wage will harm senior citizens who supplement their fixed retirement income with part-time jobs in service industries, such as retail. Those jobs will go, too. The higher the minimum wage goes with all the other related costs, the faster the push toward automation becomes. Socialist House rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez actually said it is good to automate because it gives people more free time. Republicans generally believe that jobs are more important — jobs build up morale in a way being dependent on the government never can. The U.S economy is performing much better now under President Trump than it did at any time during President Obama's years, and what's more, it's performing better than almost all developed countries throughout the world. So why the strange push to reverse the policies? As Democrats disparage the very thought of "trickle down" economics, they are the biggest believers of all in that idea when it comes to what they are pushing for. They believe that the greedy government should confiscate a greater and greater share of workers' paychecks under the rubric of "taxing the rich," in the name of rewarding the rich bureaucracy around the D.C. suburbs with even more of that money, and then trickle out the remainder as they see fit. We have heard Democrats claim, repeatedly, that food stamps and unemployment benefits are great stimulators of the economy. This is trickle-down in spades, quite unlike anything that comes from free-market economics. Under President Trump, workers at the lower end of the pay scale are finally are getting the most benefit from rising wages. Here's what CNBC has to report: For the first time during the recovery, lower-end earners are getting more of the benefit, according to a Goldman Sachs report.

The trend could mean that the economy has more strength to it than some economists think.

The recent jump in paychecks has come with an unusual characteristic, as workers at the lower end of the pay scale are getting the greater benefit.

Average hourly earnings rose 3.4 percent in February from the same period a year ago, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report last week. That's the biggest gain since April 2009 and seventh month in a row that compensation has been 3 percent or better. For instance, retail industry employees saw an increase of 5 percent and leisure and hospitality earnings rose 4.6 percent from February 2018. At the same time, professional and business services workers gained 2.8 percent while Wall Street-related positions in finance increased just 2 percent. Unemployment claims are at a 50-year low. What is amazing is that in 1969 total non-farm employment was around 70 million and today it is around 150 million. But wait, there's more. From the Department of Labor released April 11: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS In the week ending April 6, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 196,000, a decrease of 8,000 from the previous week's revised level. This is the lowest level for initial claims since October 4, 1969 when it was 193,000. The previous week's level was revised up by 2,000 from 202,000 to 204,000. The 4-week moving average was 207,000, a decrease of 7,000 from the previous week's revised average. This is the lowest level for this average since December 6, 1969 when it was 204,500. Here is just a small amount of evidence that Trump economic policies are working well to lift everyone up. So why are most journalists and other Democrats fighting so hard to reverse his policies? These are numbers from December 2016 when Obama was done and March 2019 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Manufacturing Jobs 12.36 Million, 12.82 Million Construction Jobs: 6.82 Million, 7.45 Million Part Time Jobs: 5.62 Million, 4.50 Million (add 1,120,000 to job numbers) Black Unemployment: 7.9%, 6.7% Hispanic Unemployment: 5.9%, 4.7% Women Unemployment: 4.3%, 3.3% Less than High School Unemployment: 7.6%, 5.9% High School Unemployment: 5.1%, 3.7% Job openings also are very high at over seven million. Instead of focusing on the good news on the economy, Democrats are seeking to reverse and destroy Trump’s policies and go back to and expand on Obama’s big government policies, which gave us the slowest economic recovery in 70 years. Why would anyone want that if they cared about helping the poor and middle class move up the economic ladder? The Democrats are trying to stop, with whatever means necessary, giving the power and money back to the people. I understand why Democrat politicians want to get rid of Trump by any means necessary. I do not understand the unrelenting attack on Trump by most journalists on his economic policies, when those very economic policies have yielded such great results for people they claim to care about.