Q. What’s more hypocritical than gheys who want the Government out of the bedroom, but into the bakeries?
A. How about a multi-millionaire Moonbat congresswoman whining about “income inequality?”
Too bad money doesn’t buy fashion sense.
The Democrats goal is to do for income inequality what they did for quality, affordable health care.
Update: The places in the USA with the worst income inequality are DC, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Last I checked, none of those were red states. The states with the least income inequality, FWIW, were Utah, Alaska, Wyoming, and New Hampshire.
She looks like the old Ruth Buzzi character in “Laugh-In.”
And that’s hot for a Dhimmicrat female.
Regards,
Peter H.
I will believe them as soon as they first redistribute their own income and assets.
Damn, she is one ugly dude:
ug·ly adjective ˈə-glē
: unpleasant to look at : not pretty or attractive
: unpleasant to hear
: offensive or disgusting
: surly, quarrelsome
It is so easy for liberals to give away other people’s money. It would be worth the price of admission to see a MSM type ask this one how many millions would “she” be willing to turn over to the U.S Treasury for redistribution.
God, these people need so badly to be beat and firmly placed atop the “junk pile of history!”
Is there anyone who has posted on this thread who has not had secure health insurance for the majority of his lifetime?
Is there anyone who has posted so far that does not know that men have been invited to present research facts to House and Senate committees that pertain to the degradation of the value of the minimum wage? Mr Obama did not institute those committee hearings. The majority leadership in the two bodies are in general conflict, yet each called for research. The main reason: the wealthy have become aware that the greatest number of Americans who must consume in order to assure profits for investors have been losing purchasing power since the introduction of supply side economic ideas.
Is it evidence of logical thinking if one attacks another person for his or her physical appearance? Most are safe only if no light is allowed in the rooms with mirrors.
I am 53. I had insurance under my dad’s plan until I was 18. Then I got my own policy where I worked when I was 23. I even paid for COBRA when I was laid off. I have had coverage 95% of my life.
Michael.. how do you feel about the fact that only 11% of ObamaCare enrolled didn’t have insurance before? On that statistic alone ObamaCare is a complete failure.
How many wealthy people know that it is perfectly legal to mail a check as “donation” to the US Treasury?
How many wealthy people have taken advantage of QE to gain vast amounts of wealth? How many heads of the Fed has Obama appointed? Can you connect the dots on your own?
“Is it evidence of logical thinking if one attacks another person for his or her physical appearance? ” You mean like the liberals who made fun of how Mrs. Palin’s youngest looks?
Go eat cookies in your PJ’s…
Wait, the liar is asking others to prove things?
bwahahahahahaha!
Tnns, anyone who attacks another for his or her physical appearance is wrong (by most accounts). So using the device that ‘liberals do it” is not logical on the part of one who will assert moral superiority.
If about 80% of Americans have health insurance, and cannot buy through the healthplan exchanges, what is the issue if 11% of the 20% have obtained health insurance. That seems to me to have been one of the reasons to approve PPACA–so that folks without can become folks with.
Herman Cain mentioned that the possession of wealth was a matter of right for those blessed by God. He used the words “If you ain’t rich, it is your fault.” He never mentioned QE as the source of his wealth.
By the way, if the Fed Chairperson was yours to choose, who would get the seat?
“what is the issue if 11% of the 20% have obtained health insurance.”
Simple ObamaCare is fully implemented. In October of this year, a vast sum of people who are insured will lose insurance.
Also, why cancel the policies of 5 million people to get such a small number on insurance..
2.2 million put a policy in their shopping carts
.2 million haven’t paid
11% of 2 million is 220,000
Only a liberal would think disrupting 5 million people happily insured to gain 220,000 new insured is anything but a huge failure.
As for the Fed, I would get rid of it.
QE allowed Mr. Buffett to gain $12.5 billion in wealth. My example trumps yours.
If Mitt Romney had promised to appoint Ron Paul Chairman of the Fed, he would be president today.
VtheK, Willard Romney is not president today because he could not convince any perceptible percentage of some 47% of Americans that he would work for the working class man or woman. And Ron Paul has never professed a background in what is necessary to head the Federal Reserve.
Tnns, men and women who do not come close to the level of wealth attributed to Mr Buffett gained as much as 31% appreciation on their investments in the market. Mr Buffett obtained the wealth he had prior to 2009 before there was any policy known loosely as QE. He has noted that there is something intrinsically haywire in the distribution of wealth in America. He is not in charge of choices and has offered no answers.
It is a fact that if the minimum wage was raised so as to buy what that wage would buy in 1968, a decrease in poverty would follow. An increase in jobs would follow. Mr Buffett would not make less. But the community of men and women with a living wage would be enlarged.
Tnns, every person who has learned that their policy is cancelled learned it from their former policy insurer. Not a one learned it from Mr Obama or from any part of PPACA. I have read that insurance companies have simply assigned former customers to a policy if the former customer did not make a choice through healthplan exchanges. Or simply refused to make a choice.
No informed person can argue effectively that a policy with annual and lifetime caps can provide appropriate coverage given possible illnesses and treatment protocols. No one can argue that a bankruptcy is good for America.
Dear Michael:
Wealth is not “distributed;” it is earned. Also, covetousness is a sin and envy is a LOUSY basis for public policy.
Glad to clear that up for you.
How does one make a troll like Michael realize the futility of masticating his pedal digits?
The Dems are pinning their election hopes in 2014 and 2016 on this income inequality meme.
Yes they are, Niall. It’s become a maddening drum beat in the allegedly “mainstream” media.
They came up with “Income Inequality” as a way to change the subject from the massive crushing failure of Obamacare.
Bastiat, the issue is whether a rate of pay for a category of labor that provided a certain buying power in 1968 can be fair in 2013 if the category of labor has not changed. The basic labor necessary to produce a hamburger in a McDonalds has not changed since 1968. So why is it that a basic wage at McDonalds is not nearer $10 than $7 for the minimum wage?
For some reason, some kinds of conservatives have a hard time grasping the fact that increasing a minimum waqe has nothing to do with the income of those earning $340000 a year.
VtheK, a committee of the House was instructed by the caucus leadership to call for research and expert witness testimony on the subject of minimum wage changes. That act scarcely fits with the attitude of the typical House member towards Mr Obama. No indeed, the fact is that important folks in the financial business have talked up the idea that consumers are few, hidden in high grass, tough to talk out of the woods, etc. Consumers are necessary if there is to be a wealthy class. Is it your idea that those who post here are representative of the wealthy class?
Michael:
Please do tell me EXACTLY how you’re qualified to determine what’s fair?
Bastiat, I am pretty sure that you understand that businesses and governments have departments that collect facts in order to make informed decisions as to ways to spend income. The minimum wage has been pegged at a proportion of the average wage with varying attempts to maintain the proportion steadily. The average wage in the area in which I live is $22 an hour. The minimum wage if proportioned by historical standards would be more than $11 per hour. That is not true for all parts of America, but in few parts will the minimum waqe be as low as it is currently set.
That means that every community in which minimum wages lag the average is losing the power of consumerism to benefit all classes of citizens. It is simply a matter of following the money.
By the way, it is not “I” who determines fair or not fair. It is a matter of informed understanding and the use of numbers.
So Michael your solution to income inequality is to increase the take home pay of 1.5% of the population 28 and over by roughly $5000? ObamaCare policies and/or penalties will take most of that away. Good plan.
I guess you can’t understamd the statement that Mr. Buffett earned $12.5 billion LAST year. QE gave everyone in the market a boost in wealth. However, Obama’s major economic policies only benefit the wealthy.
Your statements on the cancelled policies is so completely wrong that is makes it clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
For households who buy bronze plans and still have to outlay $4000 to $6000 each year for deductibles and co-pays in addition to paying $3000 in premiums are still likely to go bankrupt. They are living paycheck to paycheck. An illness at the wrong time of year can wipe out their household finances.
So what are you thoughts about the 220,000 of the so called 40 million uninsured signing up? Success or failure? Based on the federal and state estimates just to get the exchanges up and running, the government spent roughly $6,818 per new insured. That is just for software alone not including the other overhead amounts. Total failure. If a private company had to spend that amount of money to attract a policyholder, it would be bankrupt in a year. Give us your thoughts on the risk corridor and how that will affect the low wage earner. I need another good laugh. Let me get my dark chocolate and red wine first?
How do you account for people like my partner and I. We started with nothing. Now we are getting close to being able to retire before we are 60. If the deck has been so stacked against people since 1968 (I was born in 1960), how come we are successful? Why aren’t others successful?
Michael.. you think putting big words together randomly is intelligent conversation?
If a burger joint has to pay more wages and benefits associated with those wages to produce the same burger, who actually pays that differential?
Shorter Michael the liar, “I’m right and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.”
IOW, Don’t give the liar facts, he doesn’t know what to do with them.
Funny how the people feigning such concern about the working class and their wages are the same people who want to import thirty million cheap foreign laborers to undercut middle class wages.
You think the Congresswoman is hot? Girlfriend, you need glasses.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/income-inequality-obama_n_3853183.html
Isn’t it beautiful when the evil and suffering you decry became worse at the hands of your president, your party and your policies?
Par for the course with the Lying Left.
Does Al Gore live like he believes his Global Warming/Climate Change rhetoric?
Does Barack Obama live like he believes his Income Inequality lies? Or his Obamacare ones?
That’s the key. Don’t just look at what these Proglodytes say, look at what they DO.
And some advice for Michael: Better to only be thought a fool rather than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.
I can always tell which threads Michael hijacks before I even read them. They are always the ones with 20+ comments. I think he thinks he wins the argument if his comments outnumber all the sentient, sane ones no matter how illogical and dishonest his are.
Rumor has it the Obamas will get upwards of $32 million for their memoirs. Oh.. the income inequality! That would provide 6000 people a bump from minimum wage to $11 per hour for a year. Think they will “distribute” their income that way? I would think the lifetime pension he is going to get would be more than enough for a family of 4 to live on.
LOL.
First, the difference between a McDonalds kitchen in 1968 and one today can be summed up by five words: more machines, less human involvement. If anything, a McDonalds job today requires LESS skill and acumen than it did in 1968 because so much has been simplified and automated.
One has to remember that the screams of people like Mikey always boil down to one thing and one thing only: more pay for less work. Mikey hates working. Mikey and the Obama Party idolize welfare instead of work and insist, a la the idiot Pelosi, that receiving welfare checks and handouts for no work is better for the economy than actually working.
“The minimum wage if proportioned by historical standards would be more than $11 per hour.”
Michael conveniently chooses the highest ever value as being the “historical standard”. According to Wikipedia, the federal minimum wage, expressed in 2013 dollars, briefly peaked in 1968 at just under $11 dollars per hour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages
“It is a fact that if the minimum wage was raised so as to buy what that wage would buy in 1968, a decrease in poverty would follow. An increase in jobs would follow.”
It’s amusing how Michael can invent “facts” out of thin air–or perhaps out of concentrated marijuana smoke.
Requiring higher wages causes layoffs, reductions in new hires, and makes it harder for people without experience to get hired for the first time. Thus youths have trouble entering the job market and building experience, and likewise the long-term unemployed, people with personal histories that suggest they are bad hiring bets, and so on.
But none of these facts seem to matter to the tellers of fairy tales.
But back to the original point of this blog posting:
We see, over and over, that “progressive” politics has become a coalition of special interest groups. Two such groups are the wealthy and the poor: Rich people promise more “free stuff” in exchange for the poor peoples’ votes. The rich cronies (and their other Democrat allies) arrange the system so that they remain rich, and the handouts are funded by stealing from the middle class.
Also, given that the minimum wage has been raised multiple times since 1968, yet we still are at record unemployment and poverty, one can simply point out that raising the minimum wage by all empirical evidence does the exact opposite of what its supporters like Mikey claim.
Indeed, one can correlate one of the US’s highest points of employment and lowest points of poverty and households on food stamps and Medicaid with when the minimum wage was at its LOWEST in terms of purchasing parity — 2006. After that, when the Obama Party hiked the minimum, unemployment shot up, poverty shot up, and the economy collapsed.
Of course, Mikey and his fellow liberals like Barack Obama hate work and want unlimited welfare. Indeed, both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi have stated that more people on welfare is better for the economy than more people working.
“Of course, Mikey and his fellow liberals like Barack Obama hate work and want unlimited welfare.”
Because “They’ll make us all beggars ’cause they’re easier to please. They’re feeding us all that government cheese.”
Exactly, pst314.
If people cannot survive without government handouts, you can be assured of two things:
1) They will vote for whomever offers them more
2) They can be immediately brought to heel by threatening to cut them off
The Barack Obama Party knows this and lives it. That really is all that Barack Obama and the Obama Party do — promise more handouts in exchange for votes and threaten those who do not vote for them with government sanctions and punishment.
This is also why Republicans have real problems. Romney was correct when he stated 47% of society would not vote for him because of 1 and 2. As we see from Mikey, the vast and overwhelming majority of liberals are addicted to government handouts and actively hostile toward any suggestion that they have to work or that businesses and working are better than government handouts. It threatens their very livelihood and seat of power.
pst314, the minimum wage purchased a greater amount in 1968 than in any subsequent year. No increase has put the buying power at the 1968 level. It seems to me that an informed person would suspect that wages near yet higher than minimum waqe are probably purchasing less than in a previous year. And the effects of inequalities of that kind have affected what was known as the middle class (the business class more than the wage earning middle class) negatively. That middle class is known as the job creating class.
But here is a fact that some do not seem to get: increasing the minimum wage produces 1 new job for every 6 workers with that higher wage. They spend the now discretionary money and workers are hired to service them; agricultural interests are stimulated to produce more; dress designers and manufacturers are stimulated. And so on. Poverty is eliminated when living wage jobs are available.
ND30, some who post here seem to be gladdened to think of years invested in supporting those who are mentally or physically unable to work. As well as those who cannot find a living wage job. And in return for the costs, some take great joy in demeaning fellow citizens, equally created in the image of God. Why is that? It is very hard to find anyone who enjoys poverty.
pst314, a man named James Sherk, a well known researcher for the non profit known as the Heritage Foundation, was called to testify before a House committee in 2013 on the results of his years’ long study of minimum wages in American history and upon the true meaning of an effect if minimum wage is increased. He was not able to show that an increase had a negative effect. That means that most who argue as do you do not have a leg to stand upon.
That House committee did not call Mr Sherk to present facts because of any opinions held by Mr Obama. No indeed, they were moved by suggestions from chambers of commerce who understand the connections between sustained communities and living wage-paid consumers.
And all the researchers that disagree about minimum wage laws, how about them?
“increasing the minimum wage produces 1 new job for every 6 workers with that higher wage.”
Because that money magically does not reduce the number of people that a business can afford to pay.
LMAO.
That might work, Mikey, if we didn’t have post after post after post of you demeaning people like Juan, Mitt Romney, and others who actually work for a living, not to mention page after page of references of your Obama screaming that “the rich” are evil, awful people, “you didn’t build that”, and the usual other Marxist tropes that demean and attack people who actually work and save and generate income and jobs.
You attempt to appeal to peoples’ conscience and guilt, Mikey, but unfortunately, we know that you are nothing more than a wasteful pig who screams about “the poor” while buying liquor-stocked private airliners for multimillionaires and throwing multimillion-dollar birthday parties and vacations for millionaire Michelle Obama and her cronies.
if you cared about “the poor”, Mikey, you would demand that these rich Obama supporters pay their own way instead of taking money from taxes that working people pay. But you don’t; you only use “the poor” as an excuse to steal, and then you spend the money on yourself.
You’re a cheat, Mikey. That’s what makes you funny. If Michelle Obama were a white preacher who demanded you give her more to feed the poor and then spent it on her lavish Hawai’ian vacation, you would have her prosecuted. The fact that you don’t shows how few morals and values liberals have, and how much liberals like Michelle Obama lie.
My, my, my, looks like we caught Mikey in a blatant lie.
But again, no surprise. Mike is a troll and a liar who will now start crying and running away, making all sorts of stupid demands to derail the thread, and insisting we’re not real conservatives if we don’t do what he says.
This is why liberalism is incompatible with an educated populace. Liberals like Mikey cannot function where they cannot lie and where they have to present facts.
To Michael in my best Glinda falsetto. “Your lies have no power here. Be off before someone drops a house on you.”
Dear Congress-thing: you first.
Wealth redistribution only works until you run out of wealth and those willing and able to create it.
That said, income inequality is a concern and conservatives would be dumb to ignore it. It is becoming a lot harder for people of so-so skills and intelligence (bell curve) to earn enough to get by without welfare. And the Dems and GOP are conspiring to make it much, much worse with immigration “reform”.
And, finally, people are starting to contemplate the increasing elimination of jobs and, indeed, occupations by automation (without the “Next Big Thing” anywhere in sight).
Societies with a small wealthy class, shrinking middle class (and resulting huge underclass) are unstable and tend to chaos or totalitarianism.
The other thing that drives me crazy is that our poor people are the wealthiest poor people in the world. They have so much more than “middle class” people in many other countries. I’m too lazy to look it up and link it, but there was a recent WSJ op-ed that spoke to this. It described all the accoutrements and luxuries that our poor have: air conditioning, flat screen TV’s, internet access, cell phones, cars, free housing, etc. The standard of living for being poor in America has certainly increased on taxpayer’s dimes.
Just out of curiosity, Michael, what exactly is it that you do for a living? What field do you work in, and what did you study in college?
I am too, but I took a moment to save it a while back, and here it is.
Awesome, thank you, Jman! It was Heritage Foundation, but I think it got quoted in a WSJ op-ed. Perfect!
runni, and then when you think that every material item known to mankind is a beneficence from the Almighty, you are humbled, right? I will suspect that there is little reason existing that can prevent you and your partner from moving to any country you know in which the poor live as if they were poor. Your status contrasted to theirs would be clear to all. The fact is that there is not much that is humanitarian in the legislation that provides public support at either state or federal level. It is a matter of dollars invested in people in order to support business interests. And from time to time, those who research those investments see a disconnect that is harmful to those interests. The consumption pump cannot be made to produce wealth unless the consumer has more in relation to the costs of goods. An increase in the minimum wage improves the flow of money into the businessman’s bottom line. EzPZ, right?
Well, Mikey, if you were familiar with the way accounting actually works, you would know your vaunted bottom line is not just a matter of the revenue you make, but also the expenses incurred in making it.
Now, since you are a liberal and, like your Barack Obama, completely unfamiliar with the reality of having to pay bills and balance your books, you wouldn’t get that an increase to the minimum wage is an increase in business expense, meaning that your increased revenue, if any, is offset by the additional amount you have to pay employees. This is again, no surprise; as Barack Obama’s blathering about “profit and earnings ratio” shows, liberals really are very stupid and ignorant when it comes to grownup things like running a business.
Furthermore, Mikey, you also miss a basic lesson of mathematics. At $10 per hour, if I can afford to spend $30 an hour on labor, I can hire and employ three people. At $15 an hour, I can only afford to hire and employ two. Hence, rather than three people spending money in the economy, I now only have two — and one unemployed person, which then requires that taxes be raised on the other two people working so that that unemployed person can get unlimited welfare, which then lowers the amount those two employed people can pump back into the business bottom line.
ND30, it cannot hurt you to take an hour or so to read the research of James Sherk, an outstanding employee of the Heritage Foundation (itself a notable example of friend of the gay conservative). His findings are worth an investment of your time–which does not seen to be attached to any kind of employment–and growth in understanding.
Perhaps you might study the business model presented by Burger King. It has remodeled its dollar menu as a means of stimulating appetites for other than a Whopper Jr. It is true that BK serves in the millions while your Mom and Pop store deals in 10s a day, but hey, modern folks understand something about economics if they have a galaxy s4.
@1 …
Maybe we should email one another the Constitution so the government would read it.
— RUTH BUZZI (@Ruth_A_Buzzi) January 21, 2014
Troll Michael, ND30 earlier posted an article from the Heritage Foundation written by James Sherk refuting what you said he said. Once again you are proven to be a liar.
“It is true that BK serves in the millions while your Mom and Pop store deals in 10s a day,”
Michael admits that raising the minimum wages hurts the small employer and benefits the large corporations. Michael further ignores that most employees are working for small business, not large corporations. Michael misses the logic that big corporations have the resources to automate lower wage jobs out of existence (touch screen and mobile app ordering, electronic payment systems, etc.). Michael also misses the fact that once small business are out of business big corporations can have race to the bottom to the new minimum wage. Michael, like Obama, detests the small business owner. After all, small businesses are less likely to be union shops.
Perhaps, Mikey, it would help you to actually read the links you are provided.
Now, since your behavior has indisputably proven that you do not read or in any way comprehend the facts you are provided, why do you demand them?
Why do you insist conservatives continually waste our time providing you facts and references when you clearly do not utilize them or even review them prior to making your statements?
Furthermore, since you clearly do not read or review facts, why then should conservatives, who concern themselves with facts and objective decision-making, listen to or take you seriously at all?
Incidentally, Mikey, from this point forward, this thread and your quotation, which indicates that you do not read or review facts, references, and data provided to you, will be linked and placed every time you comment, and will be referenced whenever you make a demand of any other poster here for information.
Do you think people will continue to take your requests seriously when it is proven that you are not interested in and do not read references provided?
Do you think people will accept your claims that they are ignorant and uninformed when it can be easily shown that you in fact do not take the time to inform yourself or make intelligent statements?
Is there anyone here who’s EVER been stupid enough to take this ufcktard’s scribbling seriously?
And for those who find these kinds of intrusions and thread derailments ‘entertaining’, you need to get out more.
“Is there anyone here who’s EVER been stupid enough to take this ufcktard’s scribbling seriously?”
Well, I do sometimes ponder seriously what fraction of his bullshit he makes up himself vs. what fraction he takes from leftist propaganda outlets.
But regardless, he is a proven liar so eff him.
pst, James Sherk noted when he presented his research to a House committee that 1/2 or more of the current minimum wage earners were more than 25 years old. That fact implies a certain distance between the claim of some that no more than minimum wages can be expected if one has no experience. Mr Sherk, in the December 2013 article that so moved ND30, arranged facts in a way that best earned a chance to bid on a bonus if Jim DeMint is as easily moved as is ND30 and pst.
Hey Mikey, guess what?
We know you never read the article in the first place.
And now we just proved it AGAIN.
Now, since your behavior has indisputably proven that you do not read or in any way comprehend the facts you are provided, why do you demand them?
Why do you insist conservatives continually waste our time providing you facts and references when you clearly do not utilize them or even review them prior to making your statements?
Furthermore, since you clearly do not read or review facts, why then should conservatives, who concern themselves with facts and objective decision-making, listen to or take you seriously at all?
Do you think people will continue to take your requests seriously when it is proven that you are not interested in and do not read references provided?
Do you think people will accept your claims that they are ignorant and uninformed when it can be easily shown that you in fact do not take the time to inform yourself or make intelligent statements?
Mikey and I now have something in common! He never reads the links he posts, and I don’t either! Thanks ND30!
ND30: Here’s an explanation for Michael’s screwy, dishonest behavior: He’s Jay Carney. 😉