Veronique de Rugy:
President Obama’s State of the Union address next Tuesday will be a little different this year from years past, because he isn’t expected to announce any new major proposals during the speech itself. But he will lay out big plans — we just know what they are already. From Politico:
But as for the State of the Union tradition of unveiling big announcements for a year-ahead agenda, Obama’s done with that. The country’s been done with that for a while, aides say, and the White House has finally caught up.
They believe they’ve now redefined the State of the Union model, not just for this year and next but for the next couple of presidents at least.
Most of what’s in the speech they’ll have already announced as part of Obama’s two-week lead-up tour. White House aides say that may be it — they’re not interested in making big legislative asks for the GOP to reflexively shoot down, nothing on par with last month’s surprise restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba.
It doesn’t matter much either way. Whether he announces proposals during the speech or in the two weeks preceding the speech, the bulk of what the president wants to do is give stuff away for “free”:
- Two “free” years of community college for Americans who are “willing to work for it.” This is obviously not free because taxpayers would be footing the bill. It’s also a bad idea since it wouldn’t even accomplish its intended goal.
- “Free” paid sick days and paid family leave. It won’t be free for the employers who would have to shoulder the cost, or the employees who would suffer from the unintended consequences of a policy that would make hiring more expensive, cuts workers’ wages, and make employment contracts more rigid.
obama’s main objective is to turn this country into a socialist union, plain and simple. he cares nothing about the United States and IMHO is anti-American. Yes he won two elections. The first from guilt, the second from massive fraud. Only because he has had the NSA, CIA, FBI and the rest of the alphabet get the dirt on all of the senators , congressmen, and the SCOTUS has he been able to keep himself in power. It will take decades to restore our country once he leaves (and if he leaves) and we will probably not regain most of the freedoms we have lost.
That’s a rather poorly misleading attempt to exploit the word “free”.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch which I’m sure even the nuttiest of the fruitcakes here would agree. Someone picks up the tab.
Taxpayers now pick up the tab for K through 12 education which most people understand is needed. If we are an ignorant nation, we fall to the educated ones. If we are to survive, we must maintain a high level of education. So much like most of the babbling nonsensical hate spewing Obama bashing rants that comes from here, it’s hard to understand precisely what your distorted argument is.
My dad and father inlaw both graduated from the 8th grade which was considered well educated in that day. Obviously, that would fall way short today. Likewise, times have changed to the point that a mere high school diploma is no longer considered educated. We either improve or correct this or we loose ground in technology, military, medicine, ect and will fall behind as a world power.
So is your argument really about “free” or is it something else? Perhaps you feel tax payers should not pick up the tab for any education?
Your “free” argument on sick days is even more stupid as you seem to dismiss the “compensation” factor. It’s almost like saying a worker asking for a raise or a benefit is wanting something free, that his/her services are nonexistent, that there’s nothing to be bargained.
What part of the U.S. Constitution does Obama understand?
Not the part about where revenue-generating must originate with the HOUSE, that’s for sure.
Article 1. Section 7. Clause 1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…..
Obama can’t just by fiat create a new tax to pay for a new program.
@Nanny: You are correct that Obama can’t just by fiat create a new tax. He knows that. However, he does have every right and it’s certainly constitutional for him to “propose” whatever tax he wants, which is what he’s doing.
You guys seriously let your conspiracy theory minds go full throttle at the mere mention of Obama’s name don’t you?
If he proposes it, he can sit back and relax.
It will not happen unless Dems retake the House and Senate.
Meanwhile Dems are beginning to notice that ”free stuff’ has stopped translating into voting booth attendance.
The entitlement class they have created doesn’t come out to vote for OLD free stuff.
There’s got to be NEW free stuff and plenty of it to garner votes.
Maggie Thatcher was correct. ‘The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.’
Even if Obama taxes ”the 1%” at 100% of their income it wouldn’t be enough for what he’s proposing.
His claim that more taxes on everyone earning over $400,000 won’t be enough, either.
He’d still need more tax money flowing into the gov’t coffer.
@Nanny: Changing your tune a bit from your #3 comment?
There’s a consistent pattern with the nonsensical moon howlers here and that’s when you get the legs pulled out from one of your silly faity tale of an argument, you simply pretend you never said it and reply with a long list of newly concocted gibberish.
It is the president himself who used the word “free” because he knows to some in this country it will be appealing.
They aren’t thinking in terms of someone else having to pay if they get the freebies. So where does it stop? Doing employer paid FMLA will kill a lot of small businesses. They simply won’t have the money.
If his “free” college program actually came to fruition it would hurt 4 year institutions first. They get a lot of money from large classes of students that come in the first couple of years, but many don’t finish beyond those couple of years. So these students would then end up a “free” community colleges instead and the other institutions would bear the brunt of lost revenue.
But I’m sure Obama being the deep thinker he is has all this figured out. He can spread the costs over the 57 states and it will all work out.
Food for thought.
@Mully: I can agree that Obama’s use of the word “free” was more of a selling concept but realistically, his entire proposal is no more than political theatrics as we all know, there’s no chance in hell of either GOP chamber accepting it. All this is is demostrating that Dems are suppotive of middle class workers where Rs will cling to their plutocratic agenda and protecting their wealthy donors at any cost.
Not quite sure of your educational argument but it seems to be putting the interest of the institutions above that of America.
As far as businesses “simply won’t have the money” for their employees, I have a hard time being sympathetic. I’ve argued an economic need for a MW increase many times but regardless, I’m tired of subsidizing workers for profitable businesses who refuse to pay a livible wage or livible benefits. Any steps that enables full time workers to be less dependent on government entitlements (which aren’t free) I find as a win/win.
At least you admit Obama’s blathering is only political theater.
If it was such a great idea to raise taxes yet again on producers to try to buy the votes of the “middle class” why wasn’t this proposed when dems controlled both houses of Congress and the White House?
If arbitrarily forcing through government fiat an increase of the minimum wage to $15/hr will magically get people off government welfare, why not increase the minimum wage to $30/hr? Wouldn’t that be twice as effective? Surely the mean old business owners wouldn’t have to increase prices or decrease employment rolls to avoid bankruptcy, right?
We are now over $18 trillion in debt, up from $10.8 trillion when Obama took office. This is despite record taxes revenues. There is no case in history of a government, business nor individual spending its way out of debt. Furthermore, listening to leftists complain about the rise in medical costs as they ignore the insane increases in the cost of a college degree is laughable. Having the government, already drowing in student loan debt, now introduce a bill to pay for community college is beyond insanely stupid. What has been the outcome of the higher-than-ever average cost per pupil paid for gradeschool education on US educational rankings?
Yes Obama is good a theatrics and little else. He’s not serious he just plays to peoples emotions and lack of depth. He does shallow and knee jerk very well. You obviously go for that. Talk is cheap and you are cheaply bought. You raise no questions at all as to how we would pay for his proposals. You just fall in line with the other lemmings. Yet if a Repub calls for a tax cut are you not among the first to ask how are we going to pay for this?
You apparently believe Dems have no “plutocrats” or wealthy donors. Take a look at wall street which is full of wealthy DEM donors. Plus 7 of the 10 richest members of congress are DEMS. But I guess rich Dems are ok by you as long as they talk the talk you like. Sucker. Romney being rich was a big issue when he ran. Kerry being rich wasn’t when he ran. Why was that? Yet those same rich DEMS take every tax deduction and dodge they can so as to pay as little tax as they can, instead of their “fair share”. Hypocrisy 101.
As a big supporter of MW increases I’m sure you regularly patronize small businesses and hand over more money than asking price for products to those MW workers that serve you there. Right?
@Mully:: You seem to follow the familiar pattern of recreating the narrative in order to simply blame Obama (for something ) while dodging the shortcomings of the oppositon party.
The issue isn’t about one being wealthy. Being successful and profitable doesn’t define one as a plutocrat nor does it suggest they advocate slave wages or that they support tax payers subsidizing their full time work force. The real difference between the 2 parties boils down to which class of people they are more apt to represent or perhaps, to throw under the bus, and to what extent. It’s about the actual policies they push for.
Your spin does nothing to address the fact that millions of full time workers on the government dole because their wages are simply unsustainable yet their employers are raking in record profits. It’s not that I don’t have a problem with these profits but I do have a problem with my money being taken to subsidize these millionaire, and billionaires employee payroll. For example, did you know that around 65% of the homeless work full time jobs? What is your solution? You won’t give an intelligent response because it conflicts with your unrealistic Obama bashing which dictates your alegence to the plutoctatic and social Darwinism opposition.
Above, Pete (which amazingly reappears after a previous ass kicking of epic proportion) makes the sophomoric argument of “why not $30 an hour” if a MW increase helps the economy. Let’s clear this up and expose how fraudulent this argument is and how it relates to your silliness. No one that I know of, even among the most liberal lawmakers, advocate $30 an hour as it’s understood there’s an economic disruption point. We understand that excessive cost will close businesses. No one that I know of is arguing that. However, most economists understand the balance of stimulating the economy vrs starving it. Perhaps you disagree with Henry Ford’s concept but ultimately, you have to have buyers in order for the economy to survive. So to put Pete’s very argument into perspective, if lower wages are needed for business growth, why not a dime an hour. The problem is that there would be no spendable money to buy Big Macs or keep the WallMart doors open. There has to be a balance. You won’t intelligently debate this because, well, Obama’s bad and anything Obama wants has to be bad so it’s actually you that has drank the plutocratic kool ade.
Yes, Obama’s push to help working Americans will fail, at least as long as the wealthy donor’s yesmen are in control of Congress. While it’s theatrics, it’s putting front and center who supports who. It defines Dems as an advocate for working Americans and Reps as solely in the pockets of their wealthy donors.
It’s certainly a conversation that needs to happen.
No surprise that you would spew another left wing dog whistle. Perhaps you can tell us exactly what slave “wages” are since slaves were not paid, AT ALL. And the days of 16 Tons and the “company” store have long since just become history.
Right. I’m sure you can show us how Peter Lewis and George Soros do NOT take advantage of every tax loophole allowable in order to reduce the taxes they pay, right?
Can you name the “employers” who are raking in record profits that does not distribute those profits to share holders such as teachers, police officers, fire fighters, et al, that invest in those companies via their retirement plans? And I would be interested in knowing just how much you think that the guy who works at McDonald’s, who has less than a 10th grade education and can’t even master the math to make change for a dollar, is worth?
So can we assume that you agree with Henry Ford’s concept of generating more buyers for his product? Because I would find that odd and completely at odds with your progressive views. Henry Ford refused to allow his workers to unionize, and he streamlined his factory to reduce costs in order to make his car more affordable. One of his concepts was to offer the buyer a choice in color, as long as it was black. His assembly line concept allowed for speed in building cars and therefore cut labor costs.
Again, assign a value to the labor of someone who can’t even make change for a dollar.
Most business are owned by private individuals who put their ideas, energy and personal labor and money into the business. These are the people who hire the majority of American workers. Many times the owners of a small business take less money in salary than does their workers simply because they are trying to build their business. You would demand that those very people reap even less for their efforts. But just as Obama’s ruling (by dictate) on the number of hours considered full time cost people their jobs, a hike in the minimum way will do the same. It is a lose/lose situation and the only outcome is that the goods and services produced by small businesses, already over taxed and over regulated, will cost those low income workers you seem to champion even more in the cost for goods and services. If a McDonald’s franchise holder has almost double the salary he/she pays for entry level jobs, logic (which you do not seem to possess) tells one that the cost of a Big Mac will necessarily sky-rocket.
Who did you learn economics from, Paul Krugman?
@retire05: I’ve repeatedly exposed you as a babbling idiot, an argumentive fraud profoundly ignorant on the very issues you endorse. You’ve repeatedly lied about the very words you say even when they’re in black and white right before our eyes. You cowadly run from your very own failed arguments while clinging to them at the same time, making up even more stupid shit that conflicts with reality.
Why you even show your face again and expect as much as an iota of credence is beyond comprehension. Even your above rant is riddled with errors while you once again ignore the argument while making up your own, only to claim victory to your fabricated idiocy.
After eras of ignoring you (only making you look like an abject idiot when I toy with you), by what possible stretch of imagination can you phantom that I’d even consider engaging in your hackery of talking points with your long history of blatant dishonesty of intentional spin? Are you seriously that incredibly stupid or do you have some infatuation with me? What is it that drives you to stalk me when you always get burned?
Social engineering via taxes sounds so good to the Left.
So, how about a family making $50,000/year?
First one family where only one parent works so the other can be a full-time parent of the children in their home,
the second where both parents work and the children must go to child care daily.
Which one does Obama favor with lower taxes?
Under Obama’s plan, the second couple receives a large child-care credit and a new second-earner credit. The first couple does not — and so pays higher taxes than the second one.
This is an especially destructive form of social engineering, bringing back memories in those of us old enough to recall the forced labor and forced child care in the old USSR.
Under Nikita K., all children were taken away from their parents until bed-time.
Obama looks at that aspect of socialism as a feature, not a bug.
Only in your own delusional mind and those who suffer from cognitive dissonance.
I quote you quite accurately, RJW. I do not misrepresent your words one iota. Of course, in your fragile mental state, you think others misquote themselves. More often than not, they are trying to clarify to you, who sufferes from cognitive dissonance, what they meant by what they said by reducing it to language even a three year old could comprehend.
Like all liberals/progressives, you reduce your argument to simple ad hominem attacks. Not once, in your comment to me, did you address the points I made in post #12. Rational thinking people understand that when you do that, you have no cogent response so you merely attack anyone who disagrees with you.
You seem to think you’re too cute by half, you’re not. You’re just another transparent liberal who has no valid argument for the statements you, yourself, make.
But thanks for playing the part of FA clown. Everyone needs a laugh occasionally.
It seems that you are the one who is incredibly stupid. I suggest you look up the legal definition of “stalking.” Responding to your comments on a forum is NOT staking. If so, you are staking me when you respond to my comments.
Now let me be quite clear; your ad hominem attacks against those who post here at FA simply solidifies the fact that you are just another blathering idiot for the DNC.
@retire05: To be clear, it is you that intrudes on my conversations with others, as is the case here. I generally respond to the original forum (as in the case here) only to be bombarded with the usual resident ssockpuppets (as with the case here ) who attempt to change the narrative (want to revisit thst one my intrusive stalking friend? ) while the failed arguments of the forum slips away. It’s just like when I challenged Dr John for saying the gov shutdown was Obama’s fault ( which is profoundly stupid as the bill never made it’s way through the upper chamber for Obama to sign or veto either way), He cowardly ran for the hills while the resident trolls took over with their non sequitur gibberish. That’s who you are. It’s who Dr. John is and it’s what this blog is. And that’s what I’ve exposed repeatedly.
Let me see if I can explain the process to you in terms dumbed down so that even you understand them.
Curt entered an article, written by Veronique de Rugy. You expressed your opinion (I assume on the article, although you were not specific who you were responding to) in post #2. Nanny then commented, her comment not addressed to anyone in particular, especially you. But you responded to Nan specifically in your post #4.
Now, according to your own rules, you were an intruder into Nan’s post.
That’s how an open forum works, Mr. Dimwit. You post a comment, then others have the liberty to post their comments addressing yours. That is NOT stalking. It is simply a blog where you are allowed to spew your absurdity with abandon and others have the liberty to respond.
While you are glib, you’re really not very bright, are you? And still, you dodge responding to any of the points I made in post #12. Do you really think others cannot see through your charade?
If you are so distressed and dissatisfied with the content of the web site, why do you stay? Are you sadistic?
I would get quite the chuckle out of your comic scrawlings if they didn’t result in such evil results. As to whatever “epic ass-kicking” you referred, I guess I must have missed whatever legendary battle you fought in your delusional mind. Honestly, the cognitive dissonance displayed in your post is a textbook example of intrinsic leftist incomprehension of basic economics, seasoned heavily with a complete lack of awareness of how your rantings undermine your own position. Allow me to illuminate, using your own words:
Firstly, your persistent use of the word “plutocrat” demonstrates your marxist ideology whether or not you have the honesty (which is highly unlikely) to admit your core beliefs.
Next, you admit to an “economic breaking point” while disingenuously twisting the point of my discussion of the $30/hr versus $15/hr proposed minimum wage increase – and do not have the intellectual awareness (or the integrity, but frankly based on your rant I would believe the former description more accurate- though both seem applicable to you) to recognize the cataclysmic flaw in your position. You argue that $30/hr wage will bring negative effects, but that the arbitrary government-forced increase to $15/hr won’t result in the same negative effects. You are basing this on the same nonsense all leftist bloviation is based upon, that is your immature magical thinking. I made my $30/hr query to try to get you to admit to the negative economic impact of an arbitrary increase of the minimum wage, and you respond with your ridiculous tangential nonsense of “why not 10 cents/hr” – completely missing the real point under discussion, which is defining the VALUE of a subset of the commodity of labor. I, nor conservatives in general, make the argument that the minimum wage must be lowered to grow business. That is just the typical leftist strawman garbage which you throw out because you cannot defend your idiotic position.
Any commodity has value, based on societal perception of worth, tempered by available supply versus the societal demand for the commodity. This is a simple concept which you leftists perform the most amazing mental gymnastics to avoid accepting, no matter how many times reality slaps you in the face. Low-skilled labor has an intrinsic value that cannot be artificially/arbitrarily increased without significant negative economic impact that far outweighs any theoretical positive effects pushed by marxist mouthpieces.
Take for example two low-skilled positions, that of a garbage collector, versus that of a fast food cashier. Neither one requires even a high school education to perform the assigned tasks. I believe one could easily argue that the garbage collector’s job has greater societal value than that of the fast food cashier given the result of not having garbage collected and removed on a regular basis versus not eating at a fast food restaurant for a prolonged time. Society sets wages for the two different positions accordingly to their WORTH to society.
Take a different example, comparing a professional ball player versus a neurosurgeon. One plays a game for entertainment purposes, while the other performs lifesaving operations. Both require exceptional skill and training, though one is arguably much more academically demanding. Yet society has set an economic value of the professional athlete higher than that of the neurosurgeon. Yet which job would be more detrimental for society to go without? Is this “fair”? I would argue that whether or not it is “fair” is irrelevant. What matters is what others are willing to pay for the service or talent one has to sell, and whether or not you are willing to sell it for the price being offered. Having government bureaucrats step in to arbitrarily set these values will always cause negative economic impacts in a society. Venezuela’s current situation is the most recent example – which started even before the drop in worldwide oil prices.
Now, getting back to the specific point of the $15/hr minimum wage assignation, here is what will occur if such marxist-oriented stupidity is forced upon us:
1. Businesses faced with the costs of an almost doubling of the minimum wage will also see their employer-paid portion of payroll taxes double. They will either have to let employees go, or significantly increase their prices for their product – or a combination of both maneuvers – in order to stay in business.
2. Those employees who lose their employment because their former employer can no longer afford to employ them will end up on welfare, increasing the cost to taxpayers of an already overburdened system.
3. Those employees lucky enough to still have employment will find that in addition to the almost doubling of their minimum wage paycheck will be a similar almost doubling of the amount of taxes they will have taken out of their checks. In addition, though they may have a slight increase in the amount of take home pay after all the taxes are taken out, they will see a significant increase in the cost of everything they need or want to buy, and there is an exceptionally good chance that shortages of items will develop as businesses stop producing things for which they cannot make a profit.
See, marxists like you refuse to believe that the imposition of your arbitrary “feel-goodism” economic philosophy would ever cause people in general to change their economic habits in ways to avoid as much as possible the inherent negative economic effects of your stupidity. That is why leftists who are too stupid to see the obvious results of collectivism think that despite spending over $5 trillion on welfare since the 1960s, the solution to the problem is to take even more from those who work and give it to those who don’t. That is why leftists too stupid to understand Social Security is nothing but a despicable pyramid scheme that is about to collapse think the solution is to make it harder for people to save for their own retirement rather than be stuck relying on the government’s failing pyramid scheme. That is why leftists too stupid to understand government bureaucratic meddling in medical care pricing over the last 60-70 years is the primary reason for the high cost of health care believe that destroying health insurance coverage 85% of the population had is the solution to providing health insurance to the remaining 15% who did not have such insurance coverage. You don’t actually care about fixing a potential problem – you are more concerned with imposing your bizarre and totally arbitrary concept of “fairness”, individual rights and liberty – not to mention actual outcomes – be damned.
Put simply, can you explain – exactly -how the arbitrary selection of $15/hr will avoid the negative economic results that you readily admit would happen with an increase in the minimum wage to $30/hr? Oh, and just to be clear – magical leftist thinking is not an acceptable manner of answering the question. How did $15/hr come to be the figure decided upon by minimum wage activists as the answer to a stagnating economy?
The voters consist of three distinct categories in that regard.
One, those who believe they will be the beneficiaries of the free stuff. As such, they will vote for the party handing out the free stuff they would like to receive… for free. As long, of course, as it is free to them.
Two, taxpayers (often referred to as “racists”) who realize who pays for the free stuff. Furthermore, they have extensive knowledge of other free stuff giveaways which wind up costing 4, 5 times the original amount promised and fail to achieve the promised goal. These people realize what is free and what isn’t; they actually have to pay for it.
Three, those like yourself that know the difference but support the giveaways because they are designed to buy votes and keep the giveaway party in power. Those like yourself will use very thin, transparent lie and fantasy to support the myth of the “free stuff”.
We are already an ignorant nation; see Presidential elections 2008 & 2012. More “education” conducted by far left instructing zealots is not the answer to ignorance, but it does serve the ideological goal of the end of perpetual liberal power justifying the means of teaching indoctrination rather than knowledge.
Ah. So that would explain why liberals can collect enough money to run billion dollar campaigns in order to enact policies that erodes the economic security of the middle class (as has happened since 2008). OK, got it.
Says he who lacks the courage to answer simple questions.
The government shutdown WAS Obama’s fault; he could have avoided it by doing what he later did, illegally. Further, to make sure everyone noticed the government WAS shut down, he purposely closed areas (at actual additional expense to do so) to make life as miserable as possible in order to reinforce the notion that without government running their lives, they would not be able to survive.
You spelled “argumentative” wrong ( “argumentive”) as well. Yeah, WE’RE stupid.
@Pete: Your long winded tap dance did nothing to truely address the inequality reality as well as the negative impact it has on today’s economy, much less the reality that middle class workers are subsidizing the cost of labor for profitable businesses.
Here are some realities that have just recently come to light. It’s expected that less than 1% will have aquired over half of the wealth by the end of the year AND it’s been determined that half of U.S. children now live in poverty. Now remember that I mentioned earlier that 65% of the U.S. homeless work full time jobs.
The problem is that you and your cohorts hate Obama to the point that you will not approve of any of his initiatives regardless of merit and you will genuflect to any whim of his opponents. You and your cohorts won’t honestly address my arguments because Obama supports them and you hate Obama. You find no problems in this wage problem because again, you hate Obama.
Another issue you and yours refuse to give a coherent response to (again, because you hate Obama) is that full time employers such as Walmart, the Banking industy, motel industry, and many more are paying full time workers an unsustainable living wage (7.25 to 9 per hour) while making huge profits. Because you hate Obama, you cowardly cover your ears and sing la la la to the reality that my tax dollars are subsidizing these workers. You see, that’s what I call plutocracy. And if having a belief that full time profit producing employees in The United States of America should not live in poverty or be homeless makes me a Marxist, so be it.
You cover your ears and sing la la la and simply pretend these issues are nonexistent and as long as you continue to hate Obama and march to the tune of the 1% who are confiscating the wealth, everything will be dandy snd there’ll be cupcakes for everyone, and a pony.
@Bill: I just scanned to the bottom of your diatribe and caught the last part.
Do I think you’re stupid? Probably not.
Profoundly ignorant or bigoted would be more appropriate.
You beclown yourself yet again, and don’t even realize it. Hence my prior allusion to you being a marxist ideologue primarily based on your lack of intelligence.
Who has been president while the economic status of the middle class has declined, RJW? Who has been president, controlling the economic policies of the government for the last 6 years, while the gap between rich and poor you leftists cry over has widened so much? If increased taxes on the “wealthy” were the answer to the financial problems of the middle class, then why didn’t Obama’s tax increase when he took office fix that problem? Yet you do not have the common sense to understand that leftist economic policies – as Marx himself outlined in his Communist Manifesto – are specifically designed to crush the middle class for the purpose of destroying capitalist systems to usher in a communist system.
You cry crocodile tears for the poor, RJW, while supporting economic policies designed to add to the masses of the poor. You cannot defend your misdirected talking points, so fall back on the tired canard of the “you-hate-obama-racist” card. That stopped being effective a long time ago, but being the slow leftist you are, you keep using such tripe in lieu of any actual reality-based argument.
I despise liars, RJW. I especially despise liars who pretend to care for the poor while doing everything possible to make increasing numbers of people poor – then blame those who oppose such evil machinations as the responsible parties. You support a man/party/ideology that has deliberately and maliciously lied to the American people – repeatedly – on issues of the economy, health care, foreign policy and taxes, with members of the inner circle admitting they lied/misrepresented their leftist intent because they knew that telling the truth would prevent them from getting their ideas forced into law. You can fool yourself into believing the false sanctimony with which you cloak your self-image. Just don’t be surprised that those of us who are grounded in reality laugh at your self-imposed mental nudity.
@Pete: You are indeed a dishonest bigot.
Not only do you asign blame to Obama but you chastise him for attempting to repair the GOP damage. In you heads-you-win/ tails-Obama-loses nonsense, you blame the economic downfall on him not raising taxes and then blame him for wanting to raise taxes.
I know I’ve asked before but what the hell is your argument? You cowardly avoid the question of why is it fair to subsidize workers pay while going into a tirade of bashing me and Obama. You, much like your cloned bigots are to much of cowards to address the poverty issue or any corrections of it while you just blame Obama.
It’s just stupid on stupid. The only rebuttal you and every bigot on here seems to know is to bash Obama.
If you haven’t noticed, the economy is improving, ACA is a resounding success, and people are going back to work. The next positive and needed steps is precisely what Obama has proposed. And you only response is that you hate Obama.
Not that you provide any citation for your claims, but you said:
So I did a little checking, RJW.
This is the US Dept of HUD report on the total number of homeless in the US, from 2014. It states that for the ENTIRE country, including all states, territories, Puerto Rico and D.C, the total number of homeless people in 2014 was… 578,424…in a nation of 320 million. That would be 0.18% of the population.
Now – I found a number of different citations as to the percentage of “homeless” who were working “full-time” jobs. Some from homeless advocacy websites:
And some from groups that don’t buy into the leftist agitprop over the homeless:
So pardon me if I cast glaring doubt on your 62% claim as false leftist propaganda.
Here are other government released reports on various aspects of homelessness that cast doubt on your leftist agitprop:
(This one is interesting, as it shows homelessness has been DECREASING from 2007 to 2012 – and this is HUD reporting under the Obama administration, not some right wing website. Furthermore, it shows that homelessness has continued to decrease from 2012 through 2014)
Oh and that “half of US children live in poverty” lie has been discredited again and again, yet you continue to spew it as part of your propaganda schtick.
You want to duel with data, bring it on. Just cite your sources. Otherwise take your collectivist claptrap back to HuffPo or whatever other garbage place you stole it from.
You don’t get it, do you? You don’t even see it, you are so ideologically blind, do you?
You just went off on Pete on and on and on and on and on about he nor we will address your points….
You are the most guilty of all. You answer nothing, address nothing, consider nothing. You think Obama’s brilliant ideas are not seriously considered because of hatred of him, yet upon what basis should anyone, knowing what we now know, give him serious consideration? He lies about everything. He lied about “stimulus”, he lied about why he shut down energy production in the Gulf, he lied about Obamacare (oh, how he lied), he lied about Benghazi, he lied about Fast and Furious… he just lies. Further, he has wrecked foreign policy and has, with the help of Hillary and Kerry, make the US a world wide joke.
Oh, but the only reason no one automatically signs off on his ideas is because they hate him. Yeah, right. Is that why many Democrats don’t support his crap also?
How about you provide data showing “half of U.S. children now live in poverty” because I am certain you are pulling the same old tricks liberals pull with poverty, insurance, jobs or education; you include illegal immigrants into the mix. This is why it is always stated as “residents” or simply “people”. Never citizens or Americans. So, you leftists pack the country with poor, illegal immigrants, saturating the taxpayer funded entitlement pool with needy non-taxpayers, then you bitch about how absolutely awful conditions are. These are conditions YOU made.
Low wages? Too bad all the manufacturing jobs that could employ millions and provide higher paying jobs (better than the menial, low-skill service jobs that remain) have been run overseas by the left and the unions pricing themselves out of the market. Too bad Obama’s stupid and short-sighted tax plans (which he intends to propose more of) has chased businesses and money overseas. Raising taxes for the purposes of political grandstanding is counter-productive. But, what in the hell does anyone on the left know about productivity?
The wealthy have become more wealthy and the middle class has become poorer and the poor have become more numerous and more poor… all under Obama’s guiding hand. While he had Reid keep politically difficult decisions off his desk, jobs bills and tax reforms lay dormant. But, according to racist bigots like yourself (those who only view race as a political tool, making the plight of minorities and those in poverty always worse) it is a lack of liberal programs… programs like those that have failed to address poverty, cost trillions of dollar and cause recessions… that causes the problems.
Now, since you don’t read other people’s questions or points and just scan down to the bottom, I’ll save you some trouble. You’re one of the useful idiots Gruber depended on to get ruinous policies enacted. You don’t deserve serious consideration because you give none to others. You are a bigoted, racist coward.
Yeah, we remember. And we also remember that you did not provide a link to back up that claim.
Standard liberal boilerplate. Try something new.
Are you drunk, off your meds, or a combination of both?
You double down on your pathetic “racist” crap, really? Calling me a bigot for opposing Obama and calling out the deliberate stupidity of leftist economics demonstrates you have no argument, buffoon. Honestly, what are you, 8 years old?
I asked you simple questions about who was president during the current economic decline of the middle class with the concurrent increasing wealth of the top 1% – pointing out that Obama raised taxes in his first year as president following the exact leftist economic policy you are claiming will help the middle class yet the alleged wonderful improvement you claim would result in the economic condition of the middle class didn’t happen. Your pathetic response is to call me a bigot.
And you wonder why your intelligence is questioned? Really?
The Left has learned over the years that winning debates is difficult but discrediting people and institutions is relatively easy. You point the finger and yell “racist!” or “stupid!” or “stupid racist!” long enough and loud enough and it will start to stick. And for a long time, the Left did not have to do very much debating, because there was no Fox News, no Rush Limbaugh et al., and no conservative alternatives online. Now there are, and so the Left’s most pressing order of business is the delegitimization of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh et al., and conservative alternatives online. And if that doesn’t work, Harry Reid is ready to repeal the First Amendment, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is ready to see you locked up for your political views.
Now, nothing describes liberals, like RJW, more accurately. The left has controlled the dialog for generations, and now that they have competition, they, like RJW, resort to “you’re stupid”, “you’re a racist”, “you’re heartless” and “you want children to die” and engage in other pejorative lobbing.
And correctly, you state that those tactics are no longer viable.
Hey Dumb A$$, if you don’t want anyone commenting on what you write, don’t write. How stupid can a human be? Write a response in the comments section and don’t expect anyone to comment on it? Wow, you personify stupid. If you don’t want Retire05 or me or anyone else to comment on what you say on this site. Don’t say it.
The only thing you’ve exposed ‘repeatedly’ is yourself. I wouldl think a person would tire of constantly playing the village idiot.
@Pete: “plutocrat” Pete, I don’t know why RJW wants to inject Walt’s dog into the conversation. Poor ole Pluto never did anything to him.
Certainly stirred a hornets nets of sockpuppets didn’t I? It’s interesting that 3 are here within 6 minutes apart parroting pretty much the same thing while all ignoring the same things.
And here’s yet another long time troll scrolling the archives of rolled off pages to join the orking seals clapping their fins in unity.
And, you’re admitting this has happened under the Obama Administration.
How to justify being a Marxist: 101
@Ronald J. Ward:
Why do you keep puppets in your socks?
Ah, the bottom of the parrot cage, is that where you were scraped up from? And stop picking on Walt’s dog, Pluto hasn’t bothered you.
There was an interesting article in Reuters yesterday: Richest 1 percent will own more than the rest by 2016
That’s globally, not any particular nation. You’ve got to wonder where the trend will lead over the course of another 10 years.
Fantastic, that means capitalism is still working as it’s supposed to. The people with money will continue to use it to try to get more. That means more investments that will pay off.
I’m sure the rich people hope it will continue. Just think, if there were no one wanting to make money, they wouldn’t invest in ways to do so. You, as a Marxist, surely know that if all that money were confiscated and given to those that only exist to get handouts, they would spend it all within a year and be looking for more rich people to steal from. You had better hope that those people with money will continue to use it to get more money.
What you’ve just presented is an invalid argument commonly known as a false dilemma, or a false dichotomy. The alternatives don’t come down only to the two that you’re suggesting. A third possibility, for example, would be that the wealthy continue to prosper and be rewarded for their wealth-seeking behavior, but not to a degree that allows the tiny minority they represent to take control of most of the world’s income and wealth.
You, in your effort to ‘be right’, have made the common mistake of saying that I said there are only two outcomes. Clearly I said that IF you did A then you would get Z, what I left unsaid is that there are many other possibilities that would happen, so while you imply that if you did take the money from the rich, there might be other possibilities. You’re right. Yes there are many stages of communism and many of capitalism and many others between. I would guess that a position in the 75-90 capitalism range would work best. While anything in the 0-50% range of communism doesn’t have a chance in hell of working. So, support Karl all you want, he’s never had many friends.
@Ronald J. Ward:
So, you only say such stupid things just to stir people up? Well, shame on us for falling for it.