'Myth-busting' Obama tries to debunk GOP on the economy

[mopar71]

Republicans hate the fact Obamacare has been so so successful......

You see the hate these wingnuts have for that evil black man.

The only reason that many Republicans hate Obama is that he is Black and is also their President.

That is such b.s.

Racists are also people who think someone is immune to criticism because of their skin color. Yeah, I'm talking to you two.

[arjunadawn]

The economy is in great shape , not . has the debt been reduce under the democrats no it has increased .

yeah and those 50 million people on food stamps are so hopelessly addicted to receiving handouts by now that last week they even threatened there would be riots across America if Donald Trump becomes president and he tries to take take it off them. That's 50 million people who will rely on this on a permanent basis

This is the plan. This is the transformation- make dependency on government THE social contract. It's amazing watching a nation March to oblivion in real time. Previously, one' have to go to the history books to see a great civilization implode.

Cicero: A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

[boomerangutang]

Good quote from Cicero, above. Aujunadawn, are you relating that quote to anyone in particular?

[NumbNut]

The economy is in great shape , not . has the debt been reduce under the democrats no it has increased .

yeah and those 50 million people on food stamps are so hopelessly addicted to receiving handouts by now that last week they even threatened there would be riots across America if Donald Trump becomes president and he tries to take take it off them. That's 50 million people who will rely on this on a permanent basis

This is the plan. This is the transformation- make dependency on government THE social contract. It's amazing watching a nation March to oblivion in real time. Previously, one' have to go to the history books to see a great civilization implode.

Cicero: A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

You've come out with some pearlers in your time Arj but this effort above wins the biccie I reckon.

Anyone on this forum that did not know you were a card-carrying rightist would think the second paragraph of your post, the Cicero quote, was having a direct go at TRUMP. And a very good go I should add. It fits your boy to a tee.

'Nation, fools... ambitious... treason from within... sly whispers... heard in the very halls of government... the traitor appears not a traitor... speaks in accents familiar to his victims... wears their face and arguments...

... and appeals to the BASENESS that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

I could go on but I rest my case. Again, you've described your boy to a tee, I couldn't have picked a better quote myself.

Too clever by half Arj

[Johpa]

Too many business owners pay themselves far more than they deserve

Not everytime. I ran a small business once and after overheads were met and the employee's were paid at $15 p.h I often had to not take any pay myself and that was irregular. Cutting back on unearned income made by shareholders can mean a disincentive to shareholding investment and without shareholder capital you have no business because they go elsewhere.You have to be careful raising wages suddenly nation wide or you have a rise in prices to pay for it and a consequent rise in inflation.]Regulation of wage rates can close struggling businesses and create unemployment.It's circular and have to be managed carefully. Some businesses are happy to provide a living wage so called because they can afford it, others cannot. So often people who have never been in business think that if you are in business you must have pots of money and you're creaming it. Not all directors are. Perhaps at Goldman Sachs but I'm not talking about the multi national corporates and banks.

I too ran a small business for decades. I always paid well above the minimum wage and was usually at $15/hour for retail clerks after 1 year long before that became "the cause". Many of my peers I met at the national trade shows paid employees at their State's minimum wage and worked only a few hours a day a few days a week and took home an upper middle class income that was undeserved. I worked 6 or 7 days a week in exchange for the local median income plus some decent health insurance and a job where I could wear jeans and a t-short everyday. It is at businesses with public shareholders where you see the most egregious and undeserved executive pay. Why should any shareholder receive unearned income when employees make less than a living wage? That is a travesty. If a business can not pay a living wage it is probably a marginal business at best and will fail unless it is large enough in itself or within its trade group to have political clout and receive what David Cay Johnston calls in his aptly named book "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)". The problem is that people who are in business think that you have a right to make lots of money at the expense of employees and tax payers and that investors are somehow guaranteed returns on investments ten times or more what savers get at the banks in their savings accounts.

I agree that a forced rapid rise in minimum wage might be overly disruptive. But it is a myth that this will cause significant inflation. Wages are just one part of the overhead and can usually be covered by a just a small increase in gross profit margins and a cut in executive pay and a cut shareholder dividends. Most people are not going to be affected by a 20¢ price increase of some item at a fast food place or a convenience store, or an increase of 1/2% of the gross profit margins at Walmart, where gross profit margins are already high relative to volume. The fluctuations in gas prices have a far greater impact on the economic well being of the 99% than does any impact on raising prices that might result from a rise in minimum wage.

The bottom line is that if you can't afford to pay $15 for the equivalent of a full time job then you have a crappy business model and are, at best, a vulture capitalist on a low rung of that ladder.

[NumbNut]

Too many business owners pay themselves far more than they deserve

Not everytime. I ran a small business once and after overheads were met and the employee's were paid at $15 p.h I often had to not take any pay myself and that was irregular. Cutting back on unearned income made by shareholders can mean a disincentive to shareholding investment and without shareholder capital you have no business because they go elsewhere.You have to be careful raising wages suddenly nation wide or you have a rise in prices to pay for it and a consequent rise in inflation.]Regulation of wage rates can close struggling businesses and create unemployment.It's circular and have to be managed carefully. Some businesses are happy to provide a living wage so called because they can afford it, others cannot. So often people who have never been in business think that if you are in business you must have pots of money and you're creaming it. Not all directors are. Perhaps at Goldman Sachs but I'm not talking about the multi national corporates and banks.

I too ran a small business for decades. I always paid well above the minimum wage and was usually at $15/hour for retail clerks after 1 year long before that became "the cause". Many of my peers I met at the national trade shows paid employees at their State's minimum wage and worked only a few hours a day a few days a week and took home an upper middle class income that was undeserved. I worked 6 or 7 days a week in exchange for the local median income plus some decent health insurance and a job where I could wear jeans and a t-short everyday. It is at businesses with public shareholders where you see the most egregious and undeserved executive pay. Why should any shareholder receive unearned income when employees make less than a living wage? That is a travesty. If a business can not pay a living wage it is probably a marginal business at best and will fail unless it is large enough in itself or within its trade group to have political clout and receive what David Cay Johnston calls in his aptly named book "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)". The problem is that people who are in business think that you have a right to make lots of money at the expense of employees and tax payers and that investors are somehow guaranteed returns on investments ten times or more what savers get at the banks in their savings accounts.

I agree that a forced rapid rise in minimum wage might be overly disruptive. But it is a myth that this will cause significant inflation. Wages are just one part of the overhead and can usually be covered by a just a small increase in gross profit margins and a cut in executive pay and a cut shareholder dividends. Most people are not going to be affected by a 20¢ price increase of some item at a fast food place or a convenience store, or an increase of 1/2% of the gross profit margins at Walmart, where gross profit margins are already high relative to volume. The fluctuations in gas prices have a far greater impact on the economic well being of the 99% than does any impact on raising prices that might result from a rise in minimum wage.

The bottom line is that if you can't afford to pay $15 for the equivalent of a full time job then you have a crappy business model and are, at best, a vulture capitalist on a low rung of that ladder.

Great post Johpa. End of.

Cheers

[Asiantravel]

"Obama's recovery" in 9 charts

Edited June 4, 2016 by Asiantravel

[chuckd]

Last ‘Recession’ Ended 7 Years Ago This Month

By Terence P. Jeffrey | June 3, 2016 | 9:45 AM EDT

(CNSNews.com) - The last recession to hit the United States—the longest of any in the post-World War II period--ended seven years ago this month in June 2009, according to the dates assigned to it by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The NBER announced the date it had assigned to the end of the last recession in a report released Sept. 20, 2010.

In 2009, real GDP in the United States declined by 2.8 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/last-recession-ended-7-years-ago-month

----------------------------------------------------------------

...and...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Record 94,708,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Drops in May

By Susan Jones | June 3, 2016 | 8:49 AM EDT

(CNSNews.com) - A record 94,708,000 Americans were not in the labor force in May -- 664,000 more than in April -- and the labor force participation rate dropped two-tenths of a point to 62.6 percent, near its 38-year low, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday.

When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not participating in the labor force; since then, 14,179,000 Americans have left the workforce -- some of them retiring and some just quitting because they can't find work.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94708000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-drops

------------------------------------------------------------------

...in conclusion...

------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Administration Is Spending $75 Million Securing MEXICO’S Southern Border

ALEX PFEIFFER

Reporter

1:15 AM 06/03/2016

President Barack Obama has slammed Donald Trump’s proposal to make Mexico pay for a border wall, but his own administration is spending $75 million for border security on Mexico’s southern border.

Since 2013, the Obama administration, through a partnership with the Mexican government known as the Mérida Initiative, has already spent at least $15 million helping Mexico secure its southern border, according to a nonpartisan Congressional Research Service report.

“With U.S. support, the Mexican government has been implementing a southern border security plan since 2013 that has involved the establishment of 12 advanced naval bases on the country’s rivers and three security cordons that stretch more than 100 miles north of the Mexico-Guatemala and Mexico-Belize borders,” Congressional Research Service wrote in a February 2016 report.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/03/obama-administration-is-spending-75-million-securing-mexicos-southern-border/#ixzz4Abl0z9GU

[arjunadawn]

The economy is in great shape , not . has the debt been reduce under the democrats no it has increased .

yeah and those 50 million people on food stamps are so hopelessly addicted to receiving handouts by now that last week they even threatened there would be riots across America if Donald Trump becomes president and he tries to take take it off them. That's 50 million people who will rely on this on a permanent basis

This is the plan. This is the transformation- make dependency on government THE social contract. It's amazing watching a nation March to oblivion in real time. Previously, one' have to go to the history books to see a great civilization implode.

Cicero: A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

You've come out with some pearlers in your time Arj but this effort above wins the biccie I reckon.

Anyone on this forum that did not know you were a card-carrying rightist would think the second paragraph of your post, the Cicero quote, was having a direct go at TRUMP. And a very good go I should add. It fits your boy to a tee.

'Nation, fools... ambitious... treason from within... sly whispers... heard in the very halls of government... the traitor appears not a traitor... speaks in accents familiar to his victims... wears their face and arguments...

... and appeals to the BASENESS that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

I could go on but I rest my case. Again, you've described your boy to a tee, I couldn't have picked a better quote myself.

Too clever by half Arj

Only the very least informed would think that these posts above pertained to Trump. The OP is not Trump. The post previously was not Trump. My post is not Trump. I enjoy a good hijacking; this is not that. By no measure of mind or worse does this quote indict Trump. It's a quote on representatives, not business. In fact, Trumps never held public office. This response above evidences extraordinary mischief...and even fails!

One could, I suppose, tie their auntie Em or uncle bob to Ciecero's post through gymnastics...but requires greater skills then shown above. Trump is on the periphery of government. Whatever Trump's, auntie Em, or uncle bobs past, they cannot be married to this quote.

It's "too clever by half" because you missed 50% of it. Trump is not the OP.

[NumbNut]

yeah and those 50 million people on food stamps are so hopelessly addicted to receiving handouts by now that last week they even threatened there would be riots across America if Donald Trump becomes president and he tries to take take it off them. That's 50 million people who will rely on this on a permanent basis

This is the plan. This is the transformation- make dependency on government THE social contract. It's amazing watching a nation March to oblivion in real time. Previously, one' have to go to the history books to see a great civilization implode.

Cicero: A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

You've come out with some pearlers in your time Arj but this effort above wins the biccie I reckon.

Anyone on this forum that did not know you were a card-carrying rightist would think the second paragraph of your post, the Cicero quote, was having a direct go at TRUMP. And a very good go I should add. It fits your boy to a tee.

'Nation, fools... ambitious... treason from within... sly whispers... heard in the very halls of government... the traitor appears not a traitor... speaks in accents familiar to his victims... wears their face and arguments...

... and appeals to the BASENESS that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

I could go on but I rest my case. Again, you've described your boy to a tee, I couldn't have picked a better quote myself.

Too clever by half Arj

Only the very least informed would think that these posts above pertained to Trump. The OP is not Trump. The post previously was not Trump. My post is not Trump. I enjoy a good hijacking; this is not that. By no measure of mind or worse does this quote indict Trump. It's a quote on representatives, not business. In fact, Trumps never held public office. This response above evidences extraordinary mischief...and even fails!

One could, I suppose, tie their auntie Em or uncle bob to Ciecero's post through gymnastics...but requires greater skills then shown above. Trump is on the periphery of government. Whatever Trump's, auntie Em, or uncle bobs past, they cannot be married to this quote.

It's "too clever by half" because you missed 50% of it. Trump is not the OP.

So you are addressing... what? Whom? Where? Why? How?

Break it down into bite-size chunks Arj, I love a mystery as much as the next bloke but... and I hate to admit this... I'm only a NumbNut mate.

Pretend I'm a Trump voter and post accordingly, then I'll get your drift and everything will be sweet.

My brain hurts if I have to think too much Arj... just like your typical low-info, mouth breathin' knuckle-draggin' Trump voter mate.

[arjunadawn]

"....if a business cannot pay a living wage..." is as equally vacuous as "undeserved" middle class (or rich) income

These excerpts from previous posts (widely celebrated by the Left) depict a central difference in the philosophies of progressive/left and nations they insurge. In healthy models if a business cannot pay a living wage...people work elsewhere! Period! It's choice. But under the cover of inflicting right and correcting wrongs, Leftist emotives use the coercion of government like a dull axe to reverse supply, demand, and free choice. The choice of association is gone, choice in supply, demand, etc.

Stalking as "for the worker" the Left enters the economical model/train through this weak spot in human emotion ("living wages") and begin to infect the whole model. It's not accidental using emotion as a fulcrum is central to every single Progressive policy there is. Think about it. It's a very emotional America, isn't it? Just look to TV posters here: emotion is inculcated and now practiced as virtue. Everything is predicated on "feeling" The left seeks to legislate by emotion. In this manner herds are raced off cliffs, people cower in the dark... and leadership through impulse is obtained. (Hillary/Emmanual: "never let a good crisis go to waste").

This and "redistribute the wealth" are central economic stalking horses of socialism- the suggestion, invariably by those who presume they have less, is that the whole can inflict their subjective will upon the few. This is the single 100% antithetical American idea. curiously, it's also a singular 100% defining characteristic of socialism/communism.

Economics are always a means to the end for the left. The end is social engineering. Obama's economy manifests this. The millions out of work and on the gov dole reflect "redistribute the wealth." This is the means!

Obama perfects using debt to mask his hollowing of the republic, Americans are painfully aware now a Republc is like a living thing, and can be mortally wounded.

[arjunadawn]

Republicans hate the fact Obamacare has been so so successful......

You see the hate these wingnuts have for that evil black man.

The only reason that many Republicans hate Obama is that he is Black and is also their President.

That is such b.s.

Racists are also people who think someone is immune to criticism because of their skin color. Yeah, I'm talking to you two.

Not all Democrats/Leftists are racists, but racism has its home here. In fact, primarily. Under the cover of not-racism the Left makes everything racist- everything! It's been this way since the Great Society when they were forced to enter modernity and leave the kkk sheets behind and every other manner of Lenin Trotsky perversion from Moscow to Chicago.

Under the cover of not-race they percolate race into jobs, forms, schools, healthcare, courts, benefits, and lately HUD requirements that white neighborhoods make set asides for blacks. It's always race because race festers and divides. It's not always the left though, but they season this dish (and the jafkarese far right fuels it).

You know a racist as easily as you know a liar or a thief. Invariably they are the ones who are certain their wallet was stolen or that another is lying. It's such BS that opposing Obama is racism. Obama is not a piece of crap because he's black, he's a piece of crap and he's black. He was an insurgent, racist, do nothing pretender with a slick voice before he was elected and he was an insurgent, racist, do nothing pretender after he was elected. ...oh, and he's black (wholly incidental unless discussing his Wright leftist liberation theology).

Edited June 4, 2016 by arjunadawn

[NumbNut]

"....if a business cannot pay a living wage..." is as equally vacuous as "undeserved" middle class (or rich) income

These excerpts from previous posts (widely celebrated by the Left) depict a central difference in the philosophies of progressive/left and nations they insurge. In healthy models if a business cannot pay a living wage...people work elsewhere! Period! It's choice. But under the cover of inflicting right and correcting wrongs, Leftist emotives use the coercion of government like a dull axe to reverse supply, demand, and free choice. The choice of association is gone, choice in supply, demand, etc.

Stalking as "for the worker" the Left enters the economical model/train through this weak spot in human emotion ("living wages") and begin to infect the whole model. It's not accidental using emotion as a fulcrum is central to every single Progressive policy there is. Think about it. It's a very emotional America, isn't it? Just look to TV posters here: emotion is inculcated and now practiced as virtue. Everything is predicated on "feeling" The left seeks to legislate by emotion. In this manner herds are raced off cliffs, people cower in the dark... and leadership through impulse is obtained. (Hillary/Emmanual: "never let a good crisis go to waste").

This and "redistribute the wealth" are central economic stalking horses of socialism- the suggestion, invariably by those who presume they have less, is that the whole can inflict their subjective will upon the few. This is the single 100% antithetical American idea. curiously, it's also a singular 100% defining characteristic of socialism/communism.

Economics are always a means to the end for the left. The end is social engineering. Obama's economy manifests this. The millions out of work and on the gov dole reflect "redistribute the wealth." This is the means!

Obama perfects using debt to mask his hollowing of the republic, Americans are painfully aware now a Republc is like a living thing, and can be mortally wounded.

Ahhh... tell you what Arj, don't worry about my previous post, don't explain anything! Everything's sweet mate.

I'm just going to wait until chuckd likes your post above and then ask him to explain it.

Have a nice weekend Arj, get a few coldies inta yaaaaaa

[Johpa]

This and "redistribute the wealth" are central economic stalking horses of socialism- the suggestion, invariably by those who presume they have less, is that the whole can inflict their subjective will upon the few. This is the single 100% antithetical American idea. curiously, it's also a singular 100% defining characteristic of socialism/communism.

The goal is not to redistribute wealth but to prevent the concentration of capital by the 1% which leads not only to unhealthy inequality (read the data laden book "The Spirit Level" by Pickett and Wilkinson) but leads also to the demise of democracy. The 1% are the ones who are redistributing capital upwards to themselves by a unbalanced tax code that would tax lowly earned income workers at a higher percentage of gross income than those who rely primarily on unearned income (read Michael Hudsons' book Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy). And by changing the tax code to extract some of that capital away from the 1% and get it flowing back into the larger economy still leaves the 1% in a position where I will indeed perceive them as wealthier than myself, but contrary to your inferences, I am not particularly jealous of such people, and I remain on a first name basis with three of the 50 most wealthiest people in the world, none if whom are Waltons, on the rare occasions that we now meet. And nobody is advocating for communism here, only for a healthier society and a more politically balanced form of political economy that can avoid the inevitable rise of an oligarchy.

Those of us who are to "the left" of center, which has drifted to the far right, are now far more deserving to use the motto expressed on your avatar than those who would graduate from the JFK school and fight for the corporate agenda of the Neocons.

[arjunadawn]

This and "redistribute the wealth" are central economic stalking horses of socialism- the suggestion, invariably by those who presume they have less, is that the whole can inflict their subjective will upon the few. This is the single 100% antithetical American idea. curiously, it's also a singular 100% defining characteristic of socialism/communism.

The goal is not to redistribute wealth but to prevent the concentration of capital by the 1% which leads not only to unhealthy inequality (read the data laden book "The Spirit Level" by Pickett and Wilkinson) but leads also to the demise of democracy. The 1% are the ones who are redistributing capital upwards to themselves by a unbalanced tax code that would tax lowly earned income workers at a higher percentage of gross income than those who rely primarily on unearned income (read Michael Hudsons' book Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy). And by changing the tax code to extract some of that capital away from the 1% and get it flowing back into the larger economy still leaves the 1% in a position where I will indeed perceive them as wealthier than myself, but contrary to your inferences, I am not particularly jealous of such people, and I remain on a first name basis with three of the 50 most wealthiest people in the world, none if whom are Waltons, on the rare occasions that we now meet. And nobody is advocating for communism here, only for a healthier society and a more politically balanced form of political economy that can avoid the inevitable rise of an oligarchy.

Those of us who are to "the left" of center, which has drifted to the far right, are now far more deserving to use the motto expressed on your avatar than those who would graduate from the JFK school and fight for the corporate agenda of the Neocons.

Great rebuttal. Thank you.

As a graduate of the "JFK school" one thing I've learned better then most, the signs and symptoms of insurgency. Since you mentioned my avatar I presume you mean that JFK school and not the globalist JFK Center. It's such a peculiar thing that you assert someone should be more "deserving" of something that can only be obtained by merit- the Green Beret (an award from JFK, presented at the "JFK School.") This suggests exactly what I speak to each day.

Because a person objects to Trump they are not more deserving a real estate success. Because I object to Obama I'm not more deserving of the presidency. If this was a sophisticated personal attack, it backfired. Let it go. Your post was otherwise brilliant.

I appreciate your smart response but the assertion that someone is more "deserving" of the Special Forces tab because they think or feel something is exactly the same forfeiture of reason I rail against. De Oppresso Liber, on my avatar, crest, and ring, is not something that is deserved, it's earned. De Oppresso Liber, basically, to free the oppressed, has been inculcated into my psyche for decades. In war zones and ops throughout the world, I've earned it. I didn't deserve it!

Edit: BTW, I know there's a problem with the US economy/gov being rigged. I just think socialist-progressivism is not the way. I can't stand the M F s who use us like a piggy bank and rape us and the future- on both sides!

Edited June 4, 2016 by arjunadawn

[Johpa]

Those of us who are to "the left" of center, which has drifted to the far right, are now far more deserving to use the motto expressed on your avatar than those who would graduate from the JFK school and fight for the corporate agenda of the Neocons.

As a graduate of the "JFK school" one thing I've learned better then most, the signs and symptoms of insurgency. Since you mentioned my avatar I presume you mean that JFK school and not the globalist JFK Center. It's such a peculiar thing that you assert someone should be more "deserving" of something that can only be obtained by merit- the Green Beret

Because a person objects to Trump they are not more deserving a real estate success. Because I object to Obama I'm not more deserving of the presidency. If this was a sophisticated personal attack, it backfired. Let it go. Your post was otherwise brilliant.

I appreciate your smart response but the assertion that someone is more "deserving" of the Special Forces tab because they think or feel something is exactly the same forfeiture of reason I rail against.

I only noted that the use of the motto was more deservedly used by others perhaps and not the wearing of the green beret, the crest as a whole, nor the wearing of the tab or "flamimg piss pot" shoulder patches, or the wearing of any other insignia earned by merit. There was no personal attack intended on that score. But the integration of almost all special forces into a somewhat joint command has turned too many now into door kickers and too few into counter-insurgency specialists aligned with the other two legs, the Psyops and Civil Affairs folks. But I digress. Edited June 4, 2016 by Johpa

[Boon Mee]

The economy is in great shape , not . has the debt been reduce under the democrats no it has increased .

yeah and those 50 million people on food stamps are so hopelessly addicted to receiving handouts by now that last week they even threatened there would be riots across America if Donald Trump becomes president and he tries to take take it off them. That's 50 million people who will rely on this on a permanent basis

Provide full time workers with a decent wage instead of 'slave wages' and you don't need food stamps or a government subsidising multi billion dollar companies profits.

Minimum wage = $21 per hour food stamp problem solved.

Why not just give everyone a basic minimum wage?

[RKASA]

The economy is in great shape , not . has the debt been reduce under the democrats no it has increased .

yeah and those 50 million people on food stamps are so hopelessly addicted to receiving handouts by now that last week they even threatened there would be riots across America if Donald Trump becomes president and he tries to take take it off them. That's 50 million people who will rely on this on a permanent basis

Provide full time workers with a decent wage instead of 'slave wages' and you don't need food stamps or a government subsidising multi billion dollar companies profits.

Minimum wage = $21 per hour food stamp problem solved.

Why not just give everyone a basic minimum wage?

Food stamp problem solved???? sorry but unless your McDonald's counter work carrier choice @ 21.00 an hour means your going to feed your grand mother and others on fixed income you have only advocated murdering them by starvation.

[Linzz]

Too many business owners pay themselves far more than they deserve

Not everytime. I ran a small business once and after overheads were met and the employee's were paid at $15 p.h I often had to not take any pay myself and that was irregular. Cutting back on unearned income made by shareholders can mean a disincentive to shareholding investment and without shareholder capital you have no business because they go elsewhere.You have to be careful raising wages suddenly nation wide or you have a rise in prices to pay for it and a consequent rise in inflation.]Regulation of wage rates can close struggling businesses and create unemployment.It's circular and have to be managed carefully. Some businesses are happy to provide a living wage so called because they can afford it, others cannot. So often people who have never been in business think that if you are in business you must have pots of money and you're creaming it. Not all directors are. Perhaps at Goldman Sachs but I'm not talking about the multi national corporates and banks.

I too ran a small business for decades. I always paid well above the minimum wage and was usually at $15/hour for retail clerks after 1 year long before that became "the cause". Many of my peers I met at the national trade shows paid employees at their State's minimum wage and worked only a few hours a day a few days a week and took home an upper middle class income that was undeserved. I worked 6 or 7 days a week in exchange for the local median income plus some decent health insurance and a job where I could wear jeans and a t-short everyday. It is at businesses with public shareholders where you see the most egregious and undeserved executive pay. Why should any shareholder receive unearned income when employees make less than a living wage? That is a travesty. If a business can not pay a living wage it is probably a marginal business at best and will fail unless it is large enough in itself or within its trade group to have political clout and receive what David Cay Johnston calls in his aptly named book "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)". The problem is that people who are in business think that you have a right to make lots of money at the expense of employees and tax payers and that investors are somehow guaranteed returns on investments ten times or more what savers get at the banks in their savings accounts.

I agree that a forced rapid rise in minimum wage might be overly disruptive. But it is a myth that this will cause significant inflation. Wages are just one part of the overhead and can usually be covered by a just a small increase in gross profit margins and a cut in executive pay and a cut shareholder dividends. Most people are not going to be affected by a 20¢ price increase of some item at a fast food place or a convenience store, or an increase of 1/2% of the gross profit margins at Walmart, where gross profit margins are already high relative to volume. The fluctuations in gas prices have a far greater impact on the economic well being of the 99% than does any impact on raising prices that might result from a rise in minimum wage.

The bottom line is that if you can't afford to pay $15 for the equivalent of a full time job then you have a crappy business model and are, at best, a vulture capitalist on a low rung of that ladder.

Great post Johpa. End of.

Cheers

I agree that nothing sticks more in the craw than when directors of public companies somehow manage to obtain a big bonus when the company ran a loss.That is a culture of entitlement that sits as corporate welfare.

(Some) "people in business think they have the right to make money at the expense of employees"

Case in point are Thai (and other) restaurants in my home country who import workers and house, feed and pay them well below the minimum wage. In my discussion with one accountant who practised this, his opinion was that if he had to pay the regulated minimum, he would be out of business.It kind of angered me in the same way you have said such businesses should die if they cannot afford a living wage.This wasn't even minimum. However the workers believed they were far better off than if they remained in Thailand and I believe they were right. Everything is relative.

In my country 70-80% of the economy is made up of businesses with less than 20 workers.Some of the more profitable larger companies pay a "living wage".Naturally they have queues of applicants. I am wondering what would be left of the economy if your regulatory idealism was translated into law.

You also said that "investors are somehow guaranteed returns on investments ten times or more that savers get at banks in their savings accounts".I would say you are not considering the risk component. There is virtually little risk in putting your money into a savings account and it does not put your money to work. It sits and does nothing except for benefit of the bank. Investors take risks depending on their appetite for it and if 10 times the bank rate then it would be 10 times more risk of losing their money. Again it's relative. It is the risk takers that underpin wealth creation.

I believe that socialism saved the too big to fail banks on Wall Street. A truly capitalist country, those banks would not be bailed out with taxpayers money, they would have to stand on their own feet. Corporate welfare allowed those banks to over-extend themselves because they knew the government would guarantee to bail them out if anything went wrong, and it did big time. .

The Big Short is an interesting movie.

[Chicog]

The whole tone of this thread is absurd, since the title is childishly partisan.

It should be "Obama has done a decent job of cleaning up the Republicans screw up".