Obama challenges U.S. Congress on inequality in State of the Union address

After five years, President Obama is clearly out of ideas.

Boehner presided over the least productive Congressional session in history, and this is all he has to say? Obama has plenty of ideas; Boehner will pass none of them.

With few bipartisan proposals....

Ha ha! - That's a joke, right? "Bipartisan" to Boehner means give us all we demand or the bill will never be brought up to a vote. The Senate is just as bad, refusing to fulfill their Constitutional requirement to staff Federal positions.

This is going to be a very interesting year.

Bloviate, bloviate. With his pen and telephone, can anyone with a straight face deny this self-appointed imperial president?

Still waiting for Republicans to list their accomplishments over the last 6 years.

Still waiting for Republicans to list their accomplishments over the last 6 years.

So far, they've voted to abolish the ACA over 40 times, so they've got that going for them. Plus, yesterday, the House passed a bill which would prohibit ACA funds from covering abortion procedures as well as end tax benefits to company-run policies which offer the same. It's not like they've done nothing; it's just that they seem smitten with obsessive-compulsive disorder.

how is it the role of the state to solve this problem?

Now if I wanted to put millions of people back to work in America, the very first thing I would do is-- raise wages 39%! Yes, socialist moronism now reigns supreme in Washington, where His Federal Highness, Bernard O'Bama, is decreeing today that all those federal government contractors now paying their minimum wage folks $7.25/hr must raise them to $10.10. This will prompt those employers to look at their payrolls, scratch their heads, and fire the lot of them, as they cannot afford to raise them 39%.

Thus Bernard, our first communist president, will manage to throw countless thousands out of work. Between him and the Fed, it's a job to figure out who is stupidest.

Obama said Yes! We can. Republicans of Congress said No! We can't. Detroit said Oh! We are broke.

This will prompt those employers to look at their payrolls, scratch their heads, and fire the lot of them, as they cannot afford to raise them 39%.

Maybe you've never had employees before, but no business can afford to go from having employees, to not. Sure some may get cut, but cutting the equivalent 40% of employees would kill most businesses.

Some may fail, but those businesses probably did not have a viable business plan anyways if they cannot afford a $3/hour increase in wages to their employees.

This will only be good for the people. Currently the government is subsidizing people living on minimum wage, with food stamps and other benefits. So you have corporations like walmart raking in tonnes of cash, and letting the government cover a portion of their employee's salaries. This pushes the burden of paying employees back on to the corporations.

Considering the Republicans are complaining so much about government spending, you would think that they would welcome any plan that gives people more money so that they don't have to rely on government subsidies to live. But the truth is, many of these same republicans are realizing that when the government does this, they are going to have to start paying their employees a living wage, and all of a sudden they would rather the government keep subsidizing the employees wages.

Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you want the government to cut spending, meaning that you're going to have to start paying your employees a living wage, or you don't want the government to cut spending, so that you can keep paying your employees a pittance. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

To all you liberals out there. Obama has done nothing to advance the agenda of the average American. He came swept into office with a 78% approval the highest for any President, especially the First African American, the man that could HAVE done a lot of great things, but once again, he turned out to be another politician. What does he want? A progressive agenda, extension of unemployment benefits, Free access to college education, raise the minimum wage for Fed contract workers to $10 an hour, so how's all that going to help inequality throughout the country? The latest NBC poll listed that 2/3 of Americans believe that things WILL NOT improve in the country as long as he's president. How is Obamacare doing with the public lately? Only 8% of people were satisfied with it, are you kidding me 8%?! This guy isn't even a joke anymore. He's already a lame duck, people are looking already to 2016 as if he's time is already up. But don't take my word for it. Outgoing congressman Jim Moran a very high ranking Democrat close to the president openly admitted getting young people to sign up for this plan is virtually impossible at this point.

http://youtu.be/eRQwn7Z_Boo

But we know, saying anything bad about the anointed one, makes you a racist, agree with him, you are not. I can't even listen to that word anymore, it's overused, that's how bad it's gotten.

He's failed on every angle, now mind you congress is even in a worse malignant position, but Obama's the President, he should be leading NOT dividing. The that had a lot of White people caring him to the White House twice are Now all of a sudden racists??? How does that equate? If America were THAT racist of a country, there is no way he would have been elected.....TWICE!!! But because Republicans think his policies stink and don't work, which history has shown us, they don't, it's natural that they are skeptical of this president. Obama refuses to meet or ever sit down with Republicans, doesn't want to give an inch, so now he says, he'll use his pen and just bypass congress, so what the heck do we have a congress? Then just allow him to rule unilaterally which then makes him by decree an imperialist.

The funny thing is, Dems and liberals have very short memories, they think none of this could ever come back to haunt them, and they are really setting themselves up for a big fall in the future, which would be just as bad, but Dems and this president are only hurting themselves, their party and most importantly! the people that put them in office, but they will remember.

And NO, I'm not going to go off and list all the pros and cons of the Bush years because there are a lot of good things, but if I go and jot each one, I've been on JT a few years now and I know I'll get my post deleted or a warning back on topic. I'm NOT even going to go there, I'm going to keep it right where it belongs, on Obama. When a thread comes out asking about "what did you think about the Bush years," I will splurge, until then, I'll keep it on topic!

Now I really want you libs to tell me in detail where Obama did such a good job and what where his greatest accomplishments so far these last 5 years. Because if he did, I must've have been asleep.

At least he's trying.

Actually if you had paid attention the republicans tried to pass several bills to allow partial bipartisan defunding of the ACA act- these were the parts that even democrats did not want. But the orders from the white house were not to negotiate with the republicans. So all measures were squashed when they came up for vote.

the same occured with sequestering- a process signed into law by President Obama. An attempt was fielded multiple times to place a new law where he as president could have line action over how the sequestration was taking place. Because both democrats and republicans knew there were duplications in programs in the government that could be cut- and were not part of the sequestration act.

but again- no negotiation with the enemy -was the rallying cry from the white house

" Some may fail, but those businesses probably did not have a viable business plan anyways if they cannot afford a $3/hour increase in wages to their employees."

You must be joking. That, or have NO business sense nor experience.

At least he's trying.

That's just as bad of an excuse as his famous "blame Bush" sorry excuses. Sorry, but we don't elect a President for trying. We elect a president for results, not mediocracy? If you say it like that, then I can say, he's trying to screw the American people! he's trying to spend us and our grand kids future into oblivion, putting us into deeper debt, if you put it like that. He's not only trying, he's succeeded!!

What does he want? A progressive agenda, extension of unemployment benefits, Free access to college education, raise the minimum wage for Fed contract workers to $10 an hour, so how's all that going to help inequality throughout the country?

Bass, it's not like he was elected twice running as a conservative - of course he has a progressive agenda. Remember that the only factor laying between the realization of his progressive agenda and its realization is gerrymandering - the Dems polled 1.5% higher than the GOP in House elections in 2012 but didn't get the seats.

Sometimes I think the only thing conservatives offer to America is random capitalization.

" Some may fail, but those businesses probably did not have a viable business plan anyways if they cannot afford a $3/hour increase in wages to their employees." You must be joking. That, or have NO business sense nor experience.

I own two companies with 15 employees right now. Previously I ran a business with 14 employees for my employer, and previous to that a smaller office with 6 employees for my then employer.

I'm not joking, and if there is one thing I'm good at, it's running a business.

@laguna

it's not like he was elected twice running as a conservative - of course he has a progressive agenda. Remember that the only factor laying between the realization of his progressive agenda and its realization is gerrymandering - the Dems polled 1.5% higher than the GOP in House elections in 2012 but didn't get the seats.

Sometimes I think the only thing conservatives offer to America is random capitalization.

You mean, LIMITED GOVERNMENT! Funny thing is, I used to laugh at Jean every time he called The US an Imperial Nation but now, I'm starting to agree with him, he's making more sense day by day, the NSA started under Bush, but under Obama it just morphed into the scariest thing that could happen to a person. I heard, they collect data on you when you play Angry Birds...what the.... Spying on conservatives in Hollywood, people that are part of the conservative "FOA" Friends of Abraham people like John Voight and Gary Sinise and other conservative actors are being targeted by the IRS, this guy is dangerous why do they have to be targeted? And now he's saying, screw congress, even if the Senate goes back to the Republicans, I don't need congress. He's cut from the same cloth as every other bogus politician, same goes for Hillary and the same goes for Christie. Power hungry, naaaawwww!

Again, you said it RADICAL PROGRESSIVE AGENDA! There is NO way on God's green Earth that the Conservatives especially at this point in time work with this toxic president, they smell blood in the water, they have seen his policies fail, time after time again, he was the one that didn't want to work with congress and stop giving me these lame poll, congress as a whole stinks, but you think, the Dems will get the House back this year???? Not in a million years and they'd be lucky if they can keep the Senate and I mean, a rabbit foot would need to come the Democrats way. Every poll is showing that Dems are in a panic mode this year and Obamacare will be their undoing, watch as many of Obama Dems start to peel away from this toxic President the same way Republicans did with Bush in the last 2 years.

You didn't tell me about what you thought about that video I posted of Jim Moran and what he was saying about Obamacare or do you want to spin that he's some fringe lunatic turn coat Democrat gone astray?

Also, I'll ask again, what are Obama's greatest accomplishments for these past 5 years.

"We elect a president for results, not mediocracy?"

A housing recovery, 3% annual GDP growth, universal healthcare for the 1st time in the nation's history, rising corporate profits. That's all happening right now (they weren't happening before). If those aren't "results," then what are they?

@strangerland, that's nice, and honestly good for you! But! Why don't you give all your employees a 30% across-the-board pay rise? Or how about just the lowest third of wage earners a 30% increase? I think you know the real answer, don't you?

@bass, thanks for the compliment. Although the NSA as it is currently known was formed in 1952, its predecessor began in 1917. Can't even blame Bush for either! But, the Orwellian-named "Patriot Act" signed by Bush, Jr falls in him although it had overwhelmingly bipartisan support.

Want to understand democracy as it once was? Read Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".

"Nobody saw more clearly than Tocqueville that democracy as an essentially individualist institution stood in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said in 1848; "socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in freedom, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." " The Road to Serfdom, F A Hayek, Ch 2 p77

@strangerland, that's nice, and honestly good for you! But! Why don't you give all your employees a 30% across-the-board pay rise? Or how about just the lowest third of wage earners a 30% increase? I think you know the real answer, don't you?

Well yes I do know the answer. I already pay my employees well above minimum wage. We actually set our base salary at industry standard +10%. The reason I don't give them an increase of 30% is because I don't need to. They can already live off the salary I pay them.

Let me put it a different way. If your business plan is built around playing your employees such a low wage that they cannot afford to live without government subsidies, and raising their salary $3/hr (~$480/month) is going to put you out of business, you have a failed business plan. Your business is only able to survive off government subsidies. Sure the business isn't receiving the subsidies directly, but in not paying their employees enough to live, they are requiring that their employees get these subsidies. This means that the business cannot survive without government assistance. Therefore it is a failed business plan. Now you are the non-socialist. Which is better - a business surviving off subsidies, or that business going under due to not having a viable business plan?

A housing recovery, 3% annual GDP growth, universal healthcare for the 1st time in the nation's history, rising corporate profits. That's all happening right now (they weren't happening before). If those aren't "results," then what are they?

From that perspective compared to what we had had when Bush left office it was bad, bad, deeply bad, I'll give you that, but now it's just simply bad. And if you think that's good, then I don't know what to tell you.

More Government lies.

The "independent conservative" response to the speech is the same as that all over my country: insane.

They still seem to think Obama is some kind of socialist.

that is the difference between being a liberal and being a "independent conservative" tea bagger: we Liberals actually want Obama to be more the soshalizt boogey-man the insane right idiotically thinks he is.

Jean: Now if I wanted to put millions of people back to work in America, the very first thing I would do is-- raise wages 39%! Yes, socialist moronism now reigns supreme in Washington, where His Federal Highness, Bernard O'Bama, is decreeing today that all those federal government contractors now paying their minimum wage folks $7.25/hr must raise them to $10.10. This will prompt those employers to look at their payrolls, scratch their heads, and fire the lot of them, as they cannot afford to raise them 39%.

Um, Jean, the current minimum wage works out to about $1,160 a month before taxes for a full-time schedule. If you have a business that requires this amount (or less) for your employees in order to keep it's doors open then you don't have a business, you have a 1st world sweat shop. Time for a new business plan that doesn't depend on poverty wages as a means to get ahead.

Wages have been flat since Reagan while productivity had increased in the double digits. I think business has had a pretty sweet ride for the last 30+ years or so. Running around screaming, "Will SOMEONE please think of the business owners!!!" is a bit daft at this point. They won. Companies like Walmart and McDonalds have successfully managed to push part of their payroll onto the taxpayers all so they can do the almighty: price compete to gain market share. It's not about them keeping their doors open but increasing shareholder wealth for which the managers get compensated to an exponentially higher degree.

Strangerland: Sure the business isn't receiving the subsidies directly, but in not paying their employees enough to live, they are requiring that their employees get these subsidies.

I think the Republican solution is to simply cut the subsidies that the workers receive while at the same time blocking any attempts to raise the wages for workers. They have made very obvious attempts to vilify the working poor with anecdotal stories of waste/fraud as well as calling them "takers." They seem to approach this from the mentality that there will just be a class of people who don't cut it and they deserve to be in the spot they are in and they will always be there in order to provide us (the "real" workers) with low prices.

@JT

The "independent conservative" response to the speech is the same as that all over my country: insane.

I think you mean, the man giving the speech is completely insane!

They still seem to think Obama is some kind of socialist.

That's because he is. By the way, most Socialists don't see socialism as "SOCIALISM" That's the problem.

we Liberals actually want Obama to be more the soshalizt boogey-man the insane right idiotically thinks he is.

We know that, why do you think there is a VERY HIGH possibility that the Republicans will get the back the Senate? By the way, why is it independents, the majority are running from Obama? NOT a good sign of the Boogey man. But I guess now independents are traitors as well, right?

@super

I think the Republican solution is to simply cut the subsidies that the workers receive while at the same time blocking any attempts to raise the wages for workers. They have made very obvious attempts to vilify the working poor with anecdotal stories of waste/fraud as well as calling them "takers." They seem to approach this from the mentality that there will just be a class of people who don't cut it and they deserve to be in the spot they are in and they will always be there in order to provide us (the "real" workers) with low prices.

That is a bold face, straight up lie. Obama by default is making the rich, richer. Because he doesn't know what he's doing, he probably doesn't realize to the top 1% People that invested in the Stock market, people that are creators, innovators are one and the other the Obama Fed Reserve policy pumping money into the Stock Market which these people invest and people make more and more money and meanwhile, the average Joe is going broke, can't pay the mortgage on his house. As for me personally, I am a creator and an investor and for me personally, Obama has been a God send! But for the average working American, the Economy sucks and NO one is coming out the better. So once again, the Rich (Yaaay!) get richer and poor are getting poorer and this time, by a Democratic president. The poor a getting hosed by the Democrats, who'd thunk it?

I find it amusing that one member of the 1% club is busy telling a bunch of other members that they have to do something about inequality....

Jean ValJeanJan. 29, 2014 - 07:02PM JST

Now if I wanted to put millions of people back to work in America, the very first thing I would do is-- raise wages 39%! Yes, socialist moronism now reigns supreme in Washington, where His Federal Highness, Bernard O'Bama, is decreeing today that all those federal government contractors now paying their minimum wage folks $7.25/hr must raise them to $10.10. This will prompt those employers to look at their payrolls, scratch their heads, and fire the lot of them, as they cannot afford to raise them 39%.

Thus Bernard, our first communist president, will manage to throw countless thousands out of work. Between him and the Fed, it's a job to figure out who is stupidest.

I guess you are writing this post outside of economics thinking.

Let me explain the Substitution and Income Effects of a Wage Change.

Higher wage implies a higher income, and a higher income implies a greater demand in goods and service in Consumer Spending to GDP growth.

Wages and Employment in Perfect Competition

StrangerlandJan. 29, 2014 - 08:16PM JST has captured the significant problem in US economy.

Let me put it a different way. If your business plan is built around playing your employees such a low wage that they cannot afford to live without government subsidies, and raising their salary $3/hr (~$480/month) is going to put you out of business, you have a failed business plan. Your business is only able to survive off government subsidies. Sure the business isn't receiving the subsidies directly, but in not paying their employees enough to live, they are requiring that their employees get these subsidies. This means that the business cannot survive without government assistance. Therefore it is a failed business plan. Now you are the non-socialist. Which is better - a business surviving off subsidies, or that business going under due to not having a viable business plan?

The dramatic widening of the wage gap between workers with different levels of education reflected the operation of demand and supply in labor economics. While demand for college graduates was increasing while the demand of high school graduates has been slumping. Why would the demand curves for different kinds of labor shift? What determines the demand for labor supply? How do changes in demand and supply after wages and employment?

There are several economic theories available for this topic, but majority agree that the higher wages increases the quantity of labor supply as many unemployed want to go back to work.

"America does not stand still"

The national debt sure isn't standing still. It continues to balloon.

"I find it amusing that one member of the 1% club is busy telling a bunch of other members that they have to do something about inequality...."

LOL

gelendestrasseJan. 30, 2014 - 02:35AM JST

I find it amusing that one member of the 1% club is busy telling a bunch of other members that they have to do something about inequality....

I assume you understand there are the Main Street and the Wall Street Clubs in USA.

Not all the Wall Street Club members belong to the 1% club. These 1% club members includes the Koch Family in TX who control the Tea Party.

Superlib

Time for a new business plan that doesn't depend on poverty wages as a means to get ahead.

And government handouts.

MaDonalds, Walmart, et. al, can only refuse to page a living wage to their employees because they know government programs blunt the most monstrous wounds caused by these terrible wages. Take away the minimal parts of the social safety net, and the workers would be out on the streets, without food.

This money, the Republicans love to remind us, doesn't come from nowhere. In fact, it goes to our debt.

IOW, these kind of "job creators" -- the ones who fight tooth and nail against the social safety net keeping pace with increased cost of living are nothing of the sort.

They are debt creators.

JTDanManJan. 30, 2014 - 04:01AM JST

They are debt creators.

Yep. You and Strangerland really have captured the current US problem. These corporate welfare programs have to end. They are sucking a tax money from us. Furthermore, they have been successfully shifting blames to the main street low income families. I am glad you are not brain washed by them. They are very selfish and careless about the citizenship and social responsibility to others.

Without these bus boys who wash dishes in the kitchen, without these who work at Walmart cash registers, America do not succeed. They work hard. We need to give them a raise, so that they do not have to depend on the food stamps. Let's stop these corporate welfare programs. Let's start asking them to do their shares. We cannot wait. Let's begin!!

bass: As for me personally, I am a creator and an investor and for me personally, Obama has been a God send! But for the average working American

In the future, just give us the link to whatever pundit you're lifting ideas from. I suspect it's the same one who is walking around saying Republicans are fighting for black people. Or you could go more into detail about how Obama has been so good to you, your choice. It will be funny to listen to you convince us that after hundreds of anti-Obama messages you've been doing quite well, yet putting all that aside to fight for the working man. How neat.

Obama challenges U.S. Congress on inequality in State of the Union address

Let me get this straight. Under Obama inequality has gone up in just about every way you can measure it - and he wants to do more! No thanks Barry, you have done quite enough already - really. Do the country a favor and take the next three years off. Ever more socialism will only result in more inequality - crack a history book and get a clue Mr. President.

Nice attempt at a redirect from what the rest of the country AND world is discussing. Nice try.

Clearly stealing a page from President Bush, President Clinton, well.... every politician who came before. Odd, but I miss the days of President Clinton taking a poll about every decision before he made them. President Obama doesn't appear to care how unpopular his programs are. Short of impeachment, we are stuck until 2016.

To be clear, President Bush needed to be impeached too, then brought up on charges against humanity for starting two needless wars when 20 covert teams with unlimited funding should have been used instead.

Obama's last 5 state of the Union address talked about: CHANGE

First year Education, middle class, jobs, immigration

Second year . Education, middle class, jobs, immigration Third year. Education, middle class, jobs, immigration

Forth year Education, middle class, jobs, immigration

Fifth year Education, middle class, jobs, immigration

Where is the CHANGE his presidency is or was suppose to bring? One thing I can say is he didn't lie he did make a CHANGE and that is from what was better to WORSE!! He came into office saying America has many enemies and those enemies he would make our friends and our friends we will continue strong ties. Well the friends we had are now our enemies! This is got to be the weakest president ever in office. The President of the US has never took a seat in the back to being thought of as being the most power man in the world. Well Russia Putin is thought of being the MOST POWER man in the world now!

Remember english words have two many meanings Change well he meant change for the worse. Now he is using the word ACTION which means to "ACT" well I guess this is to appear to say I am trying but place the blame on congress. One thing I can say about politics its stinks. The word politician is very deceiving the word "POLI" means Many the word "TIC" means ticks to suck the blood out of you and that is exactly what they do!! I will be glad to see this womanizer go there has been so many scandles in this administration from his secret service guy up to the top. Let it be told that when he went to Columbia his handlers were off seeing prostitutes well who was guarding the president during this time WELL TROJAN MAN I wouldn't doubt he had one too, the other guys took the hit!

Some may fail, but those businesses probably did not have a viable business plan anyways if they cannot afford a $3/hour increase in wages to their employees.

Well to be fair a $3 dollar increase per hour is a lot, especially for very tight margin business such as the food service industry. For a standard 40 hour work, the average American works 2080 hours a year, and that comes out to $6,240 dollars a year per employee. That is a lot of money. I mean if every single Walmart employee, including the CEO, received a $3 dollar increase per hour that would result in Walmart spending an additional $12 billion dollars a year in wages.

You mentioned that you have two businesses, what are the names of the companies?

I find it amusing that one member of the 1% club is busy telling a bunch of other members that they have to do something about inequality....

If you call 1% not giving a hoot and 2/3 nothing, maybe that's why Dems are in such a disarray.

@JT

This money, the Republicans love to remind us, doesn't come from nowhere. In fact, it goes to our debt.

IOW, these kind of "job creators" -- the ones who fight tooth and nail against the social safety net keeping pace with increased cost of living are nothing of the sort.

They are debt creators.

All fast food, jobs or paper hat jobs etc. are basically transititional jobs, they are designed to get working experience, establish a skill in a worker and after a short period, they move on to a better career, do some stay, yes, but they work and often move up to management, but these are NOT the type of jobs to use mainly as a career job. And if you want to increase the wages to $10 an hour what do you think is going to happen to your $3 burger? You think bigger increase equals lower prices for the consumer?

@super

In the future, just give us the link to whatever pundit you're lifting ideas from. I suspect it's the same one who is walking around saying Republicans are fighting for black people.

The ideas are coming from every day life experience. Sorry NOT a link and as for Black people, I hate to break this for you, but Democrats have NOT been fighting for Black people, in fact, the majority of Blacks that vote democratic many of them live below the poverty mind, since Johnson's war on poverty, the living conditions of Black Americans didn't change that much, but many are still loyal to a party that gives them nothing, again and again and again. Which is something that I could NEVER understand. Most Blacks are socially conservative, Church going people, a large chunk against same sex marriage. To be far, the Republicans didn't do a great job at out reaching to this powerful block, the same by the way goes for Hispanic, Entrepreneurial, self-reliant, something that liberals don't believe in. Blacks have the highest unemployment record and yet, they keep voting for the same group that gives them nothing, but blind dependence.

Both groups have done worse under the first black President who alleges to be a champion of the poor. Most Black and Latinos I know that are conservative, do well, a few have their own businesses and don't run around screaming racism when things don't go their way.

Or you could go more into detail about how Obama has been so good to you, your choice. It will be funny to listen to you convince us that after hundreds of anti-Obama messages you've been doing quite well, yet putting all that aside to fight for the working man. How neat.

I am anti-Obama, but for my investments, it's been a blessing, so I'm happy for myself, for the country and the Average American, he by far the worst, the countries EVER seen! Now, even Carter is starting to look better. By the way Libs, how is increasing unemployment benefits, welfare, expanding government programs helping people? Creating jobs, absolutely not. Clinton managed to limit welfare and government programs and Obama is expanding them. Since he can't create jobs, he has to borrow and print more money to pump into the stagnant economy and to give out in the form of more government programs. Obama in a nutshell.

but he's trying. Lol

@thefu

To be clear, President Bush needed to be impeached too, then brought up on charges against humanity for starting two needless wars when 20 covert teams with unlimited funding should have been used instead.

Come on, dude, that's a stretch. If it were that simple, it would have been done, come on, never gonna happen, nor should it.

$6,240 dollars a year per employee

Higher wage implies a higher income, and a higher income implies a greater demand in goods and service in Consumer Spending to GDP growth. A study of economics is how to make a pie bigger and how to slice it.

People, don't let the blathering of the "independent conservatives" here, or anywhere, fool you:

Nearly 3/4 of Americans support raising the minimum wage.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1993

Simply put, Republicans are waaaaaay out of the mainstream on this issue.

In fact, on all economic issues except 1, Republicans are on the fringe. And when social and foriegn policy come into play, the are, yeah, you guessed it, on the fringe.

That makes them a fringe party.

Noliving: I mean if every single Walmart employee, including the CEO, received a $3 dollar increase per hour that would result in Walmart spending an additional $12 billion dollars a year in wages.

Walmart had $469 billion in revenue last year. I'd be interested in seeing how many fewer tax dollars would go to Walmart employees if they paid an extra $12 billion in wages. For now it seems we're subsidizing Walmart's business plan of price competing.

especially for very tight margin business such as the food service industry.

And they will be competing against other players in the industry who will have to play by the exact same rules. We will always have a food service industry and hopefully in the future it will be managed by companies who do not need government handouts to survive. We need to weed them out.

SuperLibJan. 30, 2014 - 08:06AM JST

Noliving: I mean if every single Walmart employee, including the CEO, received a $3 dollar increase per hour that would result in Walmart spending an additional $12 billion dollars a year in wages.

Walmart had $469 billion in revenue last year. I'd be interested in seeing how many fewer tax dollars would go to Walmart employees if they paid an extra $12 billion in wages. For now it seems we're subsidizing Walmart's business plan of price competing.

I do not shop at GhettoMart because of this reason. Workers are not treated in dignity and respect. I know one of them. She never had a full time job access because Walmart did not want to provide a health insurance to her. Well, she had a blood clot in her brain , and it had to be removed surgically as it was a life threat and Walmart refused to pay. Thank God, the State of Colorado Medicaid picked up a total medical cost. She is doing okay now with Obamacare. Walmart will continue taking an advantage of subsidizing business plan as long as we allow them to do so. This business model has to stop. They need to share the social responsibility. If not willing, we need to boycott all Walmart stores.

For those who have been stupefied by the centrally-planned dozen-inculcation process, creating and raising a minimum wage sounds like a good idea. Then again, 100% employment of the chattel may also sound desireable to your masters.

http://mises.org/daily/6367/Outlawing-Jobs-The-Minimum-Wage

The supposed liberal posters here have only one word in common with a liberal in the true classical sense: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in freedom, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

Jean ValJeanJan. 30, 2014 - 09:29AM JST

I hope you understand his economic views as you posted here. I am completely opposite from him in ideology.

equality

Yes, economics and law go hand- N- hand in ideology. " Freedom, Equality and Justice for All", and hope it sounds all very familiar to you.

For a standard 40 hour work, the average American works 2080 hours a year, and that comes out to $6,240 dollars a year per employee. That is a lot of money. I mean if every single Walmart employee, including the CEO, received a $3 dollar increase per hour that would result in Walmart spending an additional $12 billion dollars a year in wages.

This number is insignificant compared with Walmart profits. Without that comparison the number is meaningless.

You mentioned that you have two businesses, what are the names of the companies?

Nothing I'm going to list here. Would you list your real name and company here? (My real ne would be easy to find with my company names)

That's just asking for trouble, lots of whack jobs on this site. I'll maintain my privacy thanks.

Obama’s subtext was reviving a presidency that seems to be racing toward early lame duck status after a disastrous 2013.

He also needs to shield allied lawmakers from being pulled down by his relative unpopularity—he has a 43% approval rating—and Democrats are in peril of losing the Senate in mid-term elections.

Obama can "challenge" anyone he wants to in order to avoid lame duck status but looking at his success rate, I'd say Obama has been considered a lame duck for several years. Democrats don't seem to want Obama to campaign for them and they're running away from ACA/Obamacare.

What seems to be overlooked is minimum wage jobs are for students and retirees. THEY ARE NOT MEANT TO BE CAREERS.

arrestpaulJan. 30, 2014 - 09:56AM JST

Democrats don't seem to want Obama to campaign for them and they're running away from ACA/Obamacare.

I may disappoint you. Obamacare is doing just fine in my state. My state is the healthiest and thinnest state in USA. You are not told the fact that KY has a huge success rate of Obamacare enrollment where Ron Paul is running against Obamacare. Interesting? It has been a slow response, but I think, it is moving ahead as planned.

MarkGJan. 30, 2014 - 10:02AM JST

What seems to be overlooked is minimum wage jobs are for students and retirees. THEY ARE NOT MEANT TO BE CAREERS.

So are you denying their fair share to equal opportunity in pay and wage under law? Believe or not, when job market is very tight, some with 4 yrs college degree have to get a job like this. Do they to eat like a dog?

bass4funk: he's trying to spend us and our grand kids future into oblivion, putting us into deeper debt, if you put it like that. He's not only trying, he's succeeded!!

In the 4 months before Obama took office, the US lost about 2.6 million jobs. From September 2008 to December 2009, the US lost about 6.9 million jobs.

Do you know what people do when they lose their jobs? They apply for unemployment as well as other government assistance. It doesn't matter if the President were Democrat, Republican, or martian. Government spending in these areas was going to explode no matter what. What Republicans have done is created a narrative that ignores this and instead relies on the old "tax and spend liberal" catchphrase. So people like you make it sound as if Obama went on some spending spree while intentionally not discussing nearly 7 million lost jobs and the increased need for government assistance as a result of it.

It's like watching a friend suddenly get sick, pay out the nose in medical costs, then telling him, "Hey, you're spending a lot more this year than last year. You have to cut back."

You've been asked to talk about some Republican accomplishments over the last 6 years. People have listed what Obama has done. Agree with it or not, at least they have produced a list. You have produced nothing. We are at a time of dire straits and your party is spending time trying to restrict abortion, restrict voting rights, shutting down the government, and pushing us nearly to default. America could use strong Republican leadership right now but you are failing us.

@global, yes, I'm very familiar with Rothbard's Austrian economics background and am in complete agreement with his views. That's truly liberal economics / politics.

Jean ValJeanJan. 30, 2014 - 10:43AM JST

@global, yes, I'm very familiar with Rothbard's Austrian economics background and am in complete agreement with his views. That's truly liberal economics / politics.

Okay, then please summarize in minimum wage theory. I have explained mine to you already.

This number is insignificant compared with Walmart profits. Without that comparison the number is meaningless.

Walmart's profits were $15.7 billion.

Nothing I'm going to list here. Would you list your real name and company here? (My real ne would be easy to find with my company names)

I'm not asking you to reveal your name I'm just asking you to list the companies name. I work for Accenture.

That's just asking for trouble, lots of whack jobs on this site. I'll maintain my privacy thanks.

That is true with every site.

And they will be competing against other players in the industry who will have to play by the exact same rules

Agreed and that is what makes it work.

We will always have a food service industry and hopefully in the future it will be managed by companies who do not need government handouts to survive. We need to weed them out.

Most likely they will just automate the work:

http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/22/robot-serves-up-340-hamburgers-per-hour/

@global, you can read the summary at the previously posted link. Or, the below link:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

Jean ValJeanJan. 30, 2014 - 11:49AM JST

@global, you can read the summary at the previously posted link. Or, the below link:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

I have digested mine to the most easiest form without charts and graphs. What is this?

@strangerland, I'll venture a guess that your employees are not unskilled laborers, nor would they fall under Obama's proposed wage increase. I'll hope that your business(es) is in the private sector.

Now, why doesn't Obama propose a mandatory minimum annual salary of every worker at a more comforable level, say $50,000USD? That would lift the entire lower class out of poverty and into the lower middle class, wouldn't it? Oh, then the unions would protest.

@super

In the 4 months before Obama took office, the US lost about 2.6 million jobs. From September 2008 to December 2009, the US lost about 6.9 million jobs. Do you know what people do when they lose their jobs? They apply for unemployment as well as other government assistance. It doesn't matter if the President were Democrat, Republican, or martian. Government spending in these areas was going to explode no matter what.

Yes, true....now what? Why are welfare and unemployment benefits going up...AGAIN, going up? Because this president is NOT focusing on the economy. But gay marriage, immigration, the minimum wage take the highest priority???? If Clinton and Bush could create jobs in the private sector, why this guy can't? Because he doesn't know how the private sector works.

What Republicans have done is created a narrative that ignores this and instead relies on the old "tax and spend liberal" catchphrase. So people like you make it sound as if Obama went on some spending spree while intentionally not discussing nearly 7 million lost jobs and the increased need for government assistance as a result of it.

Yup, Obama did spend and spend and spend. Oh, I can give you litany of lists on what Obama and this admin. Idiotically spent, wasted money on! He IS the biggest spender ever to occupy the WH. It's NOT only me saying that, but famous Economists as well. Personally, I would never object the republicans giving Obama money, if he would make some cuts somewhere, but Obama wants all the money, doesn't want to save or cut on anything. It's no wonder the Repubs don't want to give him anything.

It's like watching a friend suddenly get sick, pay out the nose in medical costs, then telling him, "Hey, you're spending a lot more this year than last year. You have to cut back."

Straw man argument. No one is saying that.

You've been asked to talk about some Republican accomplishments over the last 6 years.

I already told you in detail. Irrelevant to the thread. But even more fitting to the topic at hand, I'll ask you once again, what are Obama's biggest accomplishments over the last 5 years? And what do you say about, congressman Jim Moran's concern that Obamacare might possibly go belly up?

People have listed what Obama has done.

So far, it's been: high debt, borrowing, welfare, unemployment up, entitlements through the roof, national debt out of control $17 Trillion and going strong, inequality, yeah, I got that as well, but what did he do that was good?

Agree with it or not, at least they have produced a list.

They sure have.

You have produced nothing. We are at a time of dire straits and your party is spending time trying to restrict abortion, restrict voting rights, shutting down the government, and pushing us nearly to default. America could use strong Republican leadership right now but you are failing us.

NOT my party and start with that nonsense, most conservatives that I know fully understand a woman's right to whatever she wants to do, the argument is, give me a reason a woman wants or should be allowed to do a LATE TERM abortion? I'm talking full term? If you don't want it, fine, give it up, there are plenty of people that would want a child, but unless the woman was raped or incest or dire medical situation to either the mom or the child's life, it's not necessary. Or you can come up with a justifiable excuse for it? No one wants to restrict any voting rights, liberal scare tactics at its sloppiest. And as for shutting down the government, pushing us over the brink, yes, it was the Republicans fault, but the beginning and the catalyst for it starting was because of Obama being the snooty person that he is, he could have sat down with Boehner and the Republicans to have worked something out, but he uses Reid as his lap dog to deal with his problems as if Reid wasn't already a headache. America could use a strong president and one that isn't so highly partisan, but sadly, we don't have such a person in the WH.

@JT

People, don't let the blathering of the "independent conservatives" here, or anywhere, fool you: Nearly 3/4 of Americans support raising the minimum wage.

That doesn't take from the fact that 2/3 of all Americans think that while Obama is in office, things will NOT get better. This was a WSJ/NBC poll.

Simply put, Republicans are waaaaaay out of the mainstream on this issue. In fact, on all economic issues except 1, Republicans are on the fringe. And when social and foriegn policy come into play, the are, yeah, you guessed it, on the fringe. That makes them a fringe party.

If they are so out of issue, then why does the Senate look more like it's going to roll back to the Republicans? Impossible to happen if they were a...supposedly fringe group. It's NOT what liberals want you to believe, it's about living in reality. And that hope and change reality, quickly faded into a fantasy.

What seems to be overlooked is minimum wage jobs are for students and retirees. THEY ARE NOT MEANT TO BE CAREERS

When the people cannot afford university, it doesn't matter what the jobs are or aren't meant to be. The fact is that people are living off these jobs, because they are the only jobs they can get to live. The average wage of a McDonalds worker is something like 27 years old now.

I'm not asking you to reveal your name I'm just asking you to list the companies name. I work for Accenture.

I own the companies. Revealing their name would be a short step to revealing my own.

That is true with every site.

And that's why I don't reveal my name on any site.

Walmart's profits were $15.7 billion.

So by paying their employees a living wage, their profits would be reduced 12 billion to 3 billion. Only $3 billion? Oh woe is Walmart.

... And that's only if you consider the salary increase to be a living wage, which in all reality, it's not. That's also assuming Walmart wouldn't increase costs to cover some (if not all) of the salary increases. And before you say that that will kill prices for the consumer: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-walmart-wage-hike-would-cost-you-2013-7

As a completely side note, you'll notice Jean never answered my question about whether it was better to let businesses fail because of non-viable business plan, or continue to survive through the usage of government subsidies.

@global

I may disappoint you. Obamacare is doing just fine in my state. My state is the healthiest and thinnest state in USA. You are not told the fact that KY has a huge success rate of Obamacare enrollment where Ron Paul is running against Obamacare. Interesting? It has been a slow response, but I think, it is moving ahead as planned.

Maybe in your state, but overall, it's NOT looking good for Obamacare at all, sorry. No matter how Dems try to push it, the damage to brand has been done. And NO, the response is NOT slow, all the polls have shown this.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-opposition-highest-poll/2014/01/06/id/545534

But wait, there's more....

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/01/09/poll-nearly-twothirds-of-undecided-2014-voters-disapprove-of-obamacare-n1773796

@strangerland, I'll venture a guess that your employees are not unskilled laborers, nor would they fall under Obama's proposed wage increase. I'll hope that your business(es) is in the private sector.

For the most part you're correct. We do have a secretary who we could theoretically pay minimum wage, but we don't.

Now, why doesn't Obama propose a mandatory minimum annual salary of every worker at a more comforable level, say $50,000USD? That would lift the entire lower class out of poverty and into the lower middle class, wouldn't it? Oh, then the unions would protest.

So it's either nothing, or a ridiculous amount? Extremes are never good. Right now the minimum wage is at one extreme (the low), the number you are proposing is another extreme (the high). Obama is simply looking to move away from one extreme to something a little more reasonable.

Contrary to what you believe, I am not a communist. I believe in balanced capitalism. That is to say restricted capitalism. When it comes down to it, if people don't have motivation, they will not work hard. And as decades of attempts at communism have shown us, it invariably leads to corruption in leadership. But that said, unrestricted capitalism leads to a complete division where you have the haves and the have nots. But the haves don't get there on their own work, they get there on the backs of the have nots. We're all in this together, so while people should have the potential to become rich, they should not be able to get there without also taking care of the people at the bottom. That is the flaw in unrestricted capitalism - the people at the top don't have to give a damn about the people at the bottom, which leads to... well to present-day America. Or most other 3rd world counties.

@strangerland, I left the question unanswered because it's rhetorical. A business that can only continue with the help of subsidies is already a failed business and should be liquidated.

s

bass: Yes, true....now what? Why are welfare and unemployment benefits going up...AGAIN, going up? Because this president is NOT focusing on the economy. But gay marriage, immigration, the minimum wage take the highest priority???? If Clinton and Bush could create jobs in the private sector, why this guy can't? Because he doesn't know how the private sector works.

So if Presidents are responsible for jobs then we can say that Republicans (Bush) killed more jobs than anyone since the Great Depression. Probably because of their deep understanding of how the private sector works.

Look, I really don't pin much blame on Bush since I don't think Presidents really have much control over the number of jobs there are. And on the other hand I don't really pin much blame on Obama for the slow recovery for the same reason. But if you want to play the blame game then stick to the rules and tell the world that Republicans nearly put us into a depression.

I'm ignoring your posts about Obamacare. The fact is that no one really knows what's going to happen with any certainty. And anything you post amounts to confirmation bias anyway so there's no point in having a discussion with you about it.

Lots of people have given examples of things Obama has done. The ACA. Ending the war in Iraq. Ending the war in Afghanistan. Killed Osama Bin Laden. Sanctions on Iran. Now he's focusing on the wealth divide. Whether or not you agree that any of these things were good policy, what is completely lost on you is the fact that as a Republican you cannot even create an actual list for yourself.

When I was younger, your party was a well oiled machine. They were leaders. Now, you won't even admit to being a Republican. I happen to think the Republican party can offer a lot to America if you guys would stop wasting your time nipping at Obama's heels and actually produce some policy and alternatives. Instead you have town hall meetings about impeaching Obama just to make the old, white guys cheer. Your party is polling at their lowest numbers in history. You guys are a complete mess and when you aren't spreading lies about Obama you are stabbing each other in the back for primaries. You guys are flat out petty nowadays and it's just a complete waste of potential from a party that could lead if it got out of its own way.

@strangerland, I used that number rather randomly and to illustrate that there is no "reasonable" centrally planned figure. The value of the work itself (and the valuation comes from the market) determines the wage agreed upon by both the employer and potential employee. Surely, you know this, and it's how you come to agreement with your employees as to their wages.

The proposed minimum wage increase will only affect unskilled workers. The truth is that some or many of these jobs will be eliminated due to budgetary reasons, directly hurting those whom the idea is theoretically to help.

Check the link I posted earlier.

You can call it limited capitalism if you like, or restricted capitalism, but what it really is is modern mercantilism.

@strangerland, I left the question unanswered because it's rhetorical. A business that can only continue with the help of subsidies is already a failed business and should be liquidated.

It's not a rhetorical question, it's a real and existing situation right now. And since you feel that businesses that cannot succeed without government subsidies should be liquidated, you should be in agreement with the minimum wage hike, as it will force businesses to pay employees salary that is being paid by the government right now. But your complaints against the salary hikes seem to indicate you would rather businesses continue to receive these subsidies.

@strangerland, I used that number rather randomly and to illustrate that there is no "reasonable" centrally planned figure.

Whatever you used it for, it was an extreme number, rather than an acknowledgement of the issue, with a balanced number to follow.

The value of the work itself (and the valuation comes from the market) determines the wage agreed upon by both the employer and potential employee.

This ideal of capitalism is as close to American capitalism (and other countries to be fair) as the ideal of communism is to real-world "communism". But the reality is that the people with the money try to get the most they can for the least out of their employees, and the people at the bottom, who need to eat and have a place to live, have no other choice but to take it. Or go on welfare, which means that the government will be paying even more money out.

Surely, you know this, and it's how you come to agreement with your employees as to their wages.

We put out job offers at a salary we think will encourage people to want to work for us. We most definitely could get people for cheaper, but feel it's better for our business to pay what we do.

Jean ValJeanJan. 30, 2014 - 01:25PM JST

Now, why doesn't Obama propose a mandatory minimum annual salary of every worker at a more comforable level, say $50,000USD? That would lift the entire lower class out of poverty and into the lower middle class, wouldn't it? Oh, then the unions would protest.

Just in case you are not kidding, I better post this.

The wages in a competitive market are determined by demand and supply.

An increase in demand or a reduction in supply will INCREASE the equilibrium of wages.

A reduction in demand or a increase in supply will REDUCE the equilibrium of wages.

The government may respond to low wages for some workers by increasing minimum wage when the wage is falling below the equilibrium.

Jean ValJeanJan. 30, 2014 - 03:32PM JST

@strangerland, I left the question unanswered because it's rhetorical. A business that can only continue with the help of subsidies is already a failed business and should be liquidated.

Sure, let Walmart go. The Walmart is a biggest government subsidiary abuser. This has been discussed here many times by others. Hope you can grasp the concept here.

Jean ValJeanJan. 30, 2014 - 11:49AM JST

@global, you can read the summary at the previously posted link. Or, the below link: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Minimum_wage -

I only received a copy/paste of wiki link from you on this topic. It does not say anything how you are deriving to your own conclusions.

@global,

http://mises.org/daily/6367/Outlawing-Jobs-The-Minimum-Wage

I'm not going to hold your hand through my thought process nor write it out for you, but you can read the brief yourself.

Yes, the $50,000 idea was simply to illustrate the foolish thinking behind setting a "minimum" wage.

I'm bored with this thread now.

The very fact that I've shown how not increasing the minimum wage requires government subsidies, thereby subsidizing businesses, which you have agreed is no good, and you still are sticking to the idea that an increase in minimum wages, shows that you are discussing purely based on ideological lines, rather than an actual interest in choosing the best course, independently of ideology.

This is the problem with the republicans in America. They have no interest in improving conditions, they just want to point out how they think Obama is bad.

Again, you said it RADICAL PROGRESSIVE AGENDA!

No, I did not say "radical." It is quite a moderate progressive agenda. You conservatives had better take care; when Lenin remarked, "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them," he was speaking a human truism.

There is NO way on God's green Earth that the Conservatives especially at this point in time work with this toxic president...

There was no way on God's green earth that the conservatives would ever work with this president. Have you been following the news over the past six years? The conservatives decided in 2008 to shut down Congress and as much of the Federal branch as possible to freeze Obama's presidency into amber. You may agree or not with this strategy, but you cannot deny the damage the failure to address challenges has done to America over the past six years.

...but you think, the Dems will get the House back this year????

Not likely, both for cyclical and gerrymandering issues; they'll probably win the popular vote but fail to take the House, just like in the last election.

... they'd be lucky if they can keep the Senate...

Again, with more Dems up this year than Repubs, the cycle goes against them, but I'll put my money on the Dems. In fact, I'll put my money on McConnel, the Minority Leader of the Senate, losing his seat to a Dem this year - in Kentucky!

Every poll is showing that Dems are in a panic mode this year and Obamacare will be their undoing....

Cite the polls. Did you notice that Repubs in their SOTU rebuttals did not call for abolition of the ACA? The writing is on the wall: Any Repub who calls for, say, kicking young adults off of their parents' insurance or cancelling insurance of poor people who hitherto had none will pay for it in the polls. Sorry - that story is done with.

As for Obama's accomplishments - much has been written above about them. I'd add that he stopped what could justifiably be termed a GOP juggernaut of almost treasonous character against an elected president and ensured that no Republican will succeed him in office.

@strangerland, in fact you haven't shown anything but rather have made assertion with no evidentiary basis.

So where am I incorrect?

I'd add that he... ensured that no Republican will succeed him in office.

I'd argue they've stopped themselves. He's just been the catalyst for it.

@strangerland, where you are incorrect is in the data.

Please don't take my word for it, but do look at the empirical data.

http://www.jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=Studies&ContentRecord_id=3A0C3A1E-D6C0-4A17-B597-CD26F3ACAA7E

Most people don't want equality of outcomes, but right now even equality of opportunity is at stake in the US.

StrangerlandJan. 30, 2014 - 06:28PM JST

The very fact that I've shown how not increasing the minimum wage requires government subsidies, thereby subsidizing businesses, which you have agreed is no good, and you still are sticking to the idea that an increase in minimum wages, shows that you are discussing purely based on ideological lines, rather than an actual interest in choosing the best course, independently of ideology. This is the problem with the republicans in America. They have no interest in improving conditions, they just want to point out how they think Obama is bad.

Well, said, Strangeerland. Tea Republicans are careless about workers. We, Democrats, understand that they are actually for a big business. As long as they can squeeze government subsidies money out to their business,. they are happy. Oil companies including the Koch family have been squeezing billions every year. That's what Obama was saying that the 1% of Americans are controlling this country. It is very sad people like bass, Jean are fighting for those people. I do not think they are grasping the economic concepts as well as we do.

And which points from that show me to be wrong, and specifically, which points of what I said were wrong?

I can post links to studies too https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15038936/Dube_MinimumWagesFamilyIncomes.pdf.

All you are doing is continuing to argue along ideological lines. Even when I've shown how the current minimum wage requires subsidization by the government, something Republicans claim to despise, you are still arguing the republican line. That shows a lack of interest in the truth, and interest only in criticizing Obama.

I'd argue they've stopped themselves. He's just been the catalyst for it.

I agree to a point. I'd mentioned before that I believe Obama will be viewed as a transitional figure - i.e., a guy with a foot in both camps. Still, that does not denigrate his contribution to the progressive cause. Consider the tone of his SOTU: many in the GOP figured he'd come out swinging, but conversely, he was adamant without being combative. Despite what must be inner despair over what GOP intransigence has done to his presidency, he knows that anger will not help the progressive cause, especially in a midterm election year. Humor and hope survive, amazingly, even at this stage. He will do what he has to do to further progressive issues, he will ensure that the public is aware that he is doing so, and he will set the stage for the autumn elections.

He's definitely been a lot more bipartisan than the Republicans would have you believe, and the democrats would have had. No doubts about that.

It is very sad people like bass, Jean are fighting for those people. I do not think they are grasping the economic concepts as well as we do.

I asked a Republican friend of mine years back, who was not a wealthy person, how he could be a republican. He said that fiscally they appeal to the richest of the rich, and they get the people who don't fall into that bracket by appealing to their Christian morals. So I asked again how he could be a republican - "they appeal to my Christian morals".

Ironically, it is probably true that being "the first (insert word) President" loads a great deal of pressure not to screw up and thus to hew to the conservative side. That is probably a very great reason why Obama has turned out more conservative than many of us had hoped, and why I suppose (and hope, actually) that Hillary will end up not running in 2016.

StrangerlandJan. 30, 2014 - 10:53PM JST

It is very sad people like bass, Jean are fighting for those people. I do not think they are grasping the economic concepts as well as we do. I asked a Republican friend of mine years back, who was not a wealthy person, how he could be a republican. He said that fiscally they appeal to the richest of the rich, and they get the people who don't fall into that bracket by appealing to their Christian morals. So I asked again how he could be a republican - "they appeal to my Christian morals".

Interesting fact is that both are not Christians. I asked that question long time ago to them. I know bass has no economic background. Jean cannot come up with his own economic theory while I am willing to write a detailed solid theory with mathematics. My guess is that they are just following other cows.

Laguna

If Clinton runs, she has a great chance of winning. Americans like her over any and all Republican matchups. For that reason alone, I'd support her.

One bonus about the Clintons, they meet Republican bullying head on. I'd like to see more from Obama on that.

I own the companies. Revealing their name would be a short step to revealing my own.

Then stop revealing that you own the companies...What industry are they in?

And that's why I don't reveal my name on any site.

So then you don't reveal your name on the companies website correct? You are not on Linkedin?

So by paying their employees a living wage, their profits would be reduced 12 billion to 3 billion. Only $3 billion? Oh woe is Walmart.

Oh I'm not in disagreement I'm just pointing out that a $3 dollar increase in hourly wages across the board for each employee is not chump change especially for a company the size of Walmart. You strongly implied in a previous comment that a $3 dollar increase would be basically a trivial increase in operating costs for Walmart, I'm just pointing out that a $3 dollar increase is a lot/huge increase. A lot of people seem to be under this illusion that companies can easily afford a 1 or 2 or even 3 dollar increase in hourly wages across the board.

$3 billion dollars in profit on a revenue of $450 billion is razor thin, don't trivialize it; any one misstep in terms of store launches or product safety and that $3 billion dollar is gone, or heck even just changing store layouts can cost them that much. It is like the oil or pharmaceutical industry they make billions in profits but people don't seem to realize that it costs billion of dollars in research and development or even just building the facilities, oil rigs/drill ships are now starting to cost billions of dollars to make, pharmaceutical companies make billions of dollars in profits because it takes billions of dollars to make on successful drug.

@super

So if Presidents are responsible for jobs then we can say that Republicans (Bush) killed more jobs than anyone since the Great Depression. Probably because of their deep understanding of how the private sector works.

Not true, another debunked myth. Why you liberals get it wrong every time.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/reid-wrong-on-bushs-economic-record/

Look, I really don't pin much blame on Bush since I don't think Presidents really have much control over the number of jobs there are. And on the other hand I don't really pin much blame on Obama for the slow recovery for the same reason. But if you want to play the blame game then stick to the rules and tell the world that Republicans nearly put us into a depression.

And the Dems put us in a much steeper and deeper financial hole, what Bush did, Obama tripled it and I'm not playing any games. Just stating the facts.

I never said, the Republicans were Saints, on the contrary. But, I am not a cow towing following and jumping off the cliff like everyone else kind of person.

I'm ignoring your posts about Obamacare. But since you don't want to check the link as far as what outgoing congressman Jim Moran was saying about the failing system, here is a direct quote.

“I’m afraid that the millennials, if you will, are less likely to sign up. I think they feel more independent, I think they feel a little more invulnerable than prior generations. But I don’t think we’re going to get enough young people signing up to make this bill work as it was intended to financially,” “And, frankly, there’s some legitimacy to their concern because the government spends about $7 for the elderly for every $1 it spends on the young,” Moran said. “I just don’t know how we’re going to do it frankly. If we had a solution I’d be telling the president right now,” Moran said.

Moran is no small fish Democrat, he was a top dog and staunch supporter of this piece of work. Now he's retiring, he doesn't have to worry about what people say or reprisals, he just called out the whole system for what it really is. And he knows full well, even if he tried to give this stubborn president some advice, he wouldn't listen, he never does, so why bother?

Hey, the truth is the best disinfectant. Liberals need to hear more of it, starting with the President.

The fact is that no one really knows what's going to happen with any certainty. And anything you post amounts to confirmation bias anyway so there's no point in having a discussion with you about it.

Not bias, just the fact is, Obamacare had a horrible launch, billions were spent and the system doesn't work, people's private information compromised, tax payer money wasted.

Lots of people have given examples of things Obama has done. The ACA. Ending the war in Iraq. Ending the war in Afghanistan. Killed Osama Bin Laden. Sanctions on Iran.

Obamacare-FAILED. Iraq-40% of the country back in the hands of Al Qaeda, NEVER followed up and maintained the SOFA agreement-FAILED. Afghanistan-didn't believe in his own military strategy and yet, sent troops into a war to prove a political point, second, the Taliban has returned-FAILED. OBL Obama with the help of Bush, happened on Obama's watch, so he gets the main credit, but Bush was a huge architect in help putting it together to make Obama's job easier, so if you want to be seriously PC, both get the HIGH FIVE. Iran-sanctions did nothing, they still are making a bomb, much slower, but still-FAILED!

That's 1 out of 5.....not good.

Now he's focusing on the wealth divide. Whether or not you agree that any of these things were good policy, what is completely lost on you is the fact that as a Republican you cannot even create an actual list for yourself.

I want equality just like every other person, I just think the liberal approach of big government is NOT the way to do it. The country works a lot better, if the government would keep its nose out of people's lives and allow the private sector to flourish and thrive. Too much Government intervention impedes growth.

When I was younger, your party was a well oiled machine. They were leaders. Now, you won't even admit to being a Republican. I happen to think the Republican party can offer a lot to America if you guys would stop wasting your time nipping at Obama's heels and actually produce some policy and alternatives. Instead you have town hall meetings about impeaching Obama just to make the old, white guys cheer. Your party is polling at their lowest numbers in history. You guys are a complete mess and when you aren't spreading lies about Obama you are stabbing each other in the back for primaries. You guys are flat out petty nowadays and it's just a complete waste of potential from a party that could lead if it got out of its own way.

I could say, the exact opposite about Democrats as well, in a nutshell. The only main difference, liberals always love to use and inject RACE into every argument and I find that offensive, insulting and troubling to all Americans. Dems are the people that keep making RACE the issue.

I'm just pointing out that a $3 dollar increase is a lot/huge increase

The total wage increase has to be greater than government subsidiary (welfare) so that low skilled workers are motivated to get work.

Bass, my point still stands that I don't think politicians have an much impact on job creation as most people believe. That's why you really don't see me blaming Bush unless it's a response to people blaming Obama. You will pull out specific links defending Bush while using sweeping generalizations to attack Obama. Government can have a negative impact though, especially when they shut down the government or threaten to default on the debt which would be chaos. Economists have pointed to this uncertainty as a big, big reason why companies held back on hiring.

I'm still ignoring your posts about Obamacare. You are engaging in selective bias and unless that changes we'll just agree to disagree.

That's 1 out of 5.....not good

Still waiting for your list of Republican accomplishments. In a different thread you said you couldn't post it because the MODS would deem it off-topic, and now you're not posting it.....well, I really don't know why. But you've been asked and you have delivered nothing. Until you put some skin into the game and actually provide a list I'm going to stand by my point that the list simply doesn't exist.

I want equality just like every other person, I just think the liberal approach of big government is NOT the way to do it. The country works a lot better, if the government would keep its nose out of people's lives and allow the private sector to flourish and thrive. Too much Government intervention impedes growth.

The government has grown for decades regardless of who the President was. It's not a "liberal" thing. I don't think you're honest when you present Obama's spending while intentionally ignoring the loss of 8 million jobs. Again, spending would have exploded regardless of who the President was. Republicans are trying to gloss over the facts and present catchphrases (liberal spender!) to energize their base and in the end that's bad for America. There are countless studies that show how Bush's increase in spending was due to choices (wars, tax cuts) and Obama's was due to necessity (stimulus, unemployment). Not all spending is equal so stop dumbing down the numbers and attaching catchphrases.

my point still stands that I don't think politicians have an much impact on job creation as most people believe. That's why you really don't see me blaming Bush unless it's a response to people blaming Obama. You will pull out specific links defending Bush while using sweeping generalizations to attack Obama. Government can have a negative impact though, especially when they shut down the government or threaten to default on the debt which would be chaos. Economists have pointed to this uncertainty as a big, big reason why companies held back on hiring.

If that were true, then why do we need a jobs czar that is appointed by the president. Of course, the president and his policies play a big role in shaping the job market and as such in the private sector, Obama for the middle class and the poor and minorities has been an absolute disaster, this is a fact, not my personal, but realistic.

The government has grown for decades regardless of who the President was. It's not a "liberal" thing. I don't think you're honest when you present Obama's spending while intentionally ignoring the loss of 8 million jobs. Again, spending would have exploded regardless of who the President was. Republicans are trying to gloss over the facts and present catchphrases (liberal spender!) to energize their base and in the end that's bad for America. There are countless studies that show how Bush's increase in spending was due to choices (wars, tax cuts) and Obama's was due to necessity (stimulus, unemployment). Not all spending is equal so stop dumbing down the numbers and attaching catchphrases.

The stimulus that Obama injected into the economy did NOT produce millions of jobs and a big chunk of that went to fund other pet projects that went belly up. Don't make it as if Obama is this great job creator. If you are talking about government jobs, in sates like NY and CA. Well, In that sense, Obama is Champion. One of my friends who is a staunch Obamabot is a high school teacher. He makes about $80K a year, retired at 50 and will get of $4 grand a month retirement a month. How is it that a high school teacher at a public high school can earn so much. Same goes for other public servers. Cops in LA depending start off with almost close to $50K clock in retirement after 10years. The system is so messed up. I don't begrudge anybody wanting to make money, but if you want to do that, go to the private sector. This is why CA is in the financial toilet. Entitlements are killing CA. Liberals have expanded the government apparatus on every level in our society. That's the problem. Again, BIG government is what destroyed my state.

@JT

If Clinton runs, she has a great chance of winning.

Nope, that won't be easy, not as long as she doesn't fess up about Benghazi, plus she has other problems that will come up, so she's in a real tight spot.

Americans like her over any and all Republican matchups.

Not the far Left Progressives, that's for sure. She is too conservative for them. Also 8 years in the WH and 1 year as Secretary of State add to that! her age, it's NOT going to be that easy, let's just say. So a shoe-in, definitely NOT!

One bonus about the Clintons, they meet Republican bullying head on. I'd like to see more from Obama on that.

It's called, "dodge and evade question" due to the result of wrong doing. Yes, the Clinton's and Obama are born naturals when it comes to that.

@laguna

He will do what he has to do to further progressive issues, he will ensure that the public is aware that he is doing so, and he will set the stage for the autumn elections.

If that's true and ANY Democrat that campaigns with Obama this year, is dead meat, NOT just dead meat, smoked meat. Any democrat that is linked to Obamacare and who supported it, won't have a snowballs chance in Hell. For their own survival, I will give it until spring where you will start hearing about many defections, of they want to politically survive this, they will have to distance themselves from Obama.

Ironically, it is probably true that being "the first (insert word) President" loads a great deal of pressure not to screw up and thus to hew to the conservative side. That is probably a very great reason why Obama has turned out more conservative than many of us had hoped, and why I suppose (and hope, actually) that Hillary will end up not running in 2016.

You mean BLACK president? So much for Trying Not to screw up. The problem is, in the future, will we be able to undo and correct many of these screw ups! And if he's conservative you are really about to give me a heart attack! I can't even begin to imagine what a liberal Obama would be like, sheeeeesh! And as for Mrs. Clinton, I'm with you on that.

I'm going to say this just one time. Viewing the empirical data, it is plain to see that raising the so-called minimum wage has resulted in an increase of unemployment every time, and the very people whom said increase hurts are the very people the legislation claims to intend to help. It's not an ideological argument but an observation of plain facts.

If you think I'm defending the 1%, then you're out of your mind.

Then stop revealing that you own the companies...What industry are they in?

The business industry

So then you don't reveal your name on the companies website correct? You are not on Linkedin?

As a matter of fact, my name isn't on our company site, and I don't use linked in.

I'm just pointing out that a $3 dollar increase in hourly wages across the board for each employee is not chump change especially for a company the size of Walmart. You strongly implied in a previous comment that a $3 dollar increase would be basically a trivial increase in operating costs for Walmart,

Walmart revenues 2011: $447 million. Walmart profit 2011: $15 billion. Therefore operating costs were ~ $432 billion.

12 / 432 = ~2.7%. I'd say a 2.7% increase in operating costs is trivial.

$3 billion dollars in profit on a revenue of $450 billion is razor thin, don't trivialize it; any one misstep in terms of store launches or product safety and that $3 billion dollar is gone, or heck even just changing store layouts can cost them that much.

I agree, and it shows that Walmart has a non-viable business plan. They are only able to survive because their employees are living off government subsidies. Who can forget the food drive they had for their own employees this Christmas? Walmart is cheap cheap cheap, but the government pays pays pays. People want those cheap everyday prices, but in order to get them they have to accept that either their taxes need to increase, or their debt will increase. You cannot have it both ways.

I'm going to say this just one time. Viewing the empirical data, it is plain to see that raising the so-called minimum wage has resulted in an increase of unemployment every time, and the very people whom said increase hurts are the very people the legislation claims to intend to help. It's not an ideological argument but an observation of plain facts.

And it's also been shown that raising the minimum wage decreases overall poverty levels. What actually happens is that initially some people lose their jobs, then as the market balances back out, more people get hired, and overall, everyone is a little better off. You also have the government subsidizing salaries less.

The question is, which do you prefer, subsidizing companies, or having some people lose their jobs because the companies are not being subsidized anymore? You can't have both.

Jean ValJeanJan. 31, 2014 - 03:49PM JST

I'm going to say this just one time. Viewing the empirical data, it is plain to see that raising the so-called minimum wage has resulted in an increase of unemployment every time, and the very people whom said increase hurts are the very people the legislation claims to intend to help. It's not an ideological argument but an observation of plain facts.

If you think I'm defending the 1%, then you're out of your mind.

No, Jean. according to stats, more than 78% voters always welcome the minimum wage increase. In the past, political candidates who campaigned against were ALL not re-elected.

This is a great political win for the President in 2014, and this is a great win for minimum wage US workers. A 2/3 of minimum wage workers are women voters.

The new GDP stats that was just released showing we are in long term uptrend move, I believe he casted the idea at the right time. Sen. Ron Paul reluctantly avoided to answer his direct response to national media reporters about it. He knew his response of "NO" to minimum wage increase will automatically remove him from the Presidential race of 2016. That's how critical this issue is.

I believe YOU are out your mind.

Bass, still waiting for that list of Republican accomplishments.

Republican accomplishments.

Nada, just beating drums.

Bass, still waiting for that list of Republican accomplishments.

Preventing Obama from getting the government involved in every facet of American life from birth to death would be a fantastic accomplishment. By just saying "no" to Obammunism for the next three years and Republicans can feel satisfied with their service to their country.

Notice how Obama - like all socialists - wants to go around the peoples representatives in Congress by making unilateral laws all on his own. Who needs a Congress when America can be made into a nation of one man - the Messiah Obama - instead of a nation of laws. Who needs a Constitution when you have 51% of the voting public willing to vote him into office in order to appropriate the personal liberties of the other 49% for their own benefit. Working with Congress and taking anything less than 100% of what he wants is beneath this president. He need only take up his scepter and declare all men economically and socially equal and viola - it is done! Running a country just seems so easy for a man that sits so far to the Left he rubs shoulders with such great worlds leaders as Hugo Chavez.

Preventing Obama from getting the government involved in every facet of American life from birth to death would be a fantastic accomplishment. By just saying "no" to Obammunism for the next three years and Republicans can feel satisfied with their service to their country. [...]

What childish drivel. "Obammunism"...Really? If anyone needed evidence of how silly it's gotten, there's the term to illustrate. Short on specifics.. Is he talking about Executive Orders? Couldn't be. Bush signed more of them.

Republican accomplishments.

Nada, just beating drums.

Worse than nada...

Bush did the same thing so it's okay for Obama? Now that is childish drivel. Obammunisn is a perfect term to describe the American progressives unique idea of collectivist government. Short on specifics? I need only refer you to Obama's own campaign ad in which an American citizen is born supported by government and lives her entire life through government programs. If that isn't specific enough for you then please go ask the Democrat party and the Obama administration to fill in the blanks for you. I'm sure there is a government agency they can refer you to so you will not miss out on all of the great things that your government can do for you.

Bush did the same thing so it's okay for Obama?

Same thing as every president since George Washington save 1. Being purposely obtuse?

Short on specifics?

A campaign ad.... why am I not surprised?

"Obamunism" is a meme spread to play (and sell bumper stickers to) slack-jawed dullards who wouldn't understand a more sophisticated reason as to why they're not supposed to like Obama.

specifics a la, Republicans would:

eliminate the minimum wage defund OSHA eliminate food stamps ...

@super

You never answered MY question, so....

@global

Didn't you brag that Obamacare is well loved? you already got debunked, let's not even go there...

@gcbel

What childish drivel. "Obammunism"...Really? If anyone needed evidence of how silly it's gotten, there's the term to illustrate. Short on specifics.. Is he talking about Executive Orders? Couldn't be. Bush signed more of them.

Silly, is when you have a president that BS people that he's created massive jobs for the country when many of the reports are skewed. No one claimed otherwise, the difference is fundamentally that Obama never addressed any of the debt that the US is racking up or if any of his failed policies that everyone knows will fail, why would congress want to authorize anything if they know it's going to harm the country? All the more so for Obama to work with congress, but threatening to use his pen? The silver lining in all of this is, at least he can't get re-elected again. This too, shall pass.

gcbel: Same thing as every president since George Washington save 1. Being purposely obtuse?

I'm guessing you don't know what obtuse means. No president in American history - save a few since Wilson - have sought to involve the federal government in every aspect of America life from birth to death. No president except for FDR and LBJ has sought to take away more individual choices and freedoms than Obama. That isn't even in dispute. That is a simple fact that is rather easy to comprehend.

specifics a la, Republicans would: - eliminate the minimum wage - defund OSHA - eliminate food stamps - ...

This fallacy that Republicans want to "eliminate" the minimum wage and get rid of OSHA and food stamps is ludicrous. Care to provide any specifics on this wild belief on your part? Can you name any politician that wants to eliminate these things? Can you give the title of the legislation that purports to make these things happen? Where are the specifics?

Still no specifics. Just bumper sticker, thought-terminating clichés... "That isn't even in dispute."

This fallacy that Republicans want to "eliminate" the minimum wage and get rid of OSHA and food stamps is ludicrous.

You're kidding yourself.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, the ranking member of the Senate Labor committee would abolish it. Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, Herman Cain (sorta), Joe Miller, Rand Paul (eh... sorta... he's not sure what he's saying)... Rubio doesn't think minimum wage laws "work" (wouldn't you eliminate something you think doesn't work?).

OSHA... i said defund OSHA. not eliminate it (that purposely obtuse thing there again). Easier to cut the budget and make it impotent without incurring the political cost of appearing not to care about workers. As to whether Republicans would cut OSHA's budget ... Well, google is your friend.

I think folks have you figured out.

bass4funkFeb. 02, 2014 - 05:51AM JST

@global

Didn't you brag that Obamacare is well loved? you already got debunked, let's not even go there...

It is well loved in my state no matter what you say. That's what it matters.

@global

Not me, I don't need it. All the stats show it's more unpopular now than ever. What State is that you live in again? Let's really see if there is truth to that. I'm waiting.....

@gcbel: Still no specifics. Just bumper sticker, thought-terminating clichés... "That isn't even in dispute."

Alright, what kind of specifics do you require? My contention is that Obama's policies are taking away the rights of individual citizens to make their own choices in life. When government forces you to do something on threat of fine or punishment I don't see how you can argue otherwise. Just because you and like minded people think someone should do what the government tells them to do doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you - no matter how much you wish it were so. It strikes me as odd that those on the Left can understand this concept when it comes to abortion but not for anything else.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, the ranking member of the Senate Labor committee would abolish it. Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, Herman Cain (sorta), Joe Miller, Rand Paul (eh... sorta... he's not sure what he's saying)... Rubio doesn't think minimum wage laws "work" (wouldn't you eliminate something you think doesn't work?).

Now you are simply doing when you asset I am doing. Where are your specifics? These people want to reduce government involvement in private life - not eliminate it. Can you cite a single bill or law that any of these people have sponsored to abolish any of these public welfare programs? I ask again, where are your specifics?

OSHA... i said defund OSHA. not eliminate it (that purposely obtuse thing there again).

Yes I understand that you said "defund". Here is another instance where you use a word that you apparently do not understand. To defund something is to "withdraw funding". Without funding how can a government program exist? If you had said "reduced funding" then you would have no argument from me. That is something I would like to see as well. I do not know of any legislation in Congress to defund - and therefore eliminate - any social welfare program. If you know of any please tell me so I will not misunderstand the motives of these lawmakers.

I think folks have you figured out.

Maybe so. But I have figured out that gcbel makes demands for specifics that he is unwilling or too lazy to provide himself. He also makes use of words in a lazy fashion finding himself caught making untrue assertions.

Inequality in America has actually increased during the period of the Obama recovery since 2009. Here are some details to prove that; poverty in America has gone up under Obama and during the Obama recovery, public assistance program costs have gone up during the Obama recovery (in particular food stamps). Under Obama the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer.

Obama should not have been challenging Congress over inequality - he should be challenging himself.

@global

I'm still waiting for that name of your town.

As a matter of fact, my name isn't on our company site, and I don't use linked in.

So then what are you afraid of? What are the names of the company?

Walmart revenues 2011: $447 million. Walmart profit 2011: $15 billion. Therefore operating costs were ~ $432 billion. 12 / 432 = ~2.7%. I'd say a 2.7% increase in operating costs is trivial.

That is only true when it is a slight decrease in profits; a 2.7% increase in operating costs that eats 75% of your profits is not trivial.

My contention is that Obama's policies are taking away the rights of individual citizens to make their own choices in life. When government forces you to do something on threat of fine or punishment I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Government has been forcing citizens do things on threat of fine or punishment since before we've even had a constitution. I'm guessing you don't disagree with that. Mandating health insurance (assuming that's what you're on about) hardly represents the end of the right of individual citizens to make their own choices in life. If you couldn't afford health insurance, you didn't have a choice. If you had a pre-existing condition too bad, you didn't have a choice. In any case Republicans didn't seem to have a problem with the individual mandate until Obama went along with it. Or were you referring to something else?

Choices as to health care; The former governor of my state (R.) wanted to require women to take a not medically necessary trans-vaginal probe when contemplating abortion; Do you not consider that removing choice... ? Don't TRAP laws remove choice ? Don't laws / constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage limit the rights of some citizens to make choices? etc.

Can you name any politician that wants to eliminate these things?

I gave you names. That supports my contention about the Republican view of these programs.

I note you carefully skipped the part: "Easier to cut the budget and make it impotent without incurring the political cost of appearing not to care about workers." You see, you can partially defund a program (such as defunding the discretionary elements of Obamacare) without coming out and eliminating it.

gcbel－you did not state 'partially defund'. You wrote 'defund'. Look, you lost that one - just move on to a different topic.

Mandating health insurance (assuming that's what you're on about) hardly represents the end of the right of individual citizens to make their own choices in life.

Yes it does. The government is controlling your health care by controlling the health care insurance companies through which you get health care provided; then colludes with the insurance companies by mandating that you buy their product. I am not against government providing non-welfare services such as health care. I am just against the government telling you that you must participate in their scheme. Give me a choice to opt out and not participate. But no, the government forces me to participate in ObamaCare, Social Security, and Medicaid. That is wrong. I do not believe in the same things that you do - please do not coerce me into it. I guess you can say I am pro-choice!

gcbel - you did not state 'partially defund'. You wrote 'defund'. Look, you lost that one - just move on to a different topic.

Oh please. You think you can browbeat me? I stated what I stated and I stand by it. You 're being purposely obtuse and any reader can see that. But, yes, let's move on.

Yes it does. The government is controlling your health care by controlling the health care insurance companies through which you get health care provided;

Well, now you're finally getting specific... Moving on from bumper stickerisms. So, all your blathering about "Obamamunists.... Messiah Obama ... Government involved in every facet of American life from birth to death" is about Obamacare. Okay.

But no, the government forces me to participate in ObamaCare, Social Security, and Medicaid. That is wrong. I do not believe in the same things that you do - please do not coerce me into it. I guess you can say I am pro-choice

You do know that Social security and Medicaid are not new.? "Obama" didn't create these programs. "Obama" didn't coerce you into it. We, as a society, through our elected officials, agreed to these programs as to how we organize for the common good, to ensure our senior citizens get health care, retirement. You don't have to accept it though. You do have a choice. You can either convince a sufficient number of our fellow citizens that Obamacare, SS, and Medicaid should be abolished or you can leave.

Americans want affordable healthcare available to all Americans. Americans don't want insurance companies to be able to exclude them for pre-existing conditions. etc. Therefore Americans want health insurance companies to abide by certain rules. Now Obamacare isn't ideal. It's a work in progress. But it's pretty clear that Americans, like citizens in almost every other developed country, think universal health coverage, like unemployment and pension schemes are how we should be organizing for the common good. These aren't systems that can afford free-riders.

And, again, government has been forcing people to do things they don't believe in since the foundation of our country; paying taxes for purposes people object to, drafting them for wars they don't want to fight in. This is part and parcel of living in a society like ours.

Choices as to health care; The former governor of my state (R.) wanted to require women to take a not medically necessary trans-vaginal probe when contemplating abortion; Do you not consider that removing choice... ? Don't TRAP laws remove choice ? Don't laws / constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage limit the rights of some citizens to make choices? etc.

... No, comment, eh?

You're pro your own choices .

Here me now after his presidency you will hear that OBAMA was nothing but a man of mouth who spoke to those who would give him what he wanted in turn. He will become the worst president of all time, and truth be told a womanizer. If you know anything about CHICAGO POLITICS you have to be a crook to play in that game and believe me because you will hear and read later that he was and is a crook and his wife will leave him!!

@gcbel:

Oh please. You think you can browbeat me?

No, I do not. We are both just folks posting on a news forum.

I stated what I stated and I stand by it. You 're being purposely obtuse and any reader can see that.

I believe it is you that continues to state that conservatives want to "defund" government when they say nothing of the sort. Then when called on it say that you really meant "partially fund" as if somehow they are synonymous. Therefore, your use of obtuse is well, obtuse.

Government involved in every facet of American life from birth to death" is about Obamacare. Okay.

I didn't say it was. But it is a big and symbolic part of it.

You do know that Social security and Medicaid are not new.? "Obama" didn't create these programs.

I didn't say they were new or that Obama created them.

"Obama" didn't coerce you into it.

I didn't say that Obama did - but he does support and enforce that coercion.

We, as a society, through our elected officials, agreed to these programs as to how we organize for the common good, to ensure our senior citizens get health care, retirement.

Social Security and Medicaid came into being before I was even born - I had no say in it. All of the money I have contributed to SS has already been spent and future generations will have to pay to make up for that - I don't think that's right. The country has made a huge claim on the income of future generations (and leaving a staggering debt). That's wrong no matter how many of our elected officials voted for it. We as a society will pay a heavy price for our misplaced kindness.

You don't have to accept it though. You can either convince a sufficient number of our fellow citizens that Obamacare, SS, and Medicaid should be abolished or you can leave.

You are wrong - I have no choice. If the government would refund my money I would gladly not participate in those programs. The problem is they will not give it back; therefore, I have no choice. Believe me I do try to convince Americans that the big entitlement programs should be reformed. No, I will not leave and forfeit my property without a fight. That is quite a selfish way of thinking on your part. The fact is that in my lifetime these entitlement programs will begin to exhaust themselves and will cause a huge social dislocation. Unfortunately for me, this will occur right at about the time I would need to get back my contribution. The sooner Americans decide to avert the mathematical certainty brought on by an aging society the better off they will all be. But people like you insist that everyone join in the misery. I know you mean well but Marx meant well too - and boy was he wrong.

Americans want affordable healthcare available to all Americans.

I think most Americans do and for that reason, ObamaCare must go.

Now Obamacare isn't ideal. It's a work in progress.

You got that right. All of those people that lost their insurance and all of those that will lose their insurance later this year know it isn't a good deal. That is why most people do not support it. It's only a work in progress because it was ill conceived from the outset and Obama is unilaterally changing the law to mitigate it's ill effects.

And, again, government has been forcing people to do things they don't believe in since the foundation of our country; paying taxes for purposes people object to, drafting them for wars they don't want to fight in. This is part and parcel of living in a society like ours.

I am okay with the basic obligations of citizenship. I served in the military. I pay my taxes - boy do I ever. But America was not founded to be run by an elitist group of aristocrats in a far off capitol micromanaging the daily affairs of it's subjects. America is becoming the very thing that compelled it to separate from the British empire. You do not see that because you like the idea of people living in a way that you think is best for them.

Choices as to health care; The former governor of my state (R.) wanted to require women to take a not medically necessary trans-vaginal probe when contemplating abortion; Do you not consider that removing choice...

Yes I do. I do not support the government telling doctors and patients what procedures they must use. However, I do think that it should be ascertained whether or not the child has a heartbeat and/or a brain waves before it is aborted. These can be determined using any number of different methods. The doctor and the pregnant women could decide on that.

Don't laws / constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage limit the rights of some citizens to make choices? etc.

Yes, it does. I do not favor such an amendment to the constitution. Moreover, I think the government should not even be involved in marriage at all. It isn't for the government to say who I can or cannot spend the rest of my life with. In fact, even with gay marriage the law remains discriminatory against other categories of consenting adults that would like to marry.

You're pro your own choices .

No, I am pro liberty for everyone. I do not want anyone telling anyone else what they have to do beyond the very limited means by which ones personal safety, liberty, and property are protected. That does not exclude anyone from joining together and forming their own private ObamaCare if that is what they believe is in their and societies best interest. I just don't agree that it is. I really don't see how ObamaCare could be such a great thing if you have to coerce people to participate. I would prefer that others allow me the choice of how I go about my own health care without being coerced into participating in what 51% (ie. the mob) believes is best for me.

Obama is perpetuating inequality and the evidence is coming in already in the economic data since the Obama recovery began in 2009. Does it not strike anyone as ironic that Obama is going around the country complaining about income inequality in the sixth year of his presidency?

bass4funk: You never answered MY question, so....

I made a list of accomplishments. Two others did as well. You are having trouble making on for yourself....?

bass4funkFeb. 02, 2014 - 07:10PM JST

@global

Not me, I don't need it. All the stats show it's more unpopular now than ever. What State is that you live in again? Let's really see if there is truth to that. I'm waiting.....

"I do not need it"-well, bass I know a couple of children who were denied the insurance due to their illness. Thanks to Obamacare, they now have a health insurance and they get proper medical treatments in children's hospital.

Here is a book you may want to read. It tells why I am a democrat. The Tea party lead by Karl Rove has been hijacking a GOP. They are anti gay, anti immigration, anti woman, anti environment, anti labor law, anti osha, anti abortion,...anti minority, this book really tell it all. "The Party's Over" written by Charlie Christ; a former governor of Florida who has just switched a party to the Democrat. He and I are on the same page politically. Hope you are a book reader as well as we are.