7 Year Rash

Today is the 7th Anniversary of this blog. For a long time this year I considered making this one my last because, quite simply, The Stupid Have Inherited the Earth. Intelligence and Common Sense (let alone <gasp> Logic) are Politically Incorrect. Hell, some Leftists have decreed that just saying “politically incorrect” is Politically Incorrect. 😦

So instead I thought I’d revisit one of my favorites from the last 7 years.

This also goes out the #NeverTrump -ers who are so mindlessly obsessed with hating Donald Trump that they are willing Hillary into the White House.

Hate never felt so Right. 🙂

And a special shout out to the Sabotage Republicans (The Establishment ones and their followers) WHO ALSO want Hillary.

The Generations (and possibly permanent) of damage you want to inflict on what’s LEFT of this country is so short-sighted you deserve her.

It will be YOUR fault.

Agree with me or else!

To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone — to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink — greetings! -George Orwell

So with that in mind, cast your mindless adherence to January 21, 2012  and this Blog and see yourselves currently in it also.

THE ZOMBIE HOARD

They are just a zombie hoard.

Remorseless. Merciless. Incapable of shame, morals or ethics.

They want want what they want when they want it and because they want it and will do anything to get it. Relentlessly.

And what they want is YOU. You to be either converted or cow-towed to their every whim. To do whatever they want when they want it.

Evidence John King, the CNN Liberal Moderator of the South Carolina Debate. He opens the debate with a salicious question to Gingrich about his “open marriage” and Gingrich blows him to bits for it and the crowd goes wild.

He did this to prove his “courage” to stand up to the evil “right wingers” and puff out his chest that he was “journalist” and was going to bravely confront the issue. Meanwhile, anything remotely damaging to President Obama is ignored with great speed and spin.🙂

2016: Just Like they do with Hillary. The Debate will be set up to show that Trump is grumpy, unstable and mean. The fact that Hillary is a congenital, sociopathica Liar has no bearing on the debates whatsover.

Their will be more Candy Crowley moments than ever.

And the Zombie hoard will eat it up like candy. “Brains…”

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.- George Orwell.

And their has never been more deceit now than ever in American History and more mindless Zombie Hoards out to make sure “What difference does it make, anyways?”

Rush Limbaugh (who I rarely get a chance to listen to because of my work schedule): Now, let me tell you one thing here, folks: You cannot shame the mainstream media. If any of you are thinking that the media learned a lesson — if any of you believe that the media finally had it handed to ’em, if you believe that the media had their eyes opened and they are fully awake now and they understand what they’re dealing with — forget it. John King is proud of what happened last night. John King is a hero in the Main Street media because he didn’t back down, because he continued to illustrate how it is that the media does really control the agenda. That was a demonstration of the power they hold over every public figure’s head, that they choose to hold like a guillotine. John King… There may even be some jealousy and envy within the journalist ranks (well, not journalists; within the Democrat Party ranks) because John King is a guy that got in Newt’s face, stared him down — and the fact that Newt told him off? It’s a badge of honor. If you are thinking that John King was embarrassed and ran away with his tail tucked between his legs and learned his lesson and it’ll never happen again? Ah, ah, ah, ah. You cannot shame the mainstream media. They are proud of this. They delight in their power to destroy candidates that they don’t like.

And they don’t like anyone who doesn’t cow-tow to them.

2016: They made THEIR Choice. Now it’s you’re Zombie duty to vote for it or else.

“At the end of the day the message to every conservative who hasn’t run for office is: “You want a piece of this? You want some of this? You want Brian Ross hounding you and your ex-wife and then you want me asking you about it on national TV the next night? Come on in. We’re ready.” That’s the message from John King and CNN last night, and do not doubt me on this.”

2016: look at the evidence, every time new “evidence” comes out about Hillary they bury it. Every time Trump even raises his voice or say one less than perfect political phrase they are on it like flies on shit and they stick to it like super glue and blow it up.

mountain

So the alternative is to cow-tow. To live in fear of the Liberal wrath.

2016: To acquiesce. Given in, the Ministry of Truth has the system rigged.

Hell, the Democrats got caught rigging the Primary, blatantly.

No one really cared.

The Zombie Hoard just went, “oh” and moved on. The Media covered it up.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was sacrificed.

End of Story.

#2: Hillary is caught re-handed on the Email Scandal. The FBI even says so. But since Comey has connections to Clinton and doesn’t want to have a mysterious “accident” she is not prosecuted.

Future Hillary Supreme Court Nominee Loretta Lynch, Attorney General and Clinton Cronie refuses to prosecute her.

Other people not connected to Clinton aren’t so lucky.

David_Petraeus

And the reaction from the Zombie Hoard, “Yawn”.

Hillary is still leading in the Polls!

“Brains…”

The Food Police. The TSA. The EPA. The Justice Department. Homeland Security. The FCC.

Because if they can’t make you a zombie, they can at least make you a peasant in fear of your Masters who will not challenge them or not have the power to challenge them.

“[…]you don’t have to be Sun freakin Tzu to know that real fighting isn’t about killing or even hurting the other guy, it’s about scaring him enough to call it a day.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

They’ll just turn your children into zombies instead. 12 years of Grade School and 4 years of College is a lot of Zombie Voodoo time after all. And “getting them while they are young” is entirely within the Zombie Liberal playbook. Make them a zombie before they even know what one is and then make them as immune as possible to any anti-virus and get them addicted to their own Kool-Aid. Feed it to them constantly through the Media and the Internet.

2016: They’ll DEMAND Segregation, “Safe Spaces”, “Diversity” and “Inclusion” mindlessly and will trample Free Speech because they don’t want to be “offended”.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

WAR (Class, Gender, Race, Religion) IS PEACE

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Hell, even white people getting a tan will set the little zombie off…

What it does is illustrate that they can be dealt with. But you can’t beat ’em. They’re not gonna be shamed. They’re not going to be shamed into stopping the coverage of conservatives as they do it. It’s going to continue. No matter what kind of shame you think they suffer in a contest like that — no matter how much money they lose, no matter how many of them get fired, no matter how many magazines or TV stations or newspapers get shut down — they are not gonna change. They are hard-core, leftists”

And as I have said over and over again, they are have no morals or ethics because they are governed not by logic and reason but by emotions, mostly the most basic of primitive emotions, Fear, Lust (for power), anger, jealousy, ENVY, etc. –Raw emotions.

2016: THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS!

Which is why when you engage them they sound and act like an immature 5 year old. And as we all know from childhood development the child has to develop a sense of shame by have having boundaries and limitations and consequences. And if they don’t, they will grow up with little to no sense of shame.

disagree

2016: “Microaggressions” anyone?

They are usually called sociopaths. I can call them Liberal Zombies.

2016: And the #Never Trumpers and Establishment RINOs.

Liberals have no shame. They want what they want when they want it because they want it.

2016: And the #Never Trumpers and Establishment RINOs.

“…one of the upsides that isn’t gonna happen is the media saying, “Gosh, we’ve been so mean to these people and so unfair. You know, maybe we ought to start being fair.” That’s not going to happen.

Liberals talk about being “fair” which means you’re being unfair to them and should do what they want.

Liberals talk about “compassion” but it’s to make you feel guilty, not them, and to do what they want.

Liberals will talk about “bi-partisanship” but that just means you have to compromise your principles so they can do what they want.

“Diversity” means you’re evil and need to do what they say to repent for your sins.

2016: “Inclusion” Means you include everything THEY say and do it without hesitation.

They are a remorseless hoard. They want what they want when they want it and on their terms only.

Give them everything they want or they’ll cry, scream, bitch, moan, pout and lash out at you.

2016: “White Privilege” anyone?

That is their primitive zombie hoard mentality. And they want YOU.extremists

“Lies are neither bad nor good. Like a fire they can either keep you warm or burn you to death, depending on how they’re used.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Most people don’t believe something can happen until it already has. That’s not stupidity or weakness, that’s just human nature.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Often, a school is your best bet-perhaps not for education but certainly for protection from an undead attack.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“Remember; no matter how desperate the situation seems, time spent
thinking clearly is never time wasted.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“I think that most people would rather face the light of a real enemy than the darkness of their imagined fears.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“They feel no fear, why should you?”– Max Brooks

“The zombie may be gone, but the threat lives on.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

Get rid of one zombie, and 10 more will take it’s place. So you have to be ready to do battle constantly.

Look at 2010. The Democrats suffered the worst defeat in 80 years. Does it look like they learned ANYTHING?

No.

As a matter of fact the zombie hoard is even tighter, even more determined than ever. They want it EVEN MORE.

So if we defeat then in 2012 will they go away?

HELL NO!

2016: They weren’t defeated. Even more hoards joined them. So if they are beat in 2016 will they finally be defeated and go away.

HELL NO!

They will just keep coming back like a remorseless zombie hoard until you are overwhelmed.

Which is why you will have to fight them all of your days, your kids days and their kids days until the infection is wiped out.

But like any good zombie plaque it only takes 1 to re-ignite it and spread it all over again.

And these zombies have Media and Internet outlets! (and Europe!)

“Looking back, I still can’t believe how unprofessional the news media was. So much spin, so few hard facts. All those digestible sound bites from an army of ‘experts’ all contradicting one another, all trying to seem more ‘shocking’ and ‘in-depth’ than the last one. It was all so confusing, nobody seemed to know what to do.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. “Fear,” he used to say, “fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe.” That blew me away. “Turn on the TV,” he’d say. “What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products.” Fuckin’ A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

The Democrat Party in a nutshell.

FEAR IS HOPE!

My own personal Fourth Orwellian Precept (which includes WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH).

“If you believe you can accomplish everything by “cramming” at the eleventh hour, by all means, don’t lift a finger now. But you may think twice about beginning to build your ark once it has already started raining”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“When I believe in my ability to do something, there is no such word as no.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“. . . show the other side, the one that gets people out of bed the next morning, makes them scratch and scrape and fight for their lives because someone is telling them that they’re going to be okay.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“This is the only time for high ideals because those ideals are all that we have. We aren’t just fighting for our physical survival, but for the survival of our civilization. We don’t have the luxury of old-world pillars. We don’t have a common heritage, we don’t have a millennia of history. All we have are the dreams and promises that bind us together. All we have…is what we want to be.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“…We were a shaken, broken species, driven to the edge of extinction and grateful only for tomorrow with perhaps a little less suffering than today. Was this the legacy we would leave our children, a level of anxiety and self-doubt not seen since our simian ancestors cowered in the tallest trees? What kind of world would they rebuild? Would they rebuild at all? Could they continue to progress, knowing that they would be powerless to reclaim their future? And what if that future saw another rise of the living dead? Would our descendants rise to meet them in battle, or simply crumple in meek surrender and accept what they believe to be their inevitable extinction? For this alone, we had to reclaim our planet. We had to prove to ourselves that we could do it, and leave that proof as this war’s greatest monument. The long, hard road back to humanity, or the regressive ennui of Earth’s once-proud primates. That was the choice, and it had to be made now.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

The Future is yours. So is living through “The Walking Dead” and “1984” for real.

truth

Bailout Time For Baby

The Greatest Socialist Baby, ObamaCare, needs a bailout diaper change because it’s overwhelming success in creating “better” and “more” Health Care for everyone has got some ‘wastage’ (aka poop) 🙂

When Obamacare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote way back in 2010, conservatives warned that the massive government program would ultimately require bailing out health insurance companies that gladly signed on.

Fast forward five years and it’s that time. Today on Capitol Hill, lawmakers are being pressured by the White House to provide money, or a bailout, to insurance companies losing money due to running government Obamacare exchanges. From The Hill

Republicans and Democrats are close to agreeing on delaying two major taxes, the “Cadillac tax” on high-benefit plans and the medical device tax.

But those proposals have run into opposition from the White House, which wants language fixing ObamaCare’s so-called risk corridors — a program intended to help insurance companies that take a financial hit by participating in government-run health exchanges.

That program is nearly out of money because of a policy rider sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on a year-end spending bill in 2014 that bars the Department of Health and Human Services from tapping into other accounts to fund it.

Rubio’s role has injected presidential politics into the debate, making it all but impossible for GOP leaders to agree to the White House’s demands.  

The talks appeared to hit a wall Monday when Republicans ruled out fixing the risk corridors, which they panned as a “bailout for insurance companies.”

“This is not on the table. Risk corridors is fully off the table,” said a Senate Republican leadership aide.

Despite the disagreement, Republicans are feeling optimistic they can get the healthcare pieces worked out.

Repealing the Cadillac tax, which hits the health plans of union members especially hard, is a priority of Reid’s and many Democrats.

But that was the “soak the rich” component of ObamaCare because only “rich”, well to do, greedy, people had those plans they said.They kneww they were lying but they didn’t care. The Agenda Uber Alles. It was a funding mechanism they used to sell the CBO (and thus con everyone else) on the BS that is ObamaCare.

My Blog Nearly 6 years ago (January 8th, 2010):

Those who think they’ll be exempt from the tax because their health care insurance isn’t one that Obama would define as a “super, gold-plated Cadillac” plan are kidding themselves. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office under George W. Bush, says 95% of Americans who are covered by plans that fit into the Cadillac category make less than $250,000 a year.

Even groups on the left get it. As Jim Kessler, vice president for policy for the progressive Third Way think tank, puts it: “A lot of those folks that have Cadillac plans have Chevy wages.”

Also don’t believe the claim that the tax will be on the insurance companies only. Sure, insurers will write the checks to Washington. But they’ll forward their costs to the customers, adding to a tax burden that’s already too punitive — and going to get worse.

“Passing the tax on to workers would result in an effective tax rate that is even higher than the specified 40%,” Curtis S. Dubay wrote in October in a Heritage Foundation WebMemo. “When the insurance companies embed the cost of the excise tax in premiums, the prices of plans will rise. A higher price means the excise tax would be higher, too.”

This would happen when the tax on a $10,000 individual plan adds $600 (40% of the $1,500 beyond the $8,500 threshold) to the cost, leaving a new premium of $10,600. The new cost will then be subject to the tax, boosting the premium another $840 (40% of the $2,100 over the $8,500 threshold). By now, that $10,000 plan is costing $11,440 a year.

“This cascading effect,” explains Dubay, “could raise the effective rate for the excise tax to 67% according to one estimate — considerably higher than the 40% specified in the bill.”

The problems don’t stop there. The growing premiums will drive many private employers that provide coverage for their workers to downgrade to cheaper insurance plans, which defeats the effort to improve health care.

A Liberal Democrat “soak the rich” scheme that blows up in their face and does the exact opposite. Nah, that never happened before…

See Alternative Minimum Tax 🙂

history2

The good news is, it looks like the Obamacare Cadillac tax will be repealed and insurance companies will have to take the hit they signed up for when they agreed to Obamacare years ago.

I’ll leave you with this, which explains why Democrats and Republicans are on board with repealing the Cadillac Tax.

They knew this 6 years ago, but THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA, after all. 🙂

Most Americans don’t know what their insurance plans are worth. They’re happy to let their employers pay the premiums for them and believe that the money isn’t coming out of their pockets.

Very true.

Very Very true.

I heard a woman say, “Well, I just got out of the hospital. It cost $150,000. And I paid nothing. It was wonderful”

She was complaining about a $42 State Mandated charge in her car insurance. Because “I’m poor you know”. “I’m on a fixed income” (aka I relied on Social Security to pay for my glorious retirement).

And now 6 years later with the economy in the crapper because of Liberals they do it EVEN MORE now than they use.

People may not know the value of ANY insurance, but politicians know the value of politics. 🙂

“These are plans,” says the St. Pete newspaper, “that generally have very low co-pays and lots of extras.”

Sound familiar? Then either be prepared to pay more, or be stuck with a brass-plated, Yugo plan that’s more affordable. And while learning to settle for less, don’t forget: This grand reform effort coming out of Washington is supposed to improve our health care.(IBD and my Blog- January 2010).

It’s Bailout time, and you get stuck with Government “improved” Health Care and The Check.

Congrats. It’s a Whopper (from your own Burger KING). 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Terror Speech, Rick McKee,The Augusta Chronicle,Obama, ISIS, terrorism, terror, San Bernardino

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

 

The Inequity of it All

Today is my Birthday.

What I want for my birthday is for Liberals to stop thinking with their emotions and be rational, logical adults who aren’t narcissistic, greedy, power mad, 2 years old at heart.

Not going to Happen.

Neither is getting Establishment Republicans and RINOs to stop being narcissists and thinking only of their own agenda and thinking about The American People for a change.

I might as well wish for World Peace at the same time, it’s just as likely.

Strike up a conversation with any taxi cab driver or any fry cook at a roadside diner and the word “inequality” is unlikely to ever come up. That’s not on the list of top concerns for middle class America. It’s also not on the list of concerns for the world’s poor. Millions of people are willing to risk life and limb just to come here and start out at the bottom of the income ladder.

(Don’t the immigrants realize how unequal things are? Yes, they want to live in a country where a poor immigrant can become a billionaire.)

So why is anyone claiming that inequality is our most important problem? Because the chattering class has decided that stoking envy is the only way to energize the Democratic Party. Think about the problems we really do have: runaway entitlement spending, poor public schools, welfare dependency, an overly burdensome tax system and anemic economic growth. In every case the solutions we are debating come from the right: Privatization, school vouchers, tough love, a flat tax and lower taxes on capital.

The left has no solutions, or at least none that anyone takes seriously. So, over the years of the Obama presidency the topic of inequality has emerged front and center. Democratic candidates could rail against the super rich and imply that their high incomes are the cause of everyone else’s stagnating income, without ever saying what exactly they would do about it.

Until Bernie Sanders came along. Sanders actually has a few concrete proposals – including the idea that we should become like Denmark, a high tax welfare state. Once the discussion turns from pure demagoguery to serious conversation, inevitably we are forced to look at what economists have to say. (Warning: it’s not good for Democrats.)

In other words, you can’t solve the problem by taxing the rich. If taxation is your only tool, you have to break again one of Barack Obama’s frequently broken promises and raise taxes on the middle class.

In a Brookings Institution study, Peter Orszag (former chief economist for President Obama) and his colleagues discovered that if you raised the top tax rate from 40 percent to 50 percent and redistributed that money to people at the bottom, the top 1 percent’s share of income would only decline from 16.4 to 15.6 percent. The Gini coefficient (the numerical measure of inequality) would change so little you would have to squint to see it.

Then there is the question of why we have increasing inequality in the first place. Another study by Orszag and current Obama chief economist Jason Furman found that a primary source of inequality among people is inequality among firms. Take a look at the chart below. If you happened to be working for one of the top 10 percent of most successful companies over the past two decades your salary, bonuses and other compensation probably soared. If you have been working for the median firm, your income has probably risen modestly. If your employer is in the bottom half of the distribution, your income has probably been stagnant.

So what can be done about that? The idea of arresting the growth of highly successful companies is silly. But that isn’t necessarily a deal breaker for the left. The problem for Democrats is that Silicon Valley is heavily Democratic. It’s one of the places Democrats go to get mega gifts. My bet is that you won’t hear a peep about inequality among firms in the coming election.

orszag chart

 

SOURCE: KOLLER ET AL. (2015); MCKINSEY & COMPANY

That leaves Denmark. People on the left are fond of citing the Nordic states — Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland — as examples of countries with higher taxes and less inequality. It’s easy to see why. As Matt Yglesias writes

Danish mothers enjoy 18 weeks of guaranteed maternity leave at 100 percent of their ordinary pay. Danish students leave college free of debt. Everyone is covered by a national health insurance system and can take advantage of subsidized child care; plus, thanks to a generous welfare system, Denmark’s child poverty rate is about a quarter of America’s.

So how do the Danes afford all that? With high taxes. As Yglesias makes clear, it’s not just taxes on the rich. The top tax rate in Denmark is 57 percent, about the same as it is in California. If California wanted to become like Denmark, it would basically leave the rich alone. But it would have to sock it to the middle class with effective tax rates averaging from 35 to 48 percent. Then the state would need to pile on with 25 percent value added tax — which is basically a form of sales tax and every bit as regressive. Car addicted Californians would also experience a huge spike in the price of gasoline and a 180 percent tax on the price of a new car!

So how does Denmark keep from looking like Greece? Answer: They believe in privatization, deregulation and free enterprise. Denmark is rated as one of the best places in the world to do business. It scores higher on the Heritage Economic Freedom ranking than the United States does. Unlike the US, public sector unions in Denmark don’t control public services and push up costs with job protecting regulations. For example, a private, for-profit company is currently in charge of 65 percent of municipal fire departments and 85 percent of ambulance services in the country. According to Yglesias:

In Copenhagen … the metro is driverless, the suburban rail network features one-man train crews, and many urban bus lines are run by private companies. These are all kinds of measures that US labor unions would normally oppose….

Øresund Bridge from Copenhagen to Malmö was constructed at a drastically lower price than the United States is prepared to spend to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York even though the Nordic bridge is substantially longer and includes a major train component along with the roadway.

The Danish model is awfully hard to emulate if public sector unions are the backbone of your party.

Finally, there is Yale law professor Stephen Carter’s observation that the word “inequality” was used eight times by the candidates and once by the moderator in the Democratic debate the other night. In every instance the focus was on taxing the rich, not on helping the poor. In fact, the word “poverty” was used hardly at all. Apparently, envy sells better than charity when communicating with Democratic voters.

Yet Carter, himself a bona fide liberal, notes that we don’t really have an inequality problem. We have a poverty problem.

That Democrats ignore it is hardly surprising. When is the last time you heard a Democratic candidate for president talk about the poor in any respect? The last one I can remember was John Edwards and that was eons ago. (Townhall)

And look what happened to him… 🙂

Oh, the inequity of it all.

 

Soylent Green Snake

Hillary Clinton has a new economic plan. In essence, government should get actively involved to make everyone’s wages higher.

Government control of the means of production…hmmm…I’ve heard that somewhere before… 🙂

Paul Krugman, writing in The New York Times, endorses the idea. There was a time when Krugman dismissed rhetoric like Clinton’s as economic quackery. These days he’s trying to sell the same snake oil as the politicians.

The Agenda is The Agenda. And Class Warfare is one of the great succors or The Left. They can’t conceive of life without it.

Here is what economists know and it’s backed by mountains of research. Employees tend to get paid their marginal product – the value they add to final output.

In a competitive market this is almost a truism. Wages are not a gift. They are not at one level, but could have been substantially higher or lower. They are what they are because of the employees’ skills and the market value of what they produce.

Now suppose that were not the case. Suppose there was a firm that paid employees more than their marginal product. That would mean the firm is collecting less from customers at the margin than it is paying out in wages. The firm can try to raise prices to cover the deficit, but then it would lose sales to rivals whose costs are lower and it would eventually go out of business. Or it could cover the deficit with lower profits. But then the investors would fire the manager and hire someone who gets the wages right and provides a market rate of return.

Suppose that there was a firm that paid employees less than their marginal product. In that case, rival firms would hire the employees away – since they are worth more than what they are being paid.

To summarize: A firm that pays workers more than they are worth cannot survive because it cannot match the prices and the rate of return to investors of its rivals. A firm that pays workers less than what they are worth, cannot survive because it will not be able to retain its employees. Competition in the marketplace tends to determine wages; there is a definite logic to what people are paid; and it has nothing to do with miserliness or generosity.

Therefore, Liberals want to eliminate competition thus everyone is equal and their are no winner and no losers. Just like the liberal version of youth sports where no one actually loses.

Competition is evil. So it must be destroyed. Competition is “unfair” and full of nothing but “inequality”.

Also, economists know there is no free lunch.

Unless, they are Liberal adherents to The Agenda, then they are all about the perception of “the free lunch” or the “greedy” capitalist who is a Scrooge and miserly old white privilege asshole.

If one person has a gain – in the absence of any increased production — someone else must endure a loss.

And since that is “unfair” Liberals demand everyone to be equal which holy unrealistic, but then again so are Liberals.

And we know a lot about those losses. For example, when government forces employers to pay higher wages, employers react by reducing other types of spending on their employees – less training and fewer fringe benefits, such as health insurance.

Close down and move to Mexico…Offer less hours of work at that higher pay, say 29. 🙂

On balance it appears that employees are left worse off. After a survey of the literature, economist Richard McKenzie wrote:

[I]f the minimum wage were raised to $10.10 an hour, for example, the estimated 16.5 million workers earning between $7.25 and $10.10 could lose non-monetary compensation more valuable than the $31 billion in additional wages they are expected to receive.

But Liberal work on perception, not reality. So that shiny new toy in the window look good from the outside, but once you own it and start playing with it, you find out just how cheaply made it was and it begins to fall about.

But don’t worry, The Liberal has that covered to! It’s called “victimization” where you are the victim of the evil, greedy capitalists! It’s not your fault you fell for their dog crap hook-line-and-sinker, it’s their fault!

How amazing is that. You took a bite of the apple of socialism and it the snake bit you, but it’s still the snake’s fault! And all you need is for the Liberal to come in and tell you that it was the snake fault and that if you take another bite it will STILL be the snake’s fault so why not go ahead…

In defense of Hillary, Krugman writes:

[E]mployers always face a trade-off between low-wage and higher-wage strategies — between, say, the traditional Walmart model of paying as little as possible and accepting high turnover and low morale, and the Costco model of higher pay and benefits leading to a more stable work force. And there’s every reason to believe that public policy can, in a variety of ways — including making it easier for workers to organize — encourage more firms to choose the good-wage strategy.

Liberalism a snake charmer, not a snake oil salesman, says the snake oil salesman.

But here’s the thing. What works for Costco workers may not work for Walmart workers. And in any event does any rational person think that government should make decisions about these tradeoffs rather than competitors in the marketplace?

Yes, Liberals. 🙂

The other day The New York Times had two contrasting editorials on its op ed page. One, by Paul Krugman, called for a higher minimum wage and other labor market interventions. The other, by the chairman of Starbucks and his wife, Howard and Sheri Schultz, noted that:

[There are] 5.6 million people ages 16 to 24 in America who are not employed or in school. While some have lost hope in this population … we believe these young people represent a significant untapped resource of productivity and talent. With the right support and training, they can benefit our businesses and our communities.

The Schultz’s have formed a foundation and with the aid of other foundations and high profile companies their goal is to “provide jobs, internships and apprenticeships to 100,000 young people over the next three years.”

Although they don’t say so, their editorial clearly implies that the wage that is paid to these youths doesn’t really matter. What matters is they learn the life skills of showing up for work on time, following orders, conducting themselves in appropriate ways, etc. If they learn those skills, their wages will rise through time without any help from government.

Krugman, Clinton and others on the left say there is no economic harm in raising the minimum wage and in adopting other polices that close off job opportunities for those at the bottom of the income ladder. In making this statement they are ignoring the social costs. The Schultz’s write:

[T]he cost of youth disconnection — including health care, public assistance and incarceration — was $26.8 billion in 2013 alone. Quite literally, we can’t afford to do nothing.

And then there are the personal costs, which do not easily lend themselves to calculation in terms of dollars and cents.

I suspect these costs are not of much interest to either Krugman or Clinton. (John C Goodman)

Snake Oil is how much a barrel?

Let’s not forget that those who have their wage increased suddenly find themselves no longer “qualified” to receive governmental benefits and pay higher taxes out of that higher wage.

We’ve already seen that where the “newly waged” want fewer hours so that they don’t lose their benefits.

Which probably explains why they don’t understand the reasoning behind how a wage gets set.

Secondarily, many unions tie their wages to the minimum wage level by some multiplier or other offset. Which means that costs will be going up in those businesses as well.

Krugman and others are dishonest for continuing to promote wage pandering.
But Liberals are never about the truth, but about what gains them power. And keeping people ignorant and jealous plays right into that.
(Townhall)

Keep them stupid, mad, and needy, that’s the Liberal plan. It keeps the Liberals pundits, advocates, and Politicians on their own gravy train.

Liberal version of Soylent Green, just grind them up and feed them back to themselves and make them happy for you and made at everyone else.

Devil Went Down to DC

Charlie DanielsBy Charlie Daniels
(the title of this blog is my own, not Mr. Daniels)

Dear Mr. President,

This letter is not written in a spirit of hate or disrespect. Nor is it motivated in any way by racial bias. It is written with respect due the office and the awesome tasks that have been laid on your shoulders.

I write this letter because I am a taxpaying American citizen who has experienced the American Dream and wants his children and grandchildren to have the same advantages and opportunities that I have had.

And no, Mr. President, I was not born into a one-percenter family. I come from a blue collar background. I never went to college. I have made a living doing manual labor, and I entered my chosen profession at ground level, worked hard and sacrificed to achieve success.

On April 13, 1967 I arrived in Nashville, Tennessee with a wife, a two-year-old baby, a twenty-dollar bill and the clutch out of my car.

I won’t go into the mountains and valleys that I’ve traveled since then, except to say that I have been successful. And somebody did help me build the business I own. Almighty God, not the government.

I employ thirty people, good citizens and family people, hard-working people, the kind of gun-clinging, God-fearing folks who make America the greatest nation the world has ever known.

Mr. President, it seems to me that you have little faith in American ingenuity, American capability, American exceptionalism and even American patriotism.

You seem to think that America needs a monolithic, big brother type government to oversee and regulate every aspect of American life, and that citizens are not competent to control their own affairs and make their own decisions without some oppressive bureaucracy to call the shots.

Mr. President, the answer is not government. Conversely, the problem is government, a government that has doubled the national debt, increased unemployment, lowered take-home pay, increased food stamp participation and disability claims and introduced socialized medicine.

You support teachers unions which take political activism more seriously than education.

You misled the American people about your stand on marriage being between a man and woman, and continue to when it is politically expedient for you to do so.

You surround yourself with inexperienced ideologues and political yes men and take the advice of individuals who are swimming in waters way too deep for them.

Your petulance is unbecoming, Mr. President, and your criticism of anyone who disagrees with you is downright unmanly. You come off like a spoiled child who has been denied his way.

And while you blame your shortcomings on opposing political parties, you had both houses of congress and the White House in the first two years of your term, plus an electoral mandate to do just about anything you wanted to. The least you can do is cowboy up and take the blame for the messes you’ve made.

Your apparent disregard for the maintenance and morale of our armed services is extremely unwise and dangerous.

Mr. President, the office you hold is not a place for the faint of heart, and when you draw a redline you’d dang well better be willing to back it up. Because when you don’t, every tyrant and despot in this world takes it for a sign of weakness and will take advantage, Putin and China are but two prominent examples.

In making any kind of deal with Iran you spit in the face of Israel and plant the seeds of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

The last report showed that the U.S. economy actually shrunk by .07 percent, while the national debt and other obligations are continuing to grow by the day.

No matter how many apologists come forth, and no matter how much doubletalk you and the puppets who speak for you come up with, the greatest nation the world has ever known is losing a war with a small army of criminals and thugs that grows bigger every day, simply because you don’t have the guts to face the problem.

You’re running out of diversions Mr. President. Slight-of-hand political policies eventually stop working, and lies finally float to the top of water.

Time is running out for you Mr. President, and the horrible thing about it is that time is running out for America too.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

VIVA LA REVOLUCIóN

[T]hink about how even with all the gridlock and polarization in Washington, we have made so much change these past six years:  12 million new jobs.  Sixteen million people who finally have health insurance.  Historic agreements to fight climate change.  Epic increases in college financial aid.  More progress on LGBT rights than any time in our history. And today, it is no longer remarkable to see two beautiful black girls walking their dogs on the South Lawn of the White House lawn.  That’s just the way things are now,” Obama said to applause at the liberal arts college.

“rise above the noise and shape the revolutions of your time.”Michelle Obama

It would takes days to point out all the lies and partisan ideological distortions in that one paragraph, but that’s also the point at which we are in America.

There are millions of slobbering liberals and just plain ignorant Americans who’d believe every word of it and would fight to very last drop of your evil blood to defend “the truth” as they want everyone to see it.

The truth has no meaning anymore. One’s partisan agenda, whether Republican (secret trade deal anyone?) or Democrat doesn’t matter, the truth even less so.

Dishonesty is the only rule left.

Narcissism rules.

It’s time for the looting and sacking of Rome, 406 AD.

Did the Visigoths and The Romans prosper from the sacking of Rome and the Destruction of the Roman Empire?

Well, 1600 years later apparently both the barbarians and the elites have figured it out.

The peasants are the one who are going to get screwed, but we’ll make them happy to do it to themselves.

“So get out there and volunteer on campaigns, and then hold the folks you elect accountable.”

Why? that’s they VERY LAST thing anyone wants to do to a Liberal, especially your husband. That would be “racist”, “bigotry”,”misogyny” or “islamophobia”.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

So what she saying is to hold accountable only those people with whom you disagree (aka non-liberals), make sure they are destroyed because she and her husband are above it all and are unaccountable for their actions anyhow, as it should be.

Make sure division and destruction are left in your wake. Your Agenda is THE ONLY AGENDA. Your Narrative is the ONLY Narrative. Make sure no one gets in your way and if they do, destroy them!!

Especially if they are white, male, and/or Christian they deserve it!

See, that is how you will rise above the noise and shape the revolutions of your time.

VIVA LA REVOLUCIóN !

http://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Ann-Coulter/dp/1621572676

Ann Coulter is back, more fearless than ever. In Adios, America she touches the third rail in American politics, attacking the immigration issue head-on and flying in the face of La Raza, the Democrats, a media determined to cover up immigrants’ crimes, churches that get paid by the government for their “charity,” and greedy Republican businessmen and campaign consultants—all of whom are profiting handsomely from mass immigration that’s tearing the country apart. Applying her trademark biting humor to the disaster that is U.S. immigration policy, Coulter proves that immigration is the most important issue facing America today.

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen
Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

The Case For Hillary

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

1) After being accused of racism every time they disagree with the President, Americans will enjoy the change of pace by being accused of sexism every time they disagree with the President.

At least we’d get rid of “race relations” being the problem. We’d replace it with “gender relations” and White Males would STILL be the ultimate enemy!! 🙂

2) America’s military would be unstoppable because of three little words that Hillary would bring to the White House, “Flying Monkey Legions!”

Vast Right Wing Conspiracies would be true. 🙂

3) It would be terrible for our first black President to be the worst POTUS of all time and Hillary can take care of that problem.

4) Americans LOVE dynasties! Next it’s Jeb Bush’s turn. Then Chelsea Clinton. THEN Michelle Obama. Then Jenna Bush. Then Malia Obama and so on and so on into infinity. If Americans didn’t like being ruled by royal families, then you’d think there would have been some small indication of it in our history by now, right? 😉

5) We Americans take pride in giving good value for the money that’s paid to us and all those foreign governments that paid off Hillary when she was Secretary of State would REALLY hit the jackpot if she became President.

You wouldn’t have to worry about whether the President was corrupt because you’d already know she is BEFORE you elected her so nothing would be a surprise. The media wouldn’t would have to cover it as a “scandal” because that would just be Hillary being Hillary so nothing out of the ordinary there.

6) She’ll be a fantastic role model for young women who’ll learn that as long as you marry the right man and ride his coattails at every opportunity – you, too, can succeed!

7) Well, if she could handle being Secretary of State with no problems, then obviously…oh wait, she didn’t, did she?

8) Eight more years of complete and utter servile capitulation to a President of the United States should be enough to destroy the whole liberal mainstream media’s reputation for good.

9) If Hillary were to win, then all the people who tell America how incompetent she’ll be will be able to enjoy being proven right about her over and over again just as they have been about Barack Obama.

10) It’s long since time that small children were shown The Vagina Monologues before the White House Easter Egg Roll.

11) Everybody THINKS he can be President, but for hundreds of years, Americans have insisted on choosing Presidents based on “merit” and “accomplishments.” If both Obama and Hillary can be President, then that proves any undeserving idiot can do the job as long as he or she checks the right diversity box.

12) Despite the many credible claims that the money she made was part of a shady bribe, obviously parlaying $1,000 into $100,000 in highly speculative commodity market trading proves that Hillary Clinton really is…THE SMARTEST WOMAN ON EARTH!

13) Who could possibly be a better role model for young women in America than a politician who has been endorsed by Larry Flynt AND Hookers for Hillary?

14) Replacing Air Force One with a broomstick would mean tens of millions in savings for the taxpayers!

15) Like duh, she’s an incompetent lying socialist who will drive the final nails in America’s coffin after 8 years of Barack Obama and…oh wait, the goal here IS to destroy America, right? Oh, wow…it’s not? Then maybe she’s NOT the right candidate. (John Hawkins)

Naw, she the only one LEFT according to the Media… 🙂

And imagine how how annoyed the Jihadists will be with a Woman in charge! How dare we do something so vulgar and such a heresy! Maybe we can get her to wear a Burka. 🙂

Imagine what Bill could do for fundraiser for her re-election in 2020! The Hookers For Hillary could become his extended family, especially with Bill around to “entertain” them.

Imagine his School Lunch program. Wieners for everyone!

Think of the possibilities! Maybe even get Monica Lewinsky for a Cabinet “position”.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Mob Rule

While we talk about democracy and equal rights, we seem increasingly to let both private and government decisions be determined by mob rule. There is nothing democratic about mob rule. It means that some people’s votes are to be overruled by other people’s disruptions, harassments and threats.

But the Democrats like to use it as a bully tactic for for their agenda. Whether it does any good, which it frequently doesn’t, for “the masses” is irrelevant as long as it works for the agenda.

And as I have said on many occasions, there are few things in life greedier than a union. And few things more incestuous with politicians.

The latest examples are the mobs in the streets in cities across the country, demanding employers pay a minimum wage of $15 an hour, or else that the government makes them do so by law.

Some of the more gullible observers think the issue is whether what some people are making now is “a living wage.” This misconstrues the whole point of hiring someone to do work. Those who are being hired are paid for the value of the work they do.

If their work is really worth more than what their employer is paying them, all they have to do is quit and go work for some other employer, who will pay them what their work is really worth. If they can’t find any other employer who will pay them more, then what makes them think their work is worth more?

As for a “living wage,” the employer is not hiring people to acquire dependents and be their meal ticket. He’s hiring them for what they produce.

Are some people not able to produce much? Absolutely! I know because I was once one of those people.

After leaving home as a teenager, I discovered that what I could earn would only enable me to rent a furnished room about 6 by 9 feet. Instead of a closet, it had a nail on the back of the door — which was completely adequate for my wardrobe at the time.

It became painfully clear that there was no great demand for a high school dropout with no skills and no experience. My choices were to get angry at my employer or to acquire some skills and experience — and try to pick up some more education, while I was at it. Even to a teenage dropout, that choice was a no-brainer.

There was no one around to confuse the issue by telling me that I was somehow “entitled” to what other people had produced, whether at the expense of the taxpayers or the employer.

There was a minimum wage law, even back in those days. But it had been passed 10 years earlier, and inflation had raised both prices and wages to the point where it was the same as if there were no minimum wage law.

 

Thank heaven! The unemployment rate among black teenagers then was a fraction of what it would become later, after “compassionate” politicians repeatedly raised the minimum wage rate to keep up with inflation.

In 1948, the year I left home, the unemployment rate among black 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds was 9.4%, slightly lower than that for white kids the same ages, which was 10.2%.

Over the decades since then, we have gotten used to unemployment rates among black teenagers being over 30%, 40% or in some years even 50%. Such is the price of political “compassion.”

Whatever the good intentions behind minimum wage laws, what matters are the actual consequences. Many people have ideological, financial or political incentives to obfuscate the consequences.

Labor unions are the biggest force behind attempts to raise the minimum wage, not only in the U.S., but also in other countries. That may seem strange, since most union members already earn more than the minimum. But unions know what they are doing, even if many gullible observers do not.

Low-skill workers with correspondingly low wages compete in the labor market with higher skilled union members with correspondingly higher wages. Many kinds of work can be done by various mixtures of low- and high-skilled workers.

Minimum wage rates that are higher than what most low-skilled and inexperienced workers are worth simply price those workers out of the job markets, leaving more work for union members. All the unions have to do is camouflage what is happening by using rhetoric about “a living wage” or “social justice” or whatever else will impress the gullible.

Life was tough when all I could get were low-paying jobs. But it would have been a lot tougher if I couldn’t get any job at all. And a tough life made me go get some skills and knowledge. (Thomas Sowell)

Me too. But what do I know, I’m just a tea party “hater” after all…

Powerful public employee unions regularly criticize American government as undemocratic and call for campaign finance reform, more citizen participation and greater governmental transparency. Many of these unions, especially those representing teachers, increasingly seek to democratize corporations though shareholder activism.

Yet these unions themselves often operate as oligarchies with a democratic veneer. Federal law requires that private sector unions conduct secret ballot elections to choose officers. A patchwork of state laws does the same for public sector unions. But, for the most part, American labor unions are democratic only on paper.

Very few union members vote in leadership elections, if they are contested at all.

Union leaders often go unchallenged for years and even decades, only to anoint a successor upon retirement. The average tenure atop the nation’s most powerful public employee unions is 15 years. (The average tenure of Fortune 500 CEOs is 10 years.) The vast majority of current workers have never been asked to vote on whether they want union representation.

Although statutes require a “certification” election to set up a union, some 93% of public sector union members today belong to unions that were organized before they were hired. (IBD)

So the cart is before the horse and the cart wants all the goodies for itself, and will use the cart to get it.

Nothing wrong here…. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

 

I’ll give you $15/hr

For all those narcissistic fast food workers who think emotionally and not logically and have bought the class warfare BS hook, line, and SUCKER…I present YOUR FUTURE…

A company called Momentum Machines has built a robot that could radically change the fast-food industry and have some line cooks looking for new jobs.

The company’s robot can “slice toppings like tomatoes and pickles immediately before it places the slice onto your burger, giving you the freshest burger possible.” The robot is “more consistent, more sanitary, and can produce ~360 hamburgers per hour.” That’s one burger every 10 seconds.

The next generation of the device will offer “custom meat grinds for every single customer. Want a patty with 1/3 pork and 2/3 bison ground to order? No problem.” 

Momentum Machines cofounder Alexandros Vardakostas told Xconomy his “device isn’t meant to make employees more efficient. It’s meant to completely obviate them.” Indeed, marketing copy on the company’s site reads that their automaton “does everything employees can do, except better.”

This directly raises a question that a lot of smart people have contemplated: Will robots steal our jobs? Opinion is divided of course. Here’s what Momentum Machines has to say on the topic:

The issue of machines and job displacement has been around for centuries and economists generally accept that technology like ours actually causes an increase in employment. The three factors that contribute to this are 1. the company that makes the robots must hire new employees, 2. the restaurant that uses our robots can expand their frontiers of production which requires hiring more people, and 3. the general public saves money on the reduced cost of our burgers. This saved money can then be spent on the rest of the economy.

If we are to undertake the lofty ambition of changing the nature of work by way of robots, the fast-food industry seems like a good place to start, considering its inherently repetitive tasks and minimal skill requirements. Any roboticist worth his or her salt jumps at tasks described as repetitive and easy — perfect undertakings for a robot.

Here’s a schematic of what the burger-bot looks like and how it works. It occupies 24 square feet, so it’s much smaller than most assembly-line fast-food operations. It boasts “gourmet cooking methods never before used in a fast food restaurant” and will even deposit your completed burger into a bag. It’s a veritable Gutenberg printing press for hamburgers.

burger robot diagram

If you think your Liberal “mad” cry baby skills are up to it that is…. 🙂

 

McJob

McDonald’s Replacing Cashiers With Machines?

“Would you like fries with that?” may soon be a long forgotten relic of American pop culture.

mcdonalds

McDonald’s employees who picketed for a better living wage (whatever that means) may come to regret that decision. According to a Redditor, a McDonald’s in Illinois replaced their cashiers with machines.  The machines appear to be the cousins of the ones found in grocery stores, big box stores, and CVS that allow customers to complete transactions.

How cost effective is replacing an organic employee with a mechanized one? According to an economic blog, and unsurprisingly, the machines likely come out on top in terms of pricing:

  • For a location open 24 hours: The cost of human cashiers, not counting benefits, $15/hour * 24 hours * 365 days/year = $131,400

  • For a location open 6AM to Midnight:  $15/hour * 18 hours * 365 = $98,550.

  • For the machine to be cost effective, all it needs to do is cost less than $100,000 a year to buy and maintain.

Who could’ve possibly seen this coming? Forbes. They predicted this exact scenario last July.

A recent article at the Huffington Post makes the claim that if McDonald’s MCD +0.26% doubled its employees salaries it would only cause the price of a Big Mac to go up by 68 cents. The implication here is that 68 cents isn’t much money, so they should do it. There’s a few things missing from this.

One is that the article itself alleges that doubling wages would lead to a 17% increase in costs. And I guess this is obviously supposed to seem like a small amount? It doesn’t look that way to me. What do people expect will happen when prices go up 17%? If McDonald’s could raise its prices by that much without lowering demand they would. No, what would happen is people would shop at those stores less, there would be less profit and less McDonald’s stores to hire workers.

Doubling of labor costs will simply increase a fast food restaurant’s incentives to adopt technology like this. And if fast food wages doubled everywhere it would spur the development of these technologies even faster.

This is all basic economics, really. As costs of labor increase the added cost must be offset. In order to satisfy operating costs, produce a product consumers want to purchase, and still turn a profit, it’s perfectly reasonable for a company like McDonald’s to look for cost-cutting alternatives. As Forbes pointed out, the added pressure to increase wages only serves to expedite technological solutions.

McDonald’s has already installed kiosks to replace human cashiers in about 7,000 of its stores in higher-minimum-wage Europe. So it seems inevitable that technology will make its way into the kitchen as well.

But cooks are safe from the machination of American fast food, right?

Not if companies like Momentum Machines has anything to do with it. “Our technology will democratize access to high quality food making it available to the masses,” their site claims. They also claim their burger making machines can, “do everything employees do except better” and that the machines reap such large labor savings, restaurants will be able to afford twice as fancy ingredients. Tempting little proposition they have there.

“Would you like fries with that?” may soon be a long forgotten relic of American pop culture. And all because it makes good economic sense.

Naturally, the Left will interpret this as “class warfare” and a “war on the poor” rather than see the obvious.

Update (WAJ): Prof. Reynolds notes that Robot makers must be loving the recent NLRB ruling, as well, which held McDonald’s parent corporation liable for franchisee employment practices. Can a kiosk file an employment grievance? (LI)

ATLANTA – Outrage is growing against federal restrictions on school bake sales and fundraisers.

“We don’t have enough teachers in our classrooms and now we are expected to hire some type of food police to monitor whether we are having bake sales or not. That is just asinine,” John Barge, Georgia state school superintendent tells WSB-TV.

We are from the Government and we are hear to help you. We are from a Union, we are here to Help you… 🙂

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-12/meet-smart-restaurant-minimum-wage-crushing-burger-flipping-robot

Vision Problems

Liberals are always going on about how they are more “sensitive” to the concerns of “the poor”…yet…

May 20 marks the 1,245th straight day that the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline costs more than $3 a gallon, according to AAA data. That’s nearly three-and-a-half years above $3 a gallon.

That can’t help the poor. But it does help the Liberal Agenda.

So does ObamaCare, their nearly 100 year old wet dream of Government control of everyone through Health Care.

Mind you, the VA scandal is just an annoying blip they have to find a a way to sweep under the rug…Nothing about Government Health Care to see here…

In the meantime… they are “angry” about it. So “angry” in fact…

As the Veterans Affairs (VA) fiasco rages on, the House passed a piece of legislation that would make it easier to fire VA employees and make the department more accountable.  It was passed with bipartisan support, with the vote being 390 in favor to 33 against.

There was only one problem.  The bill (VA Management Accountability Act, H.R.4031) failed to pass the U.S. Senate.  Senate Democrats decided mark this Memorial Day by blocking this bill.

I’m, sure it was “too partisan” or some such BS. They are proud to wear their Union diapers. So the Democrats will want to pass their own bill, which undoubtedly will be all style and no substance and full of cronyism and super regulations that are ridculous and just look like a band aid, but if you’re against this one you obviously hate veterans! 🙂

And when the Republicans reject THEIR bill (not the bi-partisan one they rejected) they’ll bash them repeatedly in the media right before the election. The “other” bill will not even register in their consciousness.

After all, they “care”. 🙂

They care about “jobs”

The unemployment rate has been higher than ever before ever since The Liberals took over. But it’s around 3% in North Dakota because of the oil boom.

But Liberals hate Oil. They refuse to pass the Keystone Pipeline. They have the EPA Nazis going out and harassing business people and destroying jobs that aren’t politically correct.

They want a $15/hr minimum wage, that will ruin businesses and put EVEN MORE people out of work.

But opposing them is just “greedy” and “insensitive” to the poor. So they send out their shock troops to make an irrational fear-based circus out it.

Because they “care”.

There is the lowest labor participation rate in 35 years.

BUT their narrative feeds their Agenda.  And they “care”. 🙂

So back off.

They talk incessantly about the “War on Women” over abortion and birth Control but are absolutely silent as the grave about Sharia Law and the treatment of women under their hand picked Politically Correct Religion, Islam.

You “misogynist”!

Liberals loudly proclaim they are Pro-Choice.

As long as that choice fits THEIR Agenda that is.

pro-choice butAre you starting to see a pattern?

Oh, and if you happen to protest them expect the IRS to harass you, and then they’ll deny they were ever doing it.

The Holier than thou Liberal media will call you a “racist”, “a Homophobe”,”a radical”,”a Misogynist”,”a partisan”, “A domestic Terrorist” or even the hail mary of them all you “racist!”, or any other schoolyard nasty name in an attempt to shut you the hell up.

But they like the First Amendment, they say. As long as you say something they don’t disagree with that is.

Oh, and they absolutely hate the 2nd Amendment. The idea of you carrying a gun around to defend yourself is utterly mad-hatter time to them. That’s the Government’s job.

After all, the NSA is only “protecting” you. And we wouldn’t want you to go off like a loose cannon when they Stormtroopers come with their drones and take over, now would we?

It’s for for your own good.

The Government is here to Protect & Serve. How can we Help you, today? 🙂

You can keep your Doctor. Your Health Care. And it will cost less.

Trust Us.

We’ll Protect you from yourself.

Feel Better Now? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Well, Mama ain’t happy.

Look out, everyone: The nation’s school lunch lady, Michelle Obama, is mad. With her federal nutrition program under fire across the country and now on Capitol Hill, Mrs. Obama put out a “forceful” call to arms this week to “health activists,” according to The Washington Post.

Read: radical Leftists!

She’s cracking the whip. Her orders are clear: There must be no escape. The East Wing and its sycophants zealously oppose any effort to alter, delay or waive top-down school meal rules. Big Lunch must be guarded at all costs.

We “care” so much that we will not be denied. You will comply! Resistance is Futile. You will be assimilated!

Progressives blame kid-hating Republicans and greedy businesses for the revolt against Mrs. Obama’s failed policies. But the truth is right around the corner in your students’ cafeterias. Districts are losing money. Discarded food is piling high. Kids are going off-campus to fill their tummies or just going hungry.

According to the School Nutrition Association, almost half of school meal programs reported declines in revenue in the 2012-13 school year, and 90 percent said food costs were up. Local nutrition directors are demanding more flexibility and freedom. Look no further than school districts in Los Angeles and Chicago.

As I noted in 2011, the L.A. Unified School District pronounced the first lady’s federally subsidized initiative a “flop” and a “disaster.” Principals reported “massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrees being thrown away.” The problem has only worsened. The Los Angeles Times reported last month that the city’s students throw out “at least $100,000 worth of food a day — and probably far more,” which “amounts to $18 million a year.”

Draconian federal rules dictate calorie counts, whole-grain requirements, the number of items that children must put on their trays, and even the color of the fruits and vegetables they must choose. Asked for a solution, LAUSD Food Service Director David Binkle told the Times bluntly: “We can stop forcing children to take food they don’t like and throw in the garbage.”

Or you can do what Arlington Heights District 214 in Michelle Obama’s home state of Illinois just did: Vote yourselves out of the unsavory one-size-fits-all mandate. Last week, the state’s second largest school district decided to quit the national school lunch program altogether. Officials pointed out that absurd federal guidelines prevented them from offering hard-boiled eggs, hummus, pretzels, some brands of yogurt, and nonfat milk in containers larger than 12 ounces.

The district will deliberately forgo $900,000 in federal aid and instead rely on its own nutritionist to devise healthy choices that students actually want. One local parent summed it up well: “(T)he government can’t control everything.”

As more schools look to withdraw, you can bet on the White House to ramp up the Republican-bashing rhetoric. Mrs. Obama’s advocates have already taken to social media to complain about Big Business special interests.

But let’s remember: Mrs. Obama has been working the food circuit since 2005, when the wife of newly elected Sen. Barack Obama was named to the corporate board of directors of Wal-Mart processed foods supplier TreeHouse Foods Inc. — collecting $45,000 in 2005, $51,200 in 2006, and 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year.

Fact: The first lady has been the most insatiable crony at the center of the Fed Foods racket. Her nonprofit Partnership for a Healthier America has reported assets of $4.5 million from secret donors. It’s not just mean conservatives pointing out her Big Business ties. The left-wing documentary “Fed Up” made the same point before being edited under pressure. Hello, Chicago Way.

Mrs. Obama’s allies also have accused opponents of wanting to repeal “science-based” standards. But the first lady herself was caught spreading false claims that her program was responsible for reducing childhood obesity, when the decline began a decade ago.

And as I’ve reported previously, deep-pocketed Big Labor’s push to expand public union payrolls with thousands more food service workers is also driving Mrs. Obama’s agenda.

Waste, failure, lies and special interest ties. If federal food policy were really about the children, the East Wing would be embracing change. But this is not about protecting the kids. It’s about protecting Michelle Obama. Her thin-skinned response to criticism is telling:

Hell hath no fury like a Nanny State control freak scorned. (CNS)

And it’s all YOUR FAULT for resisting the “caring” and “compassion” smothering of the LEFT.

They just care about you too much. And it’s your fault for resisting their superior vision for your life.

Kinda like the mother on “The Goldbergs” don’t you think?… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

But as long as you do as Momma and Pappa Government say and don’t back talk everything will be happy and  perfect.

Kumbuya! Praise the Government!

Your Lord and Master demands it.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!

🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 

 

 

Selfishness

I have often mused about selfishness, especially in politics.

So take it away Thomas Sowell.

The recent Supreme Court decision over-ruling some Federal Election Commission restrictions on political campaign contributions has provoked angry reactions on the left. That is what often happens whenever the High Court rules that the First Amendment means what it says — free speech for everybody.

When the Supreme Court declared in 2010 that both unions and corporations had a right to buy political ads, that was considered outrageous by the left. President Obama called the decision “devastating” and said it “will open the floodgates for special interests.”

 

Those unfamiliar with political rhetoric may not know that “special interests” mean people who support your opponents. One’s own organized supporters — such as labor unions supporting President Obama — are never called “special interests.”

All politicians are against “special interests,” by definition. They all want their own supporters to have the right to free speech, but not those individuals and groups so benighted as to support their opponents.

Even in an age of polarization and gridlock, the one area in which it is easy to get bipartisan support in Congress is in passing campaign finance laws, restricting how much money can be spent publicizing political candidates. What Congressional Democrats and Republicans have in common is that they are all incumbents, and they all want to keep their jobs.

Publicity is necessary to win elections, and incumbents get millions of dollars’ worth of free publicity from the media. Incumbents can all pontificate in Congress and be covered by C-SPAN. They can get interviewed on network television, have their pictures in the newspapers, and send out mail to their constituents back home — and none of this costs them a dime.

Congressional staffs, paid by the taxpayers, are supposed to help members of Congress with the burdens of their office, but a major part of their staff’s work is to help get them re-elected.

That’s not just during campaign years. Everything members of Congress do is done with an eye toward re-election.

Any outsider who wants to challenge an incumbent at the next Congressional election has to pay hard cash to buy ads and arrange other forms of publicity, in order just to get some comparable amount of name-recognition, so as to have any serious chance of winning an election against an incumbent.

Few people have the kind of money it takes for such a campaign, so they have to raise money — in the millions of dollars — to pay for what incumbents get free of charge.

Campaign finance laws that restrict who can contribute how much money, who can run political ads, etc., are all restrictions on political challengers who have to buy their own publicity.

If truth-in-packaging laws applied to Congress, a campaign finance law would have to be labeled an “Incumbents Protection Act.”

The very high rate of incumbent re-elections, even while polls show the public disgusted with Congress in general, shows how well incumbents are protected.

The media are accessories to this scam. So long as the information and opinions that reach the public are selected by mainstream media people, whom polls show to be overwhelmingly on the left, the left’s view of the world prevails.

Hence the great alarm in the media, and in equally one-sided academia, over the emergence of conservative talk radio programs and the Fox News Channel on television.

No longer can the three big broadcast television networks determine what the public will and will not see, nor two or three leading newspapers determine what is and is not news. Nobody wants to give up that kind of power.

When businesses that are demonized in the mainstream media, and in academia, can buy ads to present their side of the story, that is regarded in both the media and academia as distortion. At the very least, it can cost the left their self-awarded halo.

It is fascinating to see how some people — in both politics and the media — can depict their own narrow self-interest as a holy crusade for the greater good of society. The ability of the human mind to rationalize is one of the wonders of the world.

CYNIC: a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.

Read that when I was 17. When I fully understood it, my “independent” streak in politics was born.

 

Equality and Hamstrings

Sen. Rand Paul demolished his competition in the 2014 Washington Times/CPAC presidential preference straw poll on Saturday, winning 31 percent of the vote — nearly three times the total of second-place Sen. Ted Cruz.

Indeed, CPAC voters now have an unfavorable view of Republicans in Congress, with 51 percent saying they disapprove of the job the GOP is doing on Capitol Hill. Just last year the GOP had a 54 percent approval rating, and in 2012 they held a 70 percent approval rating.

But a series of tough votes over the last few months that saw Republican leaders work with President Obama to boost spending and raised the government’s debt limit have deepened a rift between the GOP’s leadership on Capitol Hill and conservative activists around the country.

Ya think! 🙂

Remember “compromise” to a Liberal means they get 100% of what they want and YOU compromise and get NOTHING!.

“Jar Jar Boehner” and the Republicats are going along to get along, with the Vipers Nest and wonder why they keep getting bit.

For Mr. Paul, the victory is his second in a row, and he saw his support climb from 25 percent last year to 31 percent this year.

But he’s “controversial” because he’s not an “establishment” candidate to beat Hillary in 2016. A dead horse should be able to beat her if you play it right, which the Republicans have shown no inclination to do so.

Of course, they will probably go with the safe, squishy Democrat lite choice, like Gov. Bridgegate, Christie. The media will eat him alive. After all “Bridgegate” is far more heinous than Benghazi! 🙂

“I do not like this Uncle Sam. I do not like his health care scam. I do not like — oh, just you wait — I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books. I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their crony deals. I do not like this spying, man, I do not like, ‘Oh, Yes we can.’ I do not like this spending spree, we’re smart, we know there’s nothing free. I do not like reporters’ smug replies when I complain about their lies. I do not like this kind of hope, and we won’t take it, nope, nope, nope.”— Sarah Palin

Green Debt and Hamstrings! 🙂

A national union that represents 300,000 low-wage hospitality workers charges in a new report that Obamacare will slam wages, cut hours, limit access to health insurance and worsen the very “income equality” President Obama says he is campaigning to fix.

Now, that is funny…

“Only in Washington could asking the bottom of the middle class to finance health care for the poorest families be seen as reducing inequality,” said the report from Unite Here. “Without smart fixes, the ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage,” said the report, titled, “The Irony of Obamacare: Making Inequality Worse.”

Based on government and private reports, polling and statements from administration officials, the report, to be sent to pro-union members in Congress, charges that low-wage workers are taking the hit under Obamacare, while wealthy insurance companies fatten up on government subsidies. …

“Believe me; I enter this entire debate about the consequences of the ACA with a deep reluctance,” he wrote. “Unite Here was the first union to endorse then-Senator Obama. We support the addition of health care to millions of Americans. Yet facts are facts, and Obamacare will cost our members the equivalent of a significant pay cut to keep their hard-won benefits.”

Burn — especially since the Obama administration has been trying to argue all along the ObamaCare could only possibly have positive effects on employment all across the board, and the fact that labor unions are some of the biggest campaign donors around can hardly have Democrats feeling any better about their relationship with the president’s crowning legislative achievement going into the midterm elections.

Of course, the Obama administration did manage to throw Big Labor a bone with some much-lobbied-for special treatment in the form of an exemption from ObamaCare’s reinsurance fee. The Obama administration codified that into their latest tranche of regulations released last week, although Labor still doesn’t think the exemption goes nearly far enough in meeting their demands in solving the problems they helped to create for themselves when they overwhelmingly supported the law in the first place. Woops.

The slew of regulations released by the Obama administration Wednesday to implement the federal health law included confirmation that some labor unions and businesses would get a break from the law’s so-called belly button tax.

Federal officials signaled in November they were planning to let some organizations that offer health insurance off paying a reinsurance fee on each person they cover, which goes into a fund to compensate insurance carriers that end up paying big medical bills now they can no longer charge riskier people more.

The fee was $63 for 2014, and applied to spouses and dependents as well as policyholders, which is where it earned the nickname “bellybutton tax.” Large employers and organized labor had campaigned against the fee because they said they were being asked to subsidize commercial insurance companies and could not afford it.

For 2015, the fee has been set at $44 — but it won’t apply to any plan that is both “self-insured” and “self-administered,” the Wednesday rules say. Some union plans could fit that definition, though not all.

But just enough to make most of them happy that they don’t have to follow the rules everyone else has to, because after all, they are special. The 72% of non-union people can go f*ck themselves, they got there’s!

Sounds like a Democrat, doesn’t it. 🙂

 

The Devil’s Choice

Experts say the move by insurers to limit consumers’ choices and steer them away from hospitals that are considered too expensive, or even “inefficient”, reflects the new competitive landscape in the insurance industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare law.

It could become another source of political controversy for the Obama administration next year, when the plans take effect. Frustrated consumers could then begin to realise what is not always evident when buying a product as complicated as healthcare insurance: that their new plans do not cover many facilities or doctors “in network”. In other words, the facilities and doctors are not among the list of approved providers in a certain plan.

Under some US health insurance plans, consumers can elect to visit medical facilities that are “out of network”, but they would probably incur high out of pocket costs and may need referrals to prove that such care is medically necessary.

The development is worrying some hospital administrators who see the change as an unintended consequence of the ACA.

“We’re very concerned. [Insurers] know patients that are sick come to places like ours. What this is trying to do is redirect those patients elsewhere, but there is a reason why they come here. These patients need what it is that we are capable of providing,” says Thomas Priselac, president and chief executive officer of Cedars-Sinai Health System in California.

One of the biggest goals of “Obamacare” was to make subsidised healthcare plans that are being sold on the new exchanges as affordable as possible, while also mandating that certain benefits, like maternity care, were covered and that people with pre-existing medical conditions could not be denied access.

Amid these new regulatory restrictions, says Tim Jost, a health policy expert, insurance companies have had to come up with new ways to cut the cost of their products. In this new era, limiting the availability of certain facilities that are seen as too expensive – in part because they may attract the sickest patients or offer the most cutting edge medical care – is seen as the best way to control costs.

As has been pointed out numerous times, we are heading for a two tiered health care system where the rich – and friends of Barack like unions – will have access to the very best doctors and facilities while the rest of us get whatever is left over.

Winners and losers folks. And guess which one the majority of us are? (AT via FT)

“President Obama famously promised, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Doesn’t that turn out to be just as false, just as misleading, as his promise about if you like your plan, you can keep your plan?”

Emanuel tried heading toward after-the-fact nuances, but Wallace wouldn’t let go: “It’s a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”

“Yes,” Emanuel finally admitted before quickly turning another corner. “But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice.”

Which Wallace jumped on, soon forcing Emanuel to admit that Americans under Obamacare “are going to have a choice as to whether they want to pay a certain amount for a selective network or pay more for a broader network.”

And that led to the key admission in the following segment of the interview:

“Which will mean your premiums will probably go up,” Wallace noted.

“They get that choice,” Emanuel said. “That’s a choice they always made.”

“Which means your premium may go up over what you were paying so that, in other words — ”

“No one guaranteed you that your premium wouldn’t increase,” Emanuel added. “Premiums have been going up.”

“The president guaranteed me I could keep my doctor,” said Wallace.

And if you want to, you can pay for it,” said Emanuel. (Blaze)

And if you can’t, oh well, you get the leftovers. Government Charity. Be happy. 🙂

But always remember, it wasn’t the Government’s fault! 🙂  Vote For me the other guy’s an asshole!

“Everyone was rich, and no one was poor. At Least no one worth talking about”-Douglas Adams.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

141014 600 Obamacare Site Fixed cartoons

 

 

Risk Assessment

It could take a year to secure the risk of “high exposures” of personal information on the federal Obamacare online exchange, a cybersecurity expert told CNBC on Monday.

“When you develop a website, you develop it with security in mind. And it doesn’t appear to have happened this time,” said David Kennedy, a so-called “white hat” hacker who tests online security by breaching websites. He testified on Capitol Hill about the flaws of HealthCare.gov last week.

“It’s really hard to go back and fix the security around it because security wasn’t built into it,” said Kennedy, chief executive of TrustedSec. “We’re talking multiple months to over a year to at least address some of the critical-to-high exposures on the website itself.”

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversaw the implementation of the website, the components used to build the site are compliant with standards set by Federal security authorities.

“The privacy and security of consumers’ personal information are a top priority for us. Security testing happens on an ongoing basis using industry best practices to appropriately safeguard consumers’ personal information,” said the spokesperson.

Another online security expert—who spoke at last week’s House hearing and then on CNBC—said the federal Obamacare website needs to be shut down and rebuilt from scratch. Morgan Wright, CEO of Crowd Sourced Investigations said: “There’s not a plan to fix this that meets the sniff test of being reasonable.”

It’s safe, Trust us, we are from the Government and we are here to help you… 🙂

Speaking of Risks….Self-servicing Liberal Unions.

Egged on by unions, fast-food workers plan to strike in dozens of U.S. cities for much higher wages. Sadly, they’re being used to do something that’s not in their own interests.

Sensing the time is ripe, the Service Employees International Union and union-funded front groups are organizing a walkout of workers at fast-food joints in about 100 cities to protest how tough it is to live on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

A Union had some PAID “protesters” out in Phoenix at a Wal-Mart on Black Friday. It was a dog-and-pony show.

They’d like that nearly doubled to $15 — and not just for fast food, but retailing and other industries too.

So if you want a fast food job, there should be some openings soon. 🙂

Sounds great. But even by the loopy logic of the left, this is economic insanity and would lead to greater misery, fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for all.

That’s not just our opinion. Economists David Neumark and William Wascher, in their comprehensive book “Minimum Wages,” looked at virtually all the scholarly and statistical evidence worldwide, digging up literally dozens of studies.

Liberals and Unions don’t care about statistics. Liberals are about emotion. Unions are about power. Logic has no place in their brains.

Their finding: Minimum wage laws almost always result in a “reduction in employment opportunities for low-skilled” employees while limiting “skill acquisition by reducing educational attainment and perhaps training, resulting in lower adult wages and earnings.”

And, they said, it reduces the total amount of human capital — a huge cost to society.

Like Liberals and Unions care about that…

The minimum wage is so devastating that roughly 85% of all economists in a recent survey — from both the left and the right sides of the spectrum — said they think it’s a bad idea.

Unions will use Americans’ well-known sympathy for the underdog to make their case — and get support. But it’s the underdog who suffers most.

Today, teen unemployment is nearly 25%, up more than a third from just 10 years ago. Jack up the minimum wage by law, and that level will go even higher.

The idea that working families depend on these jobs is false. Most of those working for minimum wage are young, ages 16 to 24. They live in middle-class homes with above-average household incomes.

And as James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation notes, two-thirds of minimum-wage earners get a raise in their first year. This is how they learn to show up, work hard and get along with others — valuable life skills young people acquire as they begin work and the very things that will make them a success later on.

A higher minimum wage would cost young workers jobs and opportunities. They’d be wise to ignore the unions’ siren song of higher wages for nothing. (IBD)

And the sirens of legends led sailors to crash their ships on the rocks and die as their boat sinks.

Yep, that sounds like a Union… 🙂

140306 600 Health Care Change cartoons

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Obama Explained

Brilliantly written piece. With, may I say, many ideas and concepts I have said in this blog. 🙂

Wayne Root: Remember when Geraldo opened Al Capone’s vault live on national TV? Well I’m about to solve the mystery of Obama. I’m about to break “the Obama code.” I’m about to tell you everything about the way Obama, and the people around him, really think. I’m about to rip open the true Obama plan to destroy our country. Because I was there when the plan was hatched.

How do I know all this? Because I was Barack Obama’s college classmate at Columbia University, Class of 1983. I was easy to recognize – the lone outspoken conservative in a class of 700 students. I knew I was in trouble when my first political science class at Columbia was “Communism 101″ taught by Professor Trotsky in the Fidel Castro Building, at the corner of Marx Blvd. and Lenin Drive.

I’m only half-kidding. My experiences at Columbia were not far off.

Everyone needs to hear my story because what Obama and I learned at Columbia explains EXACTLY what Obama is doing to America today.

The economy in deep decline; the disappearance of jobs; the annihilation of the middle class; the demonization of business owners; the destruction of small business with onerous regulations and taxes; the overwhelming debt and spending of out-of-control government; the millions of Americans losing their health insurance; and the unimaginable increase in dependency through welfare, food stamps, unemployment, disability, and now free  health care.

It’s all easily explained when you hear what Obama and I learned at Columbia.

America’s decline under Obama isn’t due to mistake, ignorance, or incompetence at the hands of a community organizer. It’s a purposeful, brilliant plan hatched at Columbia University to destroy capitalism, American exceptionalism, Judeo-Christian values, and the American Dream.

I never met Obama at Columbia. We were both Political Science majors, both Pre Law. We graduated on the same day. There were perhaps 100 to 150 of us in the Political Science department. And I thought I knew all of them.

As the token big-mouthed conservative patriot, I know they all knew me. But not Obama. I never met him, saw him, or even heard of him. Not one of my friends at Columbia ever met him either. At our 30th class reunion last May, I could not find a single classmate who had ever met him. Strange story, but I digress.

What matters is what Obama learned and experienced at Columbia. My classmates hated America. They spoke with glee about one day  ”taking the system down.” They blamed America for “unfairness, racism, inequality, and lack of social justice.”

Recognize those words?

My classmates proudly called themselves socialists, communists, and Marxists. Even though almost all of them came from wealthy families (or perhaps because of it), they hated the rich and despised business owners. They talked about how the “white power structure” had to be dismantled, business owners bankrupted, and capitalism destroyed. Everything in their minds was based on “social justice.”

Sound like the policies of anyone you recognize in the White House? Does “We have to spread the wealth around” ring a bell? How about “If you own a business, you didn’t build that.”

How about Obama’s hatred of Republicans and refusal to negotiate with Congress? It’s clear he thinks he’s “morally superior” to conservatives. That attitude was born at Columbia too.

In 1981 when a student burst through the doors to our political science class and screamed  “The President has been shot. They’ve assassinated Reagan”… my classmates yelled, hugged, high-fived, and jumped up and down cheering the death of a Republican. Today most of my classmates are either in government with Obama, or controlling the mainstream media. They talk about “moderation and compromise,” but always remember 30 years ago they cheered for the death of a Republican.

But, there’s more. We were all taught a simple, but brilliant plan. My classmates discussed it 24/7. It was their “American Dream.”

By the time the middle class realizes he’s the killer and they’re the prey, they’ll already be dead.

It was called “Cloward-Piven,” after former Columbia professors Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. To bring down America and our capitalist system, they were taught to overwhelm the system with massive spending, entitlements and debt. That would cause the economy to collapse, wipe out the middle class, and bring Americans to their knees, begging government to save them.

It’s the exact plan Obama has been implementing. The centerpiece is Obamacare.

Obamacare isn’t about health care. It’s about bankrupting the middle class and addicting it to government dependency. It’s about redistributing wealth from the middle class and small business to Obama’s voters (the poor and unions). Its goal is to wipe out the last vestiges of middle class America, creating a two-class society: the super rich and the poor (both beholden to Obama).

Obama learned well, it’s working to perfection.

So that explains the plan. But how do you implement it? We were taught that at Columbia too.

A key component of the plan involved fooling the voters by calling yourself “moderate” and a “uniter,” even though you are a radical Marxist. We were taught to never admit what you really believe in. It involved demonizing your opponents, calling them “evil, greedy, extreme, radical, and terrorist.” Look in the mirror and call your opponents the very things you are.

Obama learned well.

The plan taught us to hide your true intensions (in other words- lie, misrepresent, commit fraud). So Obamacare is about “saving the uninsured,” as opposed to income redistribution.

Government regulations are to “protect us from global warming,” as opposed to wiping out small business.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is about “fairness,” as opposed to creating 12 million new Democratic voters.

High taxes are to “create equality,” as opposed to starving Obama’s political opposition.

Obscene spending is always about “helping widows and orphans,” as opposed to bribing Obama’s voters.

Higher teacher salaries to reward terrible performance are “for the kids,” as opposed to enriching teachers unions so they can funnel hundreds of millions to Democrat politicians.

Bailing out GM was to “save jobs,” as opposed to saving bloated auto union pensions.

It’s always about lying to coverup the Marxist agenda of destroying the middle class, redistributing wealth, and putting big government in control of our every move. Why the lies? We were taught at Columbia that “It’s for the greater good” and “We know what’s best for those people” and ”The ends justify the means.”

Obama learned well.

But the key to it all is to “boil the frog slowly.” We learned at Columbia to set the fire low, so the frog wouldn’t complain. By the time he realized what was happening, he’d be cooked.

That’s why every Obama speech starts and ends with “I’m here to save the middle class,” while his actions are annihilating them. He’s boiling the frog slowly. By the time the middle class realizes he’s the killer, and they’re the prey, they’ll already be dead.

The root (excuse the pun) of every Obama policy, everything Obama does, and everything happening to the U.S. economy, all started at Columbia. The entire Obama agenda to overwhelm the system, wipe out the middle class, bankrupt small business, and destroy capitalism, was hatched at Columbia. Obama may not have attended class, but he learned well.

He should have received the Karl Marx Award for “Student Most Likely to Destroy America.”

And a Nobel Prize for Peace! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

139748 600 Cheap date cartoons

The Madness

Minimum wage madness

Political crusades for raising the minimum wage are back again. Advocates of minimum wage laws often give themselves credit for being more “compassionate” towards “the poor.” But they seldom bother to check what are the actual consequences of such laws.

Because they don’t care. They are self-righteous, ego maniacal and have enough narcissism to rival the Gods themselves and anyone who would dare to challenge them must be a very evil Devil.

And since they have the all the “compassion” and it “feels so good” that anything else must be bad.

Like the Truth.

One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

Or race the price of labor and not expect the price of the goods to go up because after all that just “Corporate Greed” and “profiteering”. 🙂

When you turn from economic principles to hard facts, the case against minimum wage laws is even stronger. Countries with minimum wage laws almost invariably have higher rates of unemployment than countries without minimum wage laws.

Norway has a 3% unemployment and no minimum wage, by the way.

Most nations today have minimum wage laws, but they have not always had them. Unemployment rates have been very much lower in places and times when there were no minimum wage laws.

Switzerland is one of the few modern nations without a minimum wage law. In 2003, “The Economist” magazine reported: “Switzerland’s unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9 percent in February.” In February of this year, Switzerland’s unemployment rate was 3.1 percent. A recent issue of “The Economist” showed Switzerland’s unemployment rate as 2.1 percent.

Most Americans today have never seen unemployment rates that low. However, there was a time when there was no federal minimum wage law in the United States.

For a good portion of it there was no welfare either.

The last time was during the Coolidge administration, when the annual unemployment rate got as low as 1.8 percent. When Hong Kong was a British colony, it had no minimum wage law. In 1991 its unemployment rate was under 2 percent.

As for being “compassionate” toward “the poor,” this assumes that there is some enduring class of Americans who are poor in some meaningful sense, and that there is something compassionate about reducing their chances of getting a job.

Well, Liberal doe need dependents and the fearfully ignorant to vote for them. “Vote for Me, the other guys Rich” doesn’t quite work otherwise.

Most Americans living below the government-set poverty line have a washer and/or a dryer, as well as a computer. More than 80 percent have air conditioning. More than 80 percent also have both a landline and a cell phone. Nearly all have television and a refrigerator. Most Americans living below the official poverty line also own a motor vehicle and have more living space than the average European — not Europeans in poverty, the average European.

In a worldwide sense Americans are 1%ers. How evil are we. 🙂

Why then are they called “poor”? Because government bureaucrats create the official definition of poverty, and they do so in ways that provide a political rationale for the welfare state — and, not incidentally, for the bureaucrats’ own jobs.

Most people in the lower income brackets are not an enduring class. Most working people in the bottom 20 percent in income at a given time do not stay there over time. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain behind in the bottom 20 percent.

There is nothing mysterious about the fact that most people start off in entry level jobs that pay much less than they will earn after they get some work experience. But, when minimum wage levels are set without regard to their initial productivity, young people are disproportionately unemployed — priced out of jobs.

$15/hr flipping burgers at McDonalds will only make less jobs. And would make that “Value Meal” $5 instead of 1 or 2. 🙂

In European welfare states where minimum wages, and mandated job benefits to be paid for by employers, are more generous than in the United States, unemployment rates for younger workers are often 20 percent or higher, even when there is no recession.

Unemployed young people lose not only the pay they could have earned but, at least equally important, the work experience that would enable them to earn higher rates of pay later on.

Minorities, like young people, can also be priced out of jobs. In the United States, the last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate — 1930 — was also the last year when there was no federal minimum wage law. Inflation in the 1940s raised the pay of even unskilled workers above the minimum wage set in 1938. Economically, it was the same as if there were no minimum wage law by the late 1940s.

Relative to inflation the minimum wage in 1963 is the same as it is now.

In 1948 the unemployment rate of black 16-year-old and 17-year-old males was 9.4 percent. This was a fraction of what it would become in even the most prosperous years from 1958 on, as the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.

Some “compassion” for “the poor”!

A survey of American economists found that 90 percent of them regarded minimum wage laws as increasing the rate of unemployment among low-skilled workers. Inexperience is often the problem. Only about 2 percent of Americans over the age of 24 earned the minimum wage.

Advocates of minimum wage laws usually base their support of such laws on their estimate of how much a worker “needs” in order to have “a living wage” — or on some other criterion that pays little or no attention to the worker’s skill level, experience or general productivity. So it is hardly surprising that minimum wage laws set wages that price many a young worker out of a job.

Because it’s all about “feelings” and not reality. Emotion, not logic. And a base of sticking it to “corporate greed” and the liberal genetic necessity, Class Warfare.

What is surprising is that, despite an accumulation of evidence over the years of the devastating effects of minimum wage laws on black teenage unemployment rates, members of the Congressional Black Caucus continue to vote for such laws.

Because it’s about THEM, not the people they are “advocating for” and they stay where they are by “advocating”.

Once, years ago, during a confidential discussion with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I asked how they could possibly vote for minimum wage laws.

The answer I got was that members of the Black Caucus were part of a political coalition and, as such, they were expected to vote for things that other members of that coalition wanted, such as minimum wage laws, in order that other members of the coalition would vote for things that the Black Caucus wanted.

Quid Pro Quo! 🙂

You grease my skids I’ll grease yours!

When I asked what could the black members of Congress possibly get in return for supporting minimum wage laws that would be worth sacrificing whole generations of young blacks to huge rates of unemployment, the discussion quickly ended. I may have been vehement when I asked that question.

They got POWER.

The same question could be asked of black public officials in general, including Barack Obama, who have taken the side of the teachers’ unions, who oppose vouchers or charter schools that allow black parents (among others) to take their children out of failing public schools.

Minimum wage laws can even affect the level of racial discrimination. In an earlier era, when racial discrimination was both legally and socially accepted, minimum wage laws were often used openly to price minorities out of the job market.

In 1925, a minimum wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.

A well regarded Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese” who were willing to work for less.

In South Africa during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs away from white unionized workers by working for less than the union pay scale.

Some supporters of the first federal minimum wage law in the United States — the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 — used exactly the same rationale, citing the fact that Southern construction companies, using non-union black workers, were able to come north and under-bid construction companies using unionized white labor.

These supporters of minimum wage laws understood long ago something that today’s supporters of such laws seem not to have bothered to think through. People whose wages are raised by law do not necessarily benefit, because they are often less likely to be hired at the imposed minimum wage rate.

Labor unions have been supporters of minimum wage laws in countries around the world, since these laws price non-union workers out of jobs, leaving more jobs for union members.

People who are content to advocate policies that sound good, whether for political reasons or just to feel good about themselves, often do not bother to think through the consequences beforehand or to check the results afterwards.

Why would they, it either feels good and gives them a sense of moral superiority or it gives them power. Why bother with worrying about consequences. That’s someone’s fault.

If they thought things through, how could they have imagined that having large numbers of idle teenage boys hanging out on the streets together would be good for any community — especially in places where most of these youngsters were raised by single mothers, another unintended consequence, in this case, of well-meaning welfare policies?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Because of Narcissism.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The Whole Hog

Richard Trumpka, of the AFL-CIO, Mr. Bully Union Thug: During a recent interview, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said employers are “restructuring their workforce to give workers 29 and a half hours so they don’t have to provide them healthcare.”

RICHARD TRUMKA, PRESIDENT AFL-CIO: The Affordable Care Act does need some modifications to it, because as it does right now, what’s happening is, you have employers that the law says if you pay your, if your employees work 30 hours or more a week, you’ve got to give them healthcare. So they’re restructuring their workforce to give workers 29 and a half hours so they don’t have to provide them healthcare. They’re also doing some taxing to nonprofit plans to pay for for-profit plans. (Newsbusters)

Hey, Richard, let me clue you in one something. This is all a part of the plan.

You see, since Liberal worship at the feet of Government and a Quasi-Government solution (aka “compromise”) goes down in flames the only answer, of course, is that we need MORE government…

And Ta Da, Single Payer, Canada/Britain Style is proposed as the solution since the “compromise” didn’t work.

You see, it has to fail the very people it’s suppose to “help” and it has to be a just enough of a  failure to the rest so that the Left can promote their “solution”.

The idea that the whole thing is rotten and should be thrown out isn’t even remotely conceivable to the Left.

They want The Whole Hog!

A Nose to Tail Government Health Care Feast. Which of course, will cause a famine, but like they care. This is about the Agenda, not about reality.

Especially while he’s exempted or politically delayed so much of it for so many of his friends and employers. Gotta get it done before the the Whole Pig roasts them first.

Last week, AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka let it be known that he was “working with the administration on ObamaCare” to find a solution for their oh-so-unexpected plight, ahem, but other leaders are still pretty frustrated with the lack of progress they’re seeing on getting concessions. Why has the administration catered to so many other special interest groups, but not us?, they wonder angrily:

“We are disappointed that the non-profit health plans offered by unions have not been given the same consideration as the Catholic Church, big business and Capitol Hill staffers,” Unite Here President D. Taylor told The Hill. …

“The Democrats have completely given the store away to the for-profit industry,” Taylor said. “Without any question, we have a scenario set up that ObamaCare has turned all the money over to the for-profit plans and the non-profit plans will fade away.”

“With open enrollment set to begin on October 1, time is of the essence, so we are working hard every day to find a solution to protect our members’ healthcare,” said Tim Schlittner, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW). …

“The administration has found resolutions for a whole variety of issues and the fact that their biggest supporters will be put at the mercy of the for-profit insurance industry will leave a very bad, bad taste,” Taylor said. “You can’t blame the Republicans on this one. This is a Democratic bill through and through.”

Ouch. (Hot air)

I guess the kiss ass narcissism train hasn’t stopped there yet and there not happy. Well, that’s the Left for you.

If it’s good enough to do for everyone, it’s good enough to exempt me from it.

IBD: More than 250 employers have cut work hours, jobs or taken other steps to avoid ObamaCare costs, according to a new IBD analysis.

Mind the data have been the refrain from the White House as it downplays anecdotal reports of employers limiting workers to fewer than 30 hours per week.

But the anecdotes are piling high enough that they now constitute a body of data that can help gauge the impact of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate.

IBD is introducing ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs — a compilation of employers who have opted to restrict work hours to limit new liability for employee health coverage.

As of Sept. 3, this list has reached 258 — including more than 200 public-sector employers.

Almost all of those employers have cut the hours of part-time workers to below 30 per week — the point at which ObamaCare’s insurance mandate kicks in.

A few have cut payrolls to steer clear of ObamaCare’s 50 full-time-equivalent-worker definition of a large employer subject to employer fines. A few others have reduced staff while contracting with employment services firms to limit their ObamaCare exposure.

The scorecard reflects an extensive, though less than exhaustive, search. It only includes employers when there is convincing documentation (generally news accounts or public records) that job actions are specifically tied to ObamaCare.

For example, when Forever 21 said it was cutting hours for 192 workers to 29.5 per week or Lowe’s (LOW) said it would hire 9,000 permanent workers — all part-time — the ObamaCare connection wasn’t quite the slam dunk needed to land them on this list.

Because private firms may fear bad publicity or litigation if they admit to cutting hours to avoid ObamaCare’s coverage mandate, it’s not surprising that few would be willing to come right out and say it. It’s only logical to take their denials with a grain of salt.

Public employers, on the other hand, tend to make decisions in a much more transparent way. Even here, limiting hours for part-timers is often an administrative, rather than legislative, action, so documentation may be hard to come by.

All this is to say that the list in no way represents an accounting of ObamaCare’s actual impact on work hours.

Further, because relatively few employers on the list have provided specifics, the scorecard’s total of 19,300 workers facing reduced hours should in no way be used to minimize ObamaCare’s impact.

One useful bit of information that can be gleaned from the list is that 110 of the reports of reduced hours came in May and June alone. This flurry of activity has subsided significantly since the White House announced on July 2 a one-year delay of employer penalties.

The take-away: Many employers were only just beginning to understand and respond to ObamaCare’s regulations that were confusing and late in coming. This suggests another flurry of work-hour reductions can be expected next spring — assuming the mandate is still expected to come into force. That’s because penalties for 2015 will be based on staffing levels starting in the second half of 2014 — at the latest.

The private-sector anecdotal entries help interpret industry workweek data. The list includes sharp hour reductions by several firms that provide social assistance to the elderly. That suggests it is no mere coincidence that the workweek among providers of services to the elderly and disabled has tumbled to a record-low 27.6 hours.

Further, it is evident — and hardly surprising — that the private-sector hour cuts have virtually all come in low-wage industries.

Therefore, to evaluate ObamaCare’s impact on the workweek, focus on low-wage industries. Over the past 18 months, the low-wage workweek has fallen back near the recessionary low-point.

The list of more than 200 public-sector employers cutting work hours is surely the most surprising revelation.

The main take-away is that ObamaCare’s employer mandate is a real problem for the segment of public-sector employers who offer generous coverage (as most all of them do) but don’t cover part-timers who work more than 30 hours.

In at least one case, the list goes beyond mere anecdote to reveal a clear pattern. It includes 34 universities and colleges — or college systems — cutting hours of part-time or adjunct faculty. That may not seem like much, until you consider that those reports cover more than 150 campuses attended by more than 1.4 million students.

Another 67 entries on the list involve school boards cutting hours of part-time instructional aides, cafeteria workers, bus drivers and coaches.

The entire list is available on our website, in a format that can be easily downloaded into a spreadsheet for further analysis. It will continue to be updated as more employer announcements are made.

But if we cause you enough pain you’ll want government to solve the problem.

Entire, The WHOLE HOG!

And it will never want to leave the trough.

 

136493 600 Health Care Gag Rule cartoons

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Minimum Reality

“You can’t have the same number of job opportunities in the restaurant industry and have a $15 minimum wage. These things can’t co-exist,” said Employment Policies Institute worforce scholar Michael Saltsman, whose think tank ran a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal depicting a robot making pancakes with the title, “Why Robots Could Soon Replace Fast Food Workers Demanding a Higher Minimum Wage.” (DC)

Neil Boortz: Mr. Activist guy had the idea that if McDonalds would just pay these workers $15.00 an hour plus health insurance and all of the other benefits then the world would be a better place and the workers would not have to rely on the government for all of these welfare services and everyone would be better off. Nobody asked him how much a Big Meal would cost if the people preparing that culinary delight were paid $15.00 an hour plus benefits. Right now you can get a Big Meal for about $7.25 The person preparing that meal is probably making minimum wage. Boost the wage by about $6.00 per hour and what is the new cost for a Big Meal? $8.50? $10.00? More? Can all of the McDonald’s customers afford this price increase? Or do they go to other, cheaper fast food restaurants? Can McDonalds maintain their profit margin and employment level with lost sales? If not, how many $15 an hour workers do they lay off? Perhaps they would just close some stores in low-income areas altogether.

How about this question for the organizer: “Hey, sport. Tell me something. What obligation does McDonalds have to pay a worker more than that worker is worth? Are you telling me that an employer should hire someone just to pay them more than the wealth they can produce for the company out of some sense of social obligation? How long do you stay in business doing that?” Organizer dude probably would have come across with some statement about “social responsibility.” Well, guess what? If employers start to determine wages on what the employee wants instead of what that employee produces we will see a lot of boarded businesses and many more unemployed government-educated functionally illiterate Democrat voters. Wait! …… What?

Where DO mindless people like this come from? Oh yeah. Government schools. Almost forgot.

And SEIU, Obama Union thugs, masquerading as “employees” picketing McDonalds and the like in New York. Buig surprise there.

You made a point of saying that McDonalds should pay you enough to support your family. Fine. Then answer MY question. What about YOUR responsibilities? Did you not understand that you lacked the skills, job history and education necessary to make more than a minimum wage and that; therefore, you might not be in a position to shoulder the cost of an additional member of your household? Or is it your belief that all you have to do is download a child and it automatically becomes someone else’s responsibility to cover the costs? I think a valid case can be made for the proposition that one of the greatest social wrongs a person can commit is to have a baby they simply cannot afford to raise.

Personal accountability and responsibility is dying. Long live the Democrat welfare state.

NY Times: A half-century ago, the marchers called on Congress to increase the minimum wage from $1.15 an hour to $2 “so that men may live in dignity,” in the words of Bayard Rustin, one of the chief organizers of the march. Today, the fast-food workers also seek a raise, from the $9 an hour that most of them make to $15.00 an hour. That’s not much different from what the marchers wanted in 1963; adjusted for inflation, $2 then is $13.39 an hour today.

But what they aren’t saying is, that the minimum wage in 1963 was almost exactly what it is today, based on inflation because in 1963 it was $1.25, and now at $7-$8 with inflation is about the same amount and level. No real change. It’s still MINIMUM for a reason. So by using $2 they are being dishonest. Gee, what a shocker that is!

The skill set hasn’t improved, so the job’s wages haven’t either.

Forbes:

The strikers are targeting their employers — profitable companies like McDonald’s, Yum Brands (which includes Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC) and Wendy’s.

Almost none of the fast food workers are employees of those companies. For the way the industry works is that the main company contracts with franchisees who run the actual stores. The employees are then the employees of those franchises.  THE SMALL BUSINESS MAN! There is no employment contract at all between the worker and those large companies: and those companies cannot determine the wages the workers get either. To get that sort of thing wrong in an editorial in the NYT is near unforgiveable. What’s worse though is that they’ve entirely failed to understand the economic points being made in this debate.

Media Matters can help us out here though through their own refusal to understand what is actually being said:

Contrary to industry officials’ claims, economic studies have concluded that raising the minimum wage has no effect on employment.

No, that’s not what economic studies have concluded. Rather, they have concluded this:

In a Center for Economy and Policy Research report titled “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?” senior economist John Schmitt determined that there is “little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage.”

“Minimum wages have no effect on employment” and “modest increases have little effect” are just not the same statement. And do note that the current demand is for a more than doubling of the minimum wage: something that we cannot describe as modest.

Syracuse.com commentor: Here is the point of view of any successful businessman. If you artificially force me to pay more for a worker than his job is worth, I will either shut down the business, figure out how to do the job with fewer workers, outsource it to lower my costs (for benefits, like health care), or figure out how to automate it. Fast food work is vulnerable to any or all of these solutions. What good is a mandatory higher wage for a job if the job no longer exists?

But reality doesn’t play into the Class warfare rhetoric and hype of the Left.

One liberal even called the Minimum Wage, “slave labor” so rational thought is not present on the Left.

We witnessed it between 2007 and 2009, when the federal minimum wage rose 41 percent and had a disastrous effect on youth employment. The joblessness rate for 16-19 year olds increased by 10 percentage points from 16 percent in 2007, to more than 26 percent in 2009. While some politicians claim that workers benefitted from the minimum wage hike, if you were to ask the 8.8 million workers who lost their jobs during the economic recession, I bet you’d get a different answer. It’s no secret that when you raise the cost of doing business, or in this case hiring workers, business owners have to find a way to trim their expenses and meet their bottom line. (Steve Cruz)

But the Let’s Agenda is deaf to reality. After all, if at first you fail, fail, fail again, because it  is obviously someone else’s fault for your failure! 🙂

Government Help

Labor Day

Economic Illiteracy: With last week’s one-day strike, fast-food workers sent a clear message: They want the minimum wage raised from $7.25 an hour to $15. But they should be careful what they wish for; they just might get it.

It isn’t hard to see what a doubling of the minimum wage would do in an industry that pays out an estimated 70% of revenue to workers: Hundreds of thousands would lose their jobs overnight.

They don’t see that. They are blind to it. All they see are people, specifically CEOs who make “millions” and bosses who get “rich” so they want their “fair” share of it. They have no understanding of economics. They understand things on child’s level- They want that toy and they want it now! And if they don’t get it they will cry and bawl until someone gives in.

And when the McDonald hamburger now cost $10.00 because of the labor cost increases and the restaurant they are working at goes down in flames, they will still blame “the CEOs” for being too greedy.

It’s what I have called “Unenlightened Narcissism” and the real problem is that THEY DON’T WANT TO BE ENLIGHTENED!

They will resist any attempt to enlighten them as trying to corrupt or trick them.

So I say just fire their asses and move on. You can’t save everyone from themselves.

The average fast-food employee makes $8.94 an hour, according to the National Employment Law Project. Unions and workers want to boost that to $15 an hour. Fine, except most who now earn $9 an hour are young with little education and few skills. To be blunt, they’re not worth the extra money. They’ll be fired.

So who will do their jobs, you ask. A more apt question is what will do their jobs. Because they may go to robots. Or computers. Don’t laugh. When labor costs rise, technological substitutions suddenly make economic sense.

It’s already happening in Europe, where it costs a lot to hire a worker, McDonald’s has installed 7,000 new ATM-style machines that take orders and payments. No muss, no fuss, no arguments, no misunderstandings — and no minimum wage at all. Just a one-time cost for the machine, plus maintenance.

To the point:

With a beep, a buzz and a whir — and maybe even a little sizzle — the world’s first fully-automatic hamburger machine can prepare, cook and serve a perfect custom-made burger without a single human hand being involved.

A San Francisco startup is taking the Silicon Valley attitude into the fast food market and hoping to revolutionize what they call “the most labour intensive industry in the country.”

Featuring glass tubes filled with lettuce and tomatoes, a meat-grinder, bun slicer, oven and bagger, the alpha machine is part Rube Goldberg, part Jetsons and promises to be the first step in burger evolution since McDonald’s proliferated around the world.

It can produce a custom-made, freshly ground burger, baked to order at a rate of 400 per hour. The machine will add the requested toppings, slicing tomatoes directly onto the burger, and pop out a neatly-wrapped sandwich ready for human consumption.

The makers, Momentum Machines, claim that their invention “does everything employees can do except better.”

The oven employs “gourmet cooking techniques never before used in a fast-food restaurant, giving the patty the perfect char but keeping in all the juices,” according their website.

“It’s more consistent, more sanitary,” and the company claims, “the labour savings allow a restaurant to spend approximately twice as much on high quality ingredients.”

Momentum is planning on demonstrating their invention in a soon to be opened restaurant in San Francisco before franchising it out to any restaurant, convenience store, food truck — or potentially even vending machine — that wants it.

As for all those grill tenders and line cooks made obsolete by the contraption, Momentum offers discounted technical training and says that the money saved on labour will be recycled into restaurant expansion and new job creation.

Plus, according to the website, “the general public saves money on the reduced cost of our burgers. This saved money can then be spent on the rest of the economy.”

It’s a delicious win-win. (The Star)

As ObamaCare raises the cost of labor for fast-food chains, and with talk of a doubling of wages, look for the same equipment to be used here too. And it won’t just be ATMs.

Momentum Machines, a San Francisco-based high-tech company, has created the Alpha, a robot that can make up to 360 hamburgers in an hour — and pays for itself in a year.

(see above) 🙂

Left-wing talking heads in the media counter that McDonald’s or Burger King or Taco Bell or whoever could simply take money “out of profits.” But this defies all understanding of economics.

But it fits with the narcissism of the Left and it also is perfect bait for the unenlightened.

First, 80% of McDonald’s outlets are franchises, owned by a person who pays royalties for the right to run a burger restaurant. These people do not have massive profit margins. If costs rise, they’ll fire people.

But the Left doesn’t care about that. It’s relevant to the Agenda.

Besides, they’ll view mass layoffs as a a sign of “corporate greed”. At least that’s what they will tell the unenlightened en masse.

Even if you did shrink profits, who would that hurt? The middle class, that’s who. Their 401(k)s and IRAs are loaded to the gunwales with fast-food shares. And when they go out to eat, they’ll pay higher prices.

But that will be corporations fault, according to the Left. 🙂

Workers need to get real: If you’re not worth $15 an hour, a robot may take your place. And it won’t strike. (IBD)

But reality is the last thing the Left can contemplate. Fear, Hatred, anxiety, stress, these are the things that make most Liberal “leaders” happy.

A stressed out, economically tapped out, hate-filled constituency will Vote for them and demand more control, time and again,  and they will fill their kids with the same hatred and fear!

What could be better! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

%d bloggers like this: