These are the people who will lecture us about income inequality

Loading

michelle_obama2012-as-marie-antoinette-med-wide

It’s been reported that Barack Obama is going focus on income inequality in his SOTU speech:

President Obama will try to pump some vitality into a lackluster second term on Tuesday when he delivers his State of the Union address.

The address will include a “healthy dose” of the income inequality message the White House has focused on in recent weeks, according to one senior administration official familiar with the text.

Naturally, Obama’s proposals will place the burden smack on the shoulders of small business:

The president, who has yet to add to the big legislative accomplishments of his first term, will call for raising the minimum wage to $10 per hour and extending federal unemployment benefits that expired last month.

Gratefully, a majority of Americans have awakened to the fact that Obama is incompetent:

A Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday found that a majority of Americans — 53 percent — did not believe the Obama administration was competent at running the government.

Income inequality has gotten worse under Barack Obama:

In other words, income inequality has become more pronounced since the Bush administration, not less.

“Rich people have pulled away, largely because the top 1 percent has been doing quite well — and disproportionately doing quite well under President Obama,” Brooks said. “Remember that the stock market has doubled in value since President Obama took office, and at least 80 percent of those gains have gone to the top 10 percent of the income distribution.”

James Carville has observed that Obama has been a great President for Wall St. For the working guy, not so much.

So let’s have a look at those who are going to hammer us about income inequality.

Barack and Michelle Obama: Net worth $12 million. 160 rounds of golf. Spent $100,000 of taxpayer money for Marie Antoinette’s his wife’s Hawaiian adventure. The taxpayers of Hawaii have to cough up $350,000 for the extra security:

KAILUA, Hawaii — During her recent visit to Maui and the home of close family friend Oprah Winfrey, First Lady Michelle Obama was escorted by Maui police.

The tab for that protection? $54,233.70, said a spokesman for the Maui Police Department.

That’s a drop in the bucket, though:

Honolulu police protected the first family while they spent some 15 days during the holidays in Kailua, Oahu.

Michelle Yu, spokeswoman for the Honolulu Police Department, said Thursday the department spent $293,731.99 for overtime only, an expense that excludes normal salary pay.

Neither county police department will seek federal reimbursement for those expenses, putting the burden on local taxpayers.

In 2008, when the Obamas first visited Oahu during the holidays, the City and County of Honolulu sought reimbursement, but were never repaid. Now the county budgets for the president’s annual holiday visit.

The Obama Hawaiian vacation costs more than $4 million total for travel, staffing, security, housing, car rentals and transportation of vehicles and a helicopter.

Michelle Obama’s extended vacation on the island of Maui, which the president said was an early birthday present for her, also entailed the cost for Secret Servicetravel, rental cars and accommodations, as well as transportation.

White House Spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged in a news conference just after the First Lady flew to Maui that taxpayers are picking up some of the cost of her trip and travel back to Washington D.C., but would not disclose the details.

But they deserve it.

And that still wasn’t enough. A big bash at the White House with all the 1%ers was also a necessity.

The event was closed to the press, and the White House did not release a guest list or any other details. But two guests spoke to the Tribune on condition of anonymity, describing a bash at which a deejay kept people on the dance floor in the East Room until after 3 a.m. Washington time.

VIP guests, according to sources, included political luminaries Bill and Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, national security adviser Susan Rice, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and Democratic National Committee official Donna Brazile.

Other high-profile guests included Sir Paul McCartney, Magic Johnson, Chicago-born actress/singer Jennifer Hudson, singer Janelle Monae, actor Kal Penn, TV personality Al Roker, actress Ashley Judd, tennis great Billie Jean King, retired Olympic figure-skater Michelle Kwan and Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, the sources said.

Jonathan Karl asked Jay Carney who paid for the party:

White House chief spokesman Jay Carney deflected a reporter’s question asking who paid for the first lady’s 50th birthday bash at Wednesday’s press briefing.

“The first lady had her 50th birthday party and I believe you said that the president picks up the cost for that party?” asked ABC’s chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl.

“I think we put out information on that,” Carney said. “I don’t have it here. I refer you to the East Wing.” The White House’s East Wing includes the office space for the first lady and her staff.

“I was just wondering if you have an estimate on what the cost was?” Karl prodded.

“I don’t, but I would refer you to the East Wing,” Carney said, putting an end to this line of questioning.

Acting on Carney’s statement, “I think we put out information on that,” White House “Statements & Releases” going back two weeks make no mention of who’s footing the bill for the first lady’s celebration.

You know who paid for this extravagance. We did.

Marie Antoinette Obama’s costly indulgences are nothing new:

President Obama spent President’s Day weekend, Feb. 15-18, golfing in West Palm Beach, Fla., while the first lady and the girls enjoyed a ski trip to Aspen, Colorado, as did Biden.

Taxpayers picked up a tab which totaled $295,437.04 for the personal vacations, according to U.S. Secret Service records from the Department of Homeland Security obtained by Judicial Watch.A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch June 21, 2013, against the U.S. Secret Service found this in the billing records:

* Transportation and lodging costs for the president’s trip totaled $98,135.79. This includes $32,406.50 for the flights, $16,466.25 for rental cars, and $48,490 for hotel rooms.

* The vacation costs for first lady Michelle Obama totaled $81,523.64, including $13,221.30 in flights, $3,925 in rental cars, and $64,377.34 in lodging.

* The expenses for Vice President Biden’s weekend in Aspen totaled $115,777.61, including $5,315 in flights, $92,596 in accommodations, and $17,866.61 in rental cars.

Remember that African safari in 2011?

The United States Air Force documents show that during the six-day trip the first lady and her entourage spent $668.702.01, including hotel and lodging costs of $430,614.18. The trip included a private family safari at a South African game reserve, according to Judicial Watch.

An additional $424,142 was billed to taxpayers for the cost of the flight and crew, according to earlier documents obtained by Judicial Watch, bringing the total cost to more than $1 million.

The Obama daughters were listed as “senior staff” so their expenses could be heaped on the US taxpayer.

And that Spain trip?

But while most of the country is pinching pennies and downsizing summer sojourns – or forgoing them altogether – the Obamas don’t seem to be heeding their own advice. While many of us are struggling, the First Lady is spending the next few days in a five-star hotel on the chic Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her “closest friends.” According to CNN, the group is expected to occupy 60 to 70 rooms, more than a third of the lodgings at the 160-room resort. Not exactly what one would call cutting back in troubled times.

Reports are calling the lodgings of Obama’s Spanish fiesta, the Hotel Villa Padierna in Marbella, “luxurious,” “posh” and “a millionaires’ playground.” Estimated room rate per night? Up to a staggering $2,500. Method of transportation? Air Force Two.

To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another. Transporting and housing the estimated 70 Secret Service agents who will flank the material girl will cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.

Perhaps it could be that the Obamas, who seem to fancy themselves more along the lines of international celebrities than actual leaders, espouse a different view of sacrifice. When Michelle Obama accompanied her husband to Copenhagen along with best buddy Oprah Winfrey, she billed the trip – an ultimately unsuccessful bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago – as follows: “As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the President to come for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home.”

A quick jaunt to Denmark is a sacrifice? What portraits in courage!

The Obama’s are just like us:

Incredibly, the Obamas have long portrayed themselves as precisely such commoners. Just this month, Obama told ABC the First Couple is “not that far removed from what most Americans are going through.” And that “it was just a few years ago that we had high credit card balances, we had two kids, thinking about college. We had our own retirement accounts, wondering if we were going to be able to get enough assets in there.”

But you know better:

Instead, Michelle Obama seems more like a modern-day Marie Antoinette – the French queen who spent extravagantly on clothes and jewels without a thought for her subjects’ plight – than an average mother of two. While she’s spent her time in the White House telling parents they should relieve their chubby kids’ dependency on sugar and stressing the importance of an organic veggie garden, hopping a jet to Europe to meet with Spanish royalty isn’t the visual the White House probably wants to project. Perhaps they’ve forgotten the damning image of John Kerry, on the eve of the 2004 election, windsurfing off the coast of Nantucket?

Maybe this is what Michelle meant when she said that the America was “downright mean.”

Nothing says you care about income inequality than partying with Beyoncé and Jay Z at $40,000 a plate, complete with a champagne tower worth $280,000. This really helps reduce the gap between the Obama wealthy and the rest of us. At the time Obama had this to say:

“We’re on the brink of an election, but more importantly, we’re on the brink of moving America in a direction where we’re going to be more just, more fair,” he said at the 40/40 Club in Manhattan, where Jay-Z is an owner. “The economy’s going to grow in a way that includes everybody, an America that’s respected around the world because we’re putting forward our best values and out best ideals.”

Jay Z is worth $500 million. What’s fair about that? The half-billionaire has this to say about income inequality:

“The real problem is there’s no middle class, right? So the gap between the have and have-nots is getting wider and wider… It’s gonna be a problem that no amount of police can solve, because once you have that sort of oppression and that gap is widening, it’s inevitable that something is going to happen.”

What’s he doing about it? Nothing. Is Jay Z spreading his fortune around? Of course not, silly. Then he says don’t demonize the 1%ers:

Jay-Z told the Times that said he told business magnate Russell Simmons, a supporter of the Zuccotti Park demonstrators, that he wouldn’t go “to a park and picnic — I have no idea what to do.” Simmons had asked him to support the protestors.

“I don’t know what the fight is about. What do we want? Do you know?” Jay-Z asked Simmons, according to the Times.

Jay-Z, who was born in a rough Brooklyn neighborhood and went on to build a music and business empire, took issue with the Occupy movement’s demonization of business.

“I think all those things need to really declare themselves a bit more clearly because when you just say that ‘the 1 percent is that,’ that’s not true,” he told the Times.

Nancy Pelosi: Her net worth jumped 62% in 2010 in the face of a recession. She is worth an average of $87 million.

Harry Reid: Net worth about $10 million now but only $1 million when he entered office.

Try this thought experiment. Imagine that someone grows up in poverty, works his way through law school by holding the night shift as a Capitol Hill policeman, and spends all but two years of his career as a public servant. Now imagine that this person’s current salary — and he’s at the top of his game — is $193,400. You probably wouldn’t expect him to have millions in stocks, bonds, and real estate.

But, surprise, he does, if he’s our Senate majority leader, whose net worth is between 3 and 10 million dollars, according to OpenSecrets.org. When Harry Reid entered the Nevada legislature in 1982, his net worth was listed as between $1 million and $1.5 million “or more,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. So, since inquiring minds inquire, let’s try to figure out how Reid’s career in public service ended up being so lucrative. He hasn’t released his tax returns, which makes this an imperfect science, but looking at a few of his investments helps to show how he amassed his wealth.

Seven of the ten wealthiest members of Congress are democrats. They are:

Darrell Issa (R-Calif) $330,380,031 $464,115,018 $597,850,005
Mark Warner (D-Va) $96,221,316 $257,481,658 $418,742,000
Jared Polis (D-Colo) $69,791,412 $197,945,705 $326,099,998
John K. Delaney (D-Md) $65,151,162 $154,601,580 $244,051,998
Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $102,547,780 $143,153,910 $183,760,040
Scott Peters (D-Calif) $27,518,090 $112,467,040 $197,415,991
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) $86,307,329 $103,803,192 $121,299,056
Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $63,269,025 $101,290,514 $139,312,004
Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla) $-58,149,853 $88,802,066 $235,753,986
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $1,046,071 $87,997,030 $174,947,989

The redoubtable Allen West:

I’m waiting for Obama to apply “income equality” to Jay Z and Beyoncé

Alas, this week we’ve found the theme upon which President Obama and the progressive socialist Left will now stake their claim: equality.

These astute individuals truly believe it is their destiny to make us all equal — as they define it. Listen to the constant rants from the president and the leftist acolytes about “income inequality.” With the full power of the government, either by force or coercion (or both), they shall rectify this inequality and make us all equal. How exactly is that done, and the larger question is, to whom?

Shall we turn to Lebron James and tell him he doesn’t deserve any more in income or compensation, than the 12th listed person on the Heat roster?

Shall President Obama and his pay czar decide what the base level compensation must be across the NBA?

Will the Obama administration turn to Roger Goodell, Commissioner of the NFL, and instruct him on team salary caps?

Or shall President Obama, known for his baseball pitching prowess, tell the New York Yankees they must rescind the seven year $155 million contract to Japanese pitcher Masahiro Tanaka — after all the comptroller of NYC believes in “shared prosperity for all over individual success.”

I’m waiting for President Obama to say during his State of the Union address that income inequality is so vital and important as issue that he will issue an executive order that caps the compensation for Hollywood actors and actresses. After all, why do they need all that income?

As well, entertainers such as his dear friends Jay Z and Beyonce must see a cut in their income and their concerts must be made more affordable to all Americans.

Great ideas all. Beyoncé tickets cost around $100 for a good seat. How does the average person afford that?

Let’s see Obama issue an Executive Order stipulating that all actors be paid the same in Hollywood and that all basketball players receive the same salaries. Let celebrities and Obama supporters demonstrate their sincerity in their belief that income inequality be lessened.

Without a doubt the proposals offered by Obama and the left will be to add burdens to the middle class- increases in minimum wage and more regulations. They will offer up class envy on a plate and make the middle class pick up the tab. And it won’t work because it doesn’t address the real problem.

If Obama wants to help address income inequality, he can start here:

A new study from Harvard University on the ability of low-income children to achieve social mobility found that the largest hindrance to moving up the income ladder is being raised by a single parent.

“The strongest and most robust predictor [of social mobility] is the fraction of children with single parents,” the study said.

Class envy is much easier.

In the old USSR the apparatchiks spewed the party line but lived far above those they ruled. It is the same for democrats and liberals.

Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d’une grande princesse à qui l’on disait que les paysans n’avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit : Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
106 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Ronald J. Ward:

Of all the people who frequent this board and have no understanding of economics, you take the cake. It is clear, just by the stuff you spew, that you do not, nor have you ever, owned a business or ran a business.

You claim that if businesses didn’t pay taxes, they would simple keep the excess in profits and not lower the cost of their product. History proves you to be wrong. Lower costs, which mean lower sales costs, mean higher sales. To prove you wrong, we can look at two items; the personal computer and the cell phone. How much did your first computer cost you? Mine was well over $1,200.00 and that did not include a monitor. It was slow, took forever to connect to the internet, had little memory and was hard to operate. Now you can buy a nice laptop, battery operated for use anywhere, rechargeable, with greater memory, more operating systems, lots of bells and whistles for less than $400.00.

Remember the first cell phones? The were called “bag” phones. They were heavy, clunky, service was lousy, the were not only expensive to buy but expensive to use. What about now? People are eliminating the use of land lines because cell phones are the only thing that are needed.

By using greater technology, and lowering the cost of the product, did Bill Gates or Michael Dell make any less money? Or did they, in fact, create more jobs to build even more product, that was so reduced in cost that even those you consider “poverty” level can now afford their products?

Then you make the dumbest comment of all:

If everyone had some skin in the game,we wouldn’t have 30 to 40 of the Fortune 500 companies paying negative taxes, actually being a welfare recipient of the tax payers.

The problem with that is you don’t really mean everyone. You mean those evil companies that you think should be taxed out of their factories and offices. Everyone would mean EVERYONE. No exemptions. Everyone; all. That means that GE, run by Obama’s good buddy, Jeffrey Imelt, would be paying taxes just like the person who lives in public housing, feeding their kids off food stamps, enjoying free utilities, free cell phones and free cable TV. Instead, when you created your list of companies you want to be included, you failed to mention the biggest abuser of all, GE.

As to personal income taxes; they were never meant to be imposed on the populace and it took the evil Woodrow Wilson (D) to get that passed through a Democrat Congress. And you ignore that all those “exemptions” and “deductions” were granted by Democrat Congresses. So while you whine about the few taxes you think corporations pay, you should look at the history of who enacted those “loop holes” and what president signed them into law.

I am not a proponent of the Fair Tax. It is convoluted, and confusing. I am a proponent of the flat tax and the elimination of the Marxist policy of progressive taxation. If you have three kids, and I choose to have none, why do you get a deduction for kids you chose to have? If you buy a home with a mortgage interest payment that is more than my entire house payment, why do you get to deduct that interest? If you make $500,000/yr and I make $50,000/yr, we should pay the same percentage in taxes (not to be equated with the same dollar amount), no deductions. None. Not for children; not for mortgage interest, not for local taxes. If you buy a pair of Red Wing steel toed work boots, but wear them on the weekends when you’re not working, they should not be a write-off.

So let’s go back to your premise that everyone should have some skin in the game. What skin should the person living off the taxpayer largess have in the game? If you have the right to have three kids you can’t afford to support, what is your responsibility to the taxpayer that is sending their money to D.C. so D.C. can give it to you to support your kids? Rights come with responsibility but we have created a whole segment of our population that demand their rights while refusing their responsibilities. In your Marxist mind with equal treatment for everybody, how is that equal?

As to corporate taxes; companies should be allowed to deduct the cost for R & D the same year they spend it, not taking a deduction over a five or ten year period. R & D does two things; it creates jobs and reduces the cost of a product because the cheaper the product, the greater demand for that product.. The only exception to that rule is the auto industry which understood that the more bells and whistles they offered (which did nothing to make cars safer to drive) the more they could charge for that vehicle. But then, once the greedy unions completely took over the auto industry, the industry was on a death spiral that could not be stopped.

I suggest you study Austrian economics, not the bastardized Keynesian economics the left pushes. You just might learn something (doubtful, but you might).

@retire05:

Of all the people who frequent this board and have no understanding of economics, you take the cake. It is clear, just by the stuff you spew, that you do not, nor have you ever, owned a business or ran a business.

The overwhelming willful ignorance from this blog which most don’t even try to hide is one thing.

An utterly stupid statement coming from a kibitzing troll of which he knows absolutely nothing about is yet another. I, according to you, have never owned a business?

Dr John pulls some conclusion from his ass that “The uber wealthy are all democrats and democrat donors” which you no doubtfully genuflect to because you are a lap dog troll and that’s what lap dog trolls do.

Yet, none of these folks could have owned business because, because, what the hell are you talking about?

I seriously didn’t bother to read further.

@Ronald J. Ward:

Wow, RJW….such an erudite defense of leftist ideology….portraying an opponent as frothing at the mouth…..ooooo. I am soooo put in my place. Gimme a sec to spray some Bactene on that burn….

BTW, if you were actually against “Social Darwinism and Plutocracy”, then praytell why are you not concerned about the ultra wealthy supporting Obama, and the numerous democrats bouncing back and forth between wall street firms and leftist administrations? What was it Geithner did before becoming Obama’s tax cheat Sec Treasury again?

Your banal leftist catch phrases and pathetic simpleminded attempts at insults aside, since that is your one trick pony modus operandus, please enlighten us with your brilliant refutation of my dissection of the inherent stupidity of the leftist push for an arbitrarily government defined “living wage”. I am waiting with baited breath for the crumbs of Keynesian economic brilliance to fall from your enlightened leftist piehole.

Please….put me in my evil social darwinist place……

@Ronald J. Ward:

The overwhelming willful ignorance from this blog which most don’t even try to hide is one thing.

An utterly stupid statement coming from a kibitzing troll of which he knows absolutely nothing about is yet another. I, according to you, have never owned a business?

Dr John pulls some conclusion from his ass that “The uber wealthy are all democrats and democrat donors” which you no doubtfully genuflect to because you are a lap dog troll and that’s what lap dog trolls do.

Yet, none of these folks could have owned business because, because, what the hell are you talking about?

I seriously didn’t bother to read further.

IOW, you have no response to any of the points I made. Instead, you resort to insults and slinging pejoratives to dodge making counterpoints all the while, patting yourself on the back for being such a cleaver fellow.

Major fail on your part.

You don’t want to debate anything. You simply come here to rail against “the man” who you think is standing in the way of your dream of a Socialist utopia. You demand others be required to do what you think not everyone should be required to do. You are simply a leftist talking point with a keyboard. Not much else.

But then, you are the typical leftist. You have all the answers to questions not asked, and when those answers are challenged with logic and common sense, you resort to the typical leftist retort; insult and lob pejoratives.

I guess you think you are fooling people, with your pretense to be not only intelligent, but informed in the realities of the world. Again, major fail on your part.

I fail to understand why you are even here. If you think you are bringing anything to a debate, major fail. If you think you are so much smarter than even the dumbest conservative, major fail. If you think that you present logic, major fail. Perhaps your personality requires you to be such a fool. If so, surely your health insurance covers mental health support.

Again, it is clear that you have never, and do not now, run a business. I would suggest you are probably a union member thinking that no matter how poorly you do your job (that is, if you even have one) you are entitled to more and more of the company’s wealth.

retire05
those come here to take the best info from the best CONSERVATIVES WHO HANG AROUND HERE,
and always giving info,
but the libtards never give info from their democrat party,
as if they where forbid to do so, and told to insult anyone who give them an intelligent answer to their claim,
and they come back to insult instead of thanking for the smart info,
it”s the same pattern for all the trolls coming here,
what a boring bunch,

When Quinnipiac asked voters “What do you think should be the top priority for President Obama and Congress in 2014?” —
income inequality earned 1%,
class inequality earned 1%,
gun issues earned 1%,
immigration earned only 2%,
environment earned 2%.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1999

The issues voters really car about are:
the economy (15%),
jobs/unemployment (16%),
and healthcare (18%).

And how is Obama doing on THOSE issues?
Obama’s standing on the economy and healthcare is upside down on approval 39-56% and 36-59% , respectively.

No wonder all he’ll do is ping-pong back and forth reading his two teleprompters in his sing-song monotone for an hour or so, hoping we all tune him out.

@ilovebeeswarzone:

Progressives don’t debate. They state their Socialist view points and expect others to take those view points as gospel. If you try to inject reality and logic into the conversation, their standard reply is “Yeah, but (quote some left wing rag like Huffington Post) so deny that.”

One cannot be someone who wants to look at actual facts and operate from a point of logic, and still be a progressive. Progressives base their opinions emotions, nothing more, nothing less. They truly believe in the philosophy of “spread the wealth” as long as they can stick their hand in someone else’s pocket.

@Ronald J. Ward:

Plutocratic

There you go, picking on Walt Disney’s dog again. Why bring Pluto into the discussion?

I might also add that while that “fair tax” has a nice catchy name implying that it might be, well, “fair”, I’ve yet to see one that is.

“I’ve yet to see one that is.” Where did you see a fair tax implemented? Don’t believe you have.

@Ronald J. Ward:

Social Darwinism and Plutocracy

You do realize these are Marxist words, right? He didn’t like Walt either.

But, since you like to use the word, which the actual definition of means. Rule by the Rich. Do you agree with that? Name one country in the world that is not a Plutocracy? After you decide you know one, check it out and then tell me why it’s not. There is not one country that is not run by the rich and never has been. If I were the richest person in the county I live in, I would control the politics even if I didn’t actually hold an office. why wouldn’t I?
But to put it simply, if you don’t want to live in a plutocracy, go ahead and blow your brains out. Uh, well, shoot yourself in the head anyhow.

@retire05:

IOW, you have no response to any of the points I made. Instead, you resort to insults and slinging pejoratives to dodge making counterpoints all the while, patting yourself on the back for being such a cleaver fellow.

Wrong again. You simply weren’t worth the time. You’re like a fish constantly jumping out of the water trying to be caught. What’s the point?

@DrJohn: It would seem to me that if you really and truly stand behind that argument, you’d be adamantly denouncing the Robert’s Court Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which seems to be so popular among conservatives, with obvious good reason.

What precisely is up with that?

@Ronald J. Ward:

An utterly stupid statement coming from a kibitzing troll of which he knows absolutely nothing about is yet another. I, according to you, have never owned a business?

About the only thing you seem to know about is Disney’s dog, Pluto. Leave him alone. But, I’ll bet you’ve never owned a business. If you did, it flopped, you have no conception.

@Ronald J. Ward:

Wrong again. You simply weren’t worth the time. You’re like a fish constantly jumping out of the water trying to be caught. What’s the point?

weren’t worth the time? then why read what she said and respond to it, just jump over it. No, the truth is you enjoy putting your ignorance on display, trying to impress OFA. You spend a lot of time here ‘wasting your time reading comments you say aren’t worth reading and writing responses you say aren’t worth writing. Gee, it must really make you feel important. OFA, tote up one more for him.

@Redteam:

But, I’ll bet you’ve never owned a business.

How much do you want to bet?

I’ll bet you won’t make any substantial bet. I’ll bet you’re all mouth.

Ignorant bloviating troll!

@Ronald J. Ward:@Ronald J. Ward:

How much do you want to bet?

I’ll bet you won’t make any substantial bet. I’ll bet you’re all mouth.

Okay, here is my bet: substantial

@Ronald J. Ward:

Wrong again. You simply weren’t worth the time.

So you spend time to respond to me to tell me that you’re not responding to me? How is that logical? Oh, that’s right; it’s not. It’s just your way of dodging the issues that you don’t want to talk about. Guess you think you have everyone fooled.

@Ronald J. Ward: I’ve often wondered why liberals have such a problem with Citizens United yet no problem whatsoever with unions consistently contributing hundreds of millions of dollars each election cycle to candidates; could it be because they donate almost exclusively to Democrats? Yeah, I probably nailed that one.

Tell you what… you give up the union contributions to candidates the dues-paying members probably don’t want to support anyway and we will be more than glad to give up corporate contributions, at least half of which goes to Democrats.

@Bill:

@Ronald J. Ward: I’ve often wondered why liberals have such a problem with Citizens United yet no problem whatsoever with unions consistently contributing hundreds of millions of dollars each election cycle to candidates; could it be because they donate almost exclusively to Democrats? Yeah, I probably nailed that one.

True to trolling fashion form, you zing right in there with appropriate rubber/glue rhetoric.

The argument you evade focuses more on the fact that corporate funding would ultimately outdo union funding, which if you can phantom, might hone in on “liberal” objection.

Now stay with me here because you cloned sock puppets are oh so easily, intentionally, and conveniently confused.

You see, Dr John wants to imply that “”liberal” million/billionaires are the true corporate donors, or something along that argumentative line of abject stupidity, which I suspect without the aid of the likes of kibitzing rodeo clowns like you, would simply leave an large dose of egg splashed on his face.

Or, he could grow a pair and explain.

@Ronald J. Ward:

you zing right in there with appropriate rubber/glue rhetoric,cloned sock puppets, kibitzing rodeo clowns

More Marxims. I notice you left Walt Disney out of this one. Why didn’t you answer my question? Which country in the world is not run by the Rich people? (and I’m not talking about Pluto)

And in classic leftist fashion, RJ responds with deflection from the point under discussion and goes to the Pee Wee Herman , “I know you are but what am I?” maneuver.

Leftist disingenuousness at its finest.

Course you could prove all us knuckle dragging conservatives wrong by actually putting forth a cogent argument, based on reality, but we all know the statistical likelihood of a coherent line of thought from someone trying to defend Keynesian economics splashed with more than just a dash of Marxism.

@Ronald J. Ward: You did notice I made a ‘substantial’ bet, didn’t you?

@Pete:

Course you could prove all us knuckle dragging conservatives wrong by actually putting forth a cogent argument,

For example he doesn’t like Pluto Places, but doesn’t know any place that isn’t.
RJW, are you on the work schedule for OFA tomorrow, or is that your day off?

@Redteam:

@Ronald J. Ward: You did notice I made a ‘substantial’ bet, didn’t you?

Well, uh, yeah,, but I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean in Redteam world. I mean, where would I go to collect that “substantial” payment? Pluto? And what defines “substantial”? What on god’s green earth is the hell you’re talking about?

Such silly rodeo clowns!

@Ronald J. Ward: I guess now would be a good time to point out that I have directed no personal attack or insult to you and asked a pretty civil and calm question. Now, I realize there is no suitable answer from a liberal as to why this discrepancy in opposition exists and that might really piss you off, but you should really refrain from the name calling and petty, silly insults. You might even consider answering the question.

For decades, unions have been free to soak members for dues and, with what remains after the union leadership and organized crime gets their fair share, they support almost nothing but left wing candidates which, of course, no liberal objects to. Suddenly, it becomes legal for corporations, which represent jobs and working people, same as unions and it is a massive affront to civilization. What is the actual difference?

See, corporate contributions don’t go just to Republicans; depending on the issues, business will support what is best for business (which almost always translates into something good for the nation overall). However, unions support unions for the sole sake of the union. They only want to wield power for the progression towards socialism. The very fact that they have priced themselves out of the labor market, cost millions of jobs and forced industries overseas attests to their selfish motives. They only support what supports their agenda, and that is always the left.

Now, if you can “fathom” how absolutely hypocritical, blatantly partisan and self-serving that is, we have an accord.

What Dr. John does not imply but actually says and then offers proof is that there are a LOT of wealthy liberals and these wealthy liberals contribute a LOT to Democrat candidates. Also shown is that while Democrat legislators take the forefront in faux-outrage over economic disparity, there are quite a few very wealthy Democrats in Congress, some of which were not quite so wealthy when they went into the “looking out for the little guy” business, which must be pretty lucrative. So, whining and crying about the poor is obviously nothing but a talking point and the poor are nothing but campaign props for their agenda of imposed dependency.

And, as Mr. and Mrs. Obama have shown over and over is that they likes them some other people’s money for some big old, lavish fun times!! Let the good times (on the taxpayer’s nickel) roll!

@Redteam:

Or, he could grow a pair and explain.

OMG, did the guy (RJW) who refuses to state his own political philosophy, who dodges every question thrown at him using the excuse that the questions are not worth answering, who slings pejoratives like they were candy being thrown from a Marti Gras float, and who never backs up his own claims, the same guy who has constantly proved he is nothing but a political eunuch, really just accuse someone else of lacking a pair?

That has got to be the funniest statement RJW has ever made. Do you think, perhaps, he was looking in the mirror when he typed that little ditty?

DrJohn –
Isn’t hypocrisy, greed, and liars grand? …much like Moochelle Antoinette…

One thing I have heard lately and it may make sense. It does to me anyway. You mentioned it in your post..excellent as usual btw…

Instead of Conservatives (Republicans) repeating themselves over and over pointing out how “incompetent” the President and his administrative is ( and yes, yes -we know)…I believe many are starting to either agree with, or believe this administration just may not be incompetent..at least not in the way they are being portrayed as being incompetent. Many believe what is going on in this Administration and with this President is actually by ” design”. And that is what is scary…

We should drop the ‘incompetent’ language (word) and call them out for exactly what they are (liars) – (deceivers). Keep driving truth home… Americans are tired of being lied to and bamboozled by these people with ‘cleverly worded sentences and messages’ – “sentences” and one liners used to incite hate, anger, divisiveness, and one of the seven deadly sins – ENVY…. Obama is dangerous and so is communism and socialism…

“Incompetent” – “Incompetence” no longer fits into the ‘language’ which would describe what the Liberals and Left Wing Extremest really are…and what their intent is….this is what should be driven home.

God Bless America..and you too DrJohn.

@Ronald J. Ward: 66 You said:

I’ll bet you won’t make any substantial bet. I’ll bet you’re all mouth.

And I said:

You did notice I made a ‘substantial’ bet, didn’t you?

And now you say:

Well, uh, yeah,, but I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean in Redteam world. I mean, where would I go to collect that “substantial” payment? Pluto? And what defines “substantial”? What on god’s green earth is the hell you’re talking about?

Geez RJW, you sure are confused. You called for me to make a substantial bet. You didn’t define it. I then made one and now you say you don’t know what a substantial bet is. Then why in the hell did you ask for one if you didn’t know what it was? I would say you’re confused, but I’ll just point out you’re a Marixt Lib. That explains it.

@Ronald J. Ward:

Such silly rodeo clowns!

Marxist statements.

@retire05:

That has got to be the funniest statement RJW has ever made. Do you think, perhaps, he was looking in the mirror when he typed that little ditty?

I’m quite sure he was. He hates this PlutoPlace so much I asked him what country in the world is not a PlutoPlace. He doesn’t seem to know the answer.
We need to find a few ‘new’ Marxist phrases for him to use to throw out to sound brilliant. He’s kinda hung up on Walt’s dog Pluto for some reason. But, we really should find him a couple more phrases to throw out.

RJW, okay here is a little help: Bourgeois and Proletarians, class struggles, bourgeois revolution,
You should be able to put these into sentence form in your Marxist ramblings, if you need more, just ask.

SOTU Omama didn’t say much, but he said it with conviction. LOL

I’m afraid there was more substance to Obama’s speech than there was to the official republican response. I was wondering if she would eventually get around to saying something positive about puppies.

Basically, this is what’s left once all the anti-Obama rhetoric has been removed from the republican message. The GOP really needs to get something with actual details together well ahead of the 2014 elections. If they don’t, they’re going to have problems.

@Greg:

If they don’t, they’re going to have problems.

Kinda like since Obama didn’t have any plans together before the 08 elections has resulted in a lot of problems.

@Greg:

I’m afraid there was more substance to Obama’s speech

Yes he explained Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal, the Obamacare scandal and …….no, wait…..he forgot to mention those. Well, at least he did clear up that he does want to raise your taxes and confiscate more of your money and let more illegals into the country, all those things we REALLY need to do………Thank goodness for the Marxists……

@Redteam: #60

Where did you see a fair tax implemented? Don’t believe you have.

Actually, there are 7 that have been. These states have no income tax:

Alaska
Florida
Nevada
South Dakota
Texas
Washington
Wyoming

Tennessee and New Hampshire tax income from dividends and interest.

How can states survive without an income tax? If the USA would do this, you wouldn’t have to file ANY income tax forms.

@Redteam: #83

SOTU Omama didn’t say much, but he said it with conviction. LOL

Since I use the MUTE button whenever I see obama come on the TV, I watched something INTERESTING instead of obama.

@Greg: #84

The GOP really needs to get something with actual details together well ahead of the 2014 elections. If they don’t, they’re going to have problems.

I agree.

@Greg: How could anyone make a substantive resposnse to a speech lacking substance? How can Republicans respond to Obama admitting that his economic plan has caused more economic disparity, higher unemployment, stagnant wages and poor growth? Reid and the Democrats need to respond to that one by acting on some of the legislation proposed by the House instead of shelving anything that might benefit the Republicans (by helping the American people).

Only Joe Wilson has the proper response to the fantastic, “I sure hope no one does the math” claim of 9 million signing up for Obamacare. The only proper response to his climate change lies would be to refer him to the evidence of no warming in 16 years, which would “prove” that the climate change we have seen is not caused by man and, as such, is not reversible by man.

One can save some time with the Cliff Notes of the latest speech: “Blah, blah, blah.” We’ve heard every bit of it before.

OBAMA SEEKS TO BORROW MORE FROM POOR, MIDDLE CLASS
By JAMES FREEMAN AND BRIAN CARNEY
As the Federal Reserve begins to wind down its Quantitative Easing program, which lends money to the U.S. Treasury among others, President Obama on Tuesday night unveiled a new way to finance the federal government’s rising debt.
In his State of the Union address, Mr. Obama pitched a new product aimed at workers who do not have 401(k) plans.
He specifically promised: “I will direct the Treasury to create a new way for working Americans to start their own retirement savings: MyRA.
It’s a new savings bond that encourages folks to build a nest egg.
MyRA guarantees a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in.”
Of course no investment is risk-free, and those with modest incomes will have to decide if lending money to the Treasury represents their best opportunity to build wealth.
The President is expected to provide more details at a speech today in Pittsburgh.

Heh heh.
So, China might beg off from buying so much US debt.
And people who make a living off of knowing what is ”good” debt to buy VS what is not might beg off from buying so much US debt.
What to do?
Obama’s answer….get ignorant people of lowly means to do it!
The man is brilliant!
If his photo is on the certificate a whole bunch of them will buy it just for that.
Later, when all its good for is wallpaper, they will even be happy about it.

And he has a nerve to lecture us about income inequality!

@Nanny G: #91
MyRA couldn’t be a more appropriate name for the program, since it will HIS money to do with as he wants. Investing money in our government is a sound financial investment. After all, look how well the following government programs are doing:

Social Security
United States Post Office
Veterans Administration
Medicare
Midicaid
Food stamps
The obama phone
Border Patrol
Free education for illegals
Free medical care for illegals
The treasury
Voter registration
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

This is just the start of taking over the existing 401(k)s and IRAs. They still want the existing 401(k)s and IRSs.

Government wants your 401(k)

Now Obama wants your 401(k)

I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.

HE MIGHT MAKE MONEY BY PROMOTING THE PHOTO ID,
what would he be scare to lose, he is leaving anyway,
THAT WOULD BE HIS ONLY GOOD DEED TO LEAVE TO AMERICA, a decent voting way to the people,
so they would never be rob of their votes,

THE CONGRESS HAS LOW POLLS BECAUSE OBAMA,
DEMONIZE THEM SO MANY TIMES SINCE HE WON,FROM THE START,
IT SUNK IN THE PEOPLE’S MIND ENOUGH FOR,
THAT THE PEOPLE REJECT THE CONGRESS WITHOUT KNOWING WHY,
OR WHO, OR WHERE , OR WHAT THEY ARE THERE FOR,
OBAMA INDOCTRINATION WORK WELL, HE STARTED THEM WHILE IN THE WOMB,

#52 -#56 – You are so right on every fact you wrote about.

Retire05 you obliterated RJW.

RJW has no legs to stand on to defend his leftist talking points…even with legs he could not defend his leftist-communist-socialist- b/s. He must get some kind of thrill out of prostituting himself out for his dictator. However, what RJW fails to realize is that he ‘thinks’ he is above all that he spews, and all he rails against – as a obama mouth piece – bottom line is whatever we get dragged into “he” also is dragged into…bad or worse.

It must be horrendous to have to go through life with such inner weakness and so much self-loathing.

His flinging of insults, and his childish “I’m not going to answer you” – Take THAT! Is so typical from a far left commie liberal.

You are wasting your truthful words and your great insight on a political hack – obama prostitute.

Pete@#54 – You are too funny with the sarcastic jabs (well deserved and well placed sarcastic jabs I might add). RJW doesn’t even make a good political hack prostitute for the ofraud…

@FAITH7:

RJW doesn’t even make a good political hack prostitute for the ofraud…

OFA is grossly overpaying him, even if it is minimum wage.

Obama’s whitehouse staff represents underpaid females at $0.89 to the dollar!! Amazing!!

@Common Sense: #98
To be fair, I would like a list of the people who do the same thing, but women are paid less. There is also the case where some women just want an extra income, and their husbands works, so she will work for less to get the job. I think obama wants to destroy this country, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue until I have all of the facts.

@Smorgasbord: OK, I like the fact that you have come back requesting proof regarding my comment. I have the proof and it IS published. Before I produce it though I want to test your integrity by asking a simple yes or no question. When Obama ran for office he told America that if you like your health insurance and/or doctor you could keep them “period”. Did he lie to the over 1,000,000 Americans who have already had their health insurance policies cancelled?? Remember, yes or no answer.