Posts Tagged ‘economic fairness’

The Democrat Party, Liberalism OWN The Wealth Divide. Because They CAUSED It.

June 19, 2014

I came across this article from the Los Angeles Times a couple of days ago and something popped out at me.  I’ll bold face it when it appears in the article.  And then we’ll talk about it:

San Francisco leads the way with $15 minimum-wage ballot measure
By Lee Romney
June 15, 2014, 5:39 PM|reporting from SAN FRANCISCO

Eleven years ago, San Francisco set precedent with the first citywide minimum-wage boost, giving it the highest wage floor in the nation. Another first soon required all employers to provide paid sick days. Yet another mandated healthcare for all..

Now, the city that recently won dubious distinction for the fastest-growing wealth divide is leading again.

Let’s look at the timeline: San Francisco – THE most liberal, most Democrat Party-worshiping, city on earth – imposed their “highest wage floor in the nation.”

And then what happened as a result?  The city that “won the dubious distinction for the FASTEST-GROWING WEALTH DIVIDE.”  That’s what happened.

Because San  Francisco is FASCIST.  And FASCISM loves to pick who wins and who loses, who benefits and who gets punished.  Small businesses and new businesses that can’t afford to pay exorbitant wages get chased out, and the big, established businesses and the businesses that are started by wealthy elitists get to grow and grow and grow.  And the wealth divide is the inevitable result of liberal fascism.

What is true of fascists in San Francisco is just as true for our Fascist-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama:

Can You Guess Which President Had Worst Record On ‘Income Inequality’?

If Obama thinks he can pivot away from the failures of Obamacare towards the cause of relieving “income inequality,” he’s going to find even greater failures there already on the part of his administration.

The vast majority of gains in wealth have gone to the top earners, making income inequality increase drastically under Obama. In fact, of the last three presidents, the income gap didn’t change overall during the Bush years, increased second most during Clinton’s time, and has increased the most with only 5 years under Obama’s belt.

income-gap-obama

Obama himself has admitted this before questioning by George Stephanopoulos, where he amazingly tried to blame Bush for the 95% of income growth during his own “recovery” going to the top 1%.  

income-inequality-obamaAs we reported last year when Obama was loudly denouncing the nation’s “income inequality”:

President Obama… is presiding under epic Wall Street earnings (they crashed under Bush, remember?), deteriorating income levels for the middle class, an increasingly part-time nation partly fueled by the looming employer mandate of Obamacare, and long-term unemployment so persistent that millions of people are dropping off the labor force grid (that would be why the official unemployment rate is slowly going down).

And the Obamanomics failure extends to falling income across the board for the average American family. During the “worst recession since the Great Depression,” the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income fell by 1.8%, but fell by an incredible 4.4% during Obama’s “recovery.” That comes to each family making $2,400 less per year during Obama’s regime.

You would think the press would do its job and continue to question the president about his dismal record under this metric he keeps harping about, especially since the stimulus and Obamacare were so costly and supposed to relieve all of American’s ills.

Still waiting on the sea levels to lower, as well.

Notice, ALL of Obama’s regulations, all of his tax increases, all of his war on natural energy such as coal, oil and natural gas and all of his elevation of costly energy boondoggles, all of his policies of picking winners and losers, has done nothing but cause the wealth divide to soar, soar, SOAR.

What is interesting is that not only was Obama’s wealth gap worse than George W. Bush’s, but so also was Bill Clinton’s.  And keep in mind, this is the Bill Clinton who largely governed as a moderate, having renounced the big government liberalism that the Democrat Party embraces.  He assured us that under his presidency, “The era of big government is over.”  Because his “big government” period early in his presidency failed and failed the angry American people, and he had the wisdom to recognize it.

Obama brought it back.  And Hillary Clinton will grow it into even more of a fatal cancer than it already is under Obama.

We consider Obama’s policies and the result they have had on something that it turns out poor people need to live – FOOD – and we can only marvel at Obama’s hatred of the poor:

Price Index for Meats, Poultry, Fish & Eggs Rockets to All-Time High
June 17, 2014 – 11:20 AM
By Ali Meyer

(CNSNews.com) – The seasonally-adjusted price index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs hit an all-time high in May, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

In January 1967, when the BLS started tracking this measure, the index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs was 38.1. As of last May, it was 234.572. By this January, it hit 240.006. By April, it hit 249.362. And, in May, it climbed to a record 252.832.

“The index for meats, poultry, fish and eggs has risen 7.7 percent over the span [last year],” says the BLS. “The index for food at home increased 0.7 percent, its largest increase since July 2011. Five of the six major grocery store food group indexes increased in May. The index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs rose 1.4 percent in May after a 1.5 increase in April, with virtually all its major components increasing,” BLS states.

Meat, Poultry, Fish & Egg Price Index Rockets to  All-Time High

In addition to this food index, the price for fresh whole chickens hit its all-time high in the United States in May.

In January 1980, when the BLS started tracking the price of this commodity, fresh whole chickens cost $0.70 per pound. By this May 2014, fresh whole chickens cost $1.56 per pound.

A decade ago, in May 2004, a pound of fresh chicken cost $1.04. Since then, the price has gone up 50%.

Imagine, if you make it vastly more expensive to grow food, while issuing one crippling regulation after another, food will become more expensive.  You’d think that was common sense, but it is like nuclear physics or neurosurgery to liberals.

Liberals believe you can hate job creators and love jobs.  You can’t.  These people are pathologically morally insane and their moral insanity is bearing the fruit that insanity produces: fewer and fewer jobs, jobs that pay less and less, part-time jobs because of ObamaCare, a lower standard of living, higher food costs, higher fuel costs, more pressure on more families just to keep their heads above water.

Hillary Clinton arrogantly, self-righteously, and in the face of all reality to the contrary, claimed that she and husband Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House.  You want to talk about someone who is so utterly and so profoundly out of touch with reality and with ordinary people that it is beyond unreal?

“Dead broke” means asking your parents if you can have your old room back.  Or if they’ve passed, “dead broke” means begging a friend to let you sleep on their couch.  Or living in a shelter.  It doesn’t mean getting multi-million dollar loans to finance palatial “houses” while giving speeches for tens of thousands of dollars a pop.

But this out-of-touch crony capitalist fascist is actually going to run on the wealth divide that liberal policies impose on society.

These liberals are truly and simply nothing more than pure, cynical liars who count on the people’s ignorance and media propaganda (much the way Hitler and Stalin did) to secure their positions and entrench themselves.

 

Advertisements

We Need More Socialists Running The World (How About NOT?)

May 19, 2011

It’s kind of interesting to see what’s going on.  We’ve got an avowed socialist international banker who has been incredibly generous with other people’s money being accused of trying to redistribute a poor immigrant woman’s body to satisfy his lusts.

A comment on this situation expresses the essence of how “fair” the proponents of “economic fairness” really are:

“The IMF booted Paul Wolfowitz (an American conservati­ve) over a consensual affair with a staffer, yet have remained silent while Strauss-Ka­hn (a European socialist) sits accused of r+ape.

As it has been reported, the IMF is weighing whether or not Dominique Strauss-Kahn is indicted as to whether or not to relieve him of his position.  For the record, there were no criminal charges filed against Paul Wolfowitz.  There was no indictment; they just canned him at the very first possible opportunity.  And while Strauss-Kahn may well end resign to avoid perpetuating the circus atmosphere more than absolutely necessary (i.e., it stands to reason that a former head of the IMF would probably generate less attention than the current head of the IMF), let it stand for the record that even following a very clearcut rape allegation where even Strauss-Kahn is acknowledging that sex occurred, he has not been fired.

Not very, it turns out.  If you’re a conservative, “fairness” means your head on a pike for what is clearly the tiniest infraction versus the socialist.  I guess that’s what they mean by “social justice”; it means “justice” that always somehow favors socialists.

Here’s the story in a nutshell:

NEW YORK — The maid came from one of the world’s poorest countries to the U.S., working to support the teen daughter she raised alone. The penthouse suite at the Sofitel Hotel was just another room. She says she had no idea the man was a famous French politician. She says he tried to rape her. In addition, the New York Post reports that the alleged sex-assault victim lives in a Bronx apartment rented exclusively for adults with HIV or AIDS. The man, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, remained jailed under a suicide watch Wednesday as a lawyer for the woman sought to rebut whispered allegations that her charges were a conspiracy and a setup.

You’d think the left wing socialists who always claim to be on the side of the poor and the oppressed would be on the side of this poor immigrant housekeeper who may well be suffering from AIDS (the sacred cow of left wing diseases).  But that would mean that left wing socialists wouldn’t be completely liars and hypocrites.  And that simply isn’t true.

With that said, only the biting irony of Ann Coulter can adequately describe this situation:

To Liberals, Every Woman Looks Like a Hotel Maid
by  Ann Coulter
05/18/2011

I suppose we’ll know the truth when the DNA testing comes back, but close observers of privileged liberal men are not shocked by the accusations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the socialist head of the International Monetary Fund. (And you thought you were getting screwed by your banker!)

Only in Hollywood movies are handsome lacrosse players from nice families seen as likely rapists. In real life, they look more like the 5-foot-2-inch Roman Polanski or pudgy, unathletic Bill Clinton — or the homunculus 5-foot-2-inch Strauss-Kahn.

But, it is argued, how could Strauss-Kahn possibly think he could get away with the violent rape of a chambermaid in a $3,000-a-night hotel room, booked in his name?

First of all, Strauss-Kahn has evidently gotten away with treating the fairer sex as his playthings for some time. No wonder his nickname among the French is “le grand seducteur,” which I believe roughly translates to “the short, tubby serial rapist.”

The New York Times reports that as far back as 2007, Brussels journalist Jean Quatremer remarked on Strauss-Kahn’s troubled behavior — “close to harassment” — toward women, saying the press knew all about it, but never mentioned it because “we are in France.”

When Strauss-Kahn was appointed to the I.M.F., Quatremer sardonically warned that the international institution was not the same as France, but instead had “Anglo-Saxon morals.”

Second, it’s not unheard of that a wealthy liberal would assume the law does not apply to him. Actually, let me restate that: Wealthy liberals always assume that laws don’t apply to them. After all the waivers the Obama administration has been dishing out like candy, are there any liberals left to whom Obamacare will apply?

We might also ask how a governor of New York could think he could get away with hiring prostitutes to service him in similarly pricey hotels, bringing them across state lines, and using his friend’s names to book the girls, year after year.

But Eliot Spitzer thought he could get away with that. Fortunately he has been brought to justice and sentenced to hosting a lame show on CNN.

Still, rape is a more serious crime than being a frenzied masturbator paying for sex. For that, I give you Andrew Luster, multimillionaire Max Factor heir, whose mother gives to every liberal cause under the sun from Barbara Boxer and Loretta Sanchez to Moveon.org, Emily’s List and pro-gay marriage groups. (If only her son had been gay!)

Her son not only drugged and raped a string of women, but made videotapes of his crimes.

On the tapes, Luster can be seen sodomizing unconscious women with lighted marijuana cigarettes, candles and plastic swords, and then talking into the camera about the unconscious women lying on his bed. The tapes were carefully labeled with titles like “Shauna GHBing,” referring to gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, known as a date-rape drug.

Luster was cataloging video evidence of his own criminal acts — and yet he thought he could get away with it.

He almost did, too, fleeing the country during his 2003 trial. He was caught and is now serving 124 years in prison, having been convicted, in absentia, of 86 crimes, including 20 counts of drug-induced rape, 17 counts of raping an unconscious victim, and multiple counts of sodomy and oral copulation by use of drugs.

Also out of Southern California we have Roman Polanski, the legendary director of two good movies and about a hundred unbelievably horrible ones, who drugged and anally raped an underage girl, according to the police report.

Not only did Polanski think he could get away with it, he did get away with it by fleeing the country (to France) when he discovered, to his shock and dismay, that in America, a person can actually be sentenced to prison for drugging and raping a 13-year-old. That was in 1977. He has never been brought to justice.

Liberals supported Polanski’s evasion of punishment for child rape, with the Hollywood left denouncing his arrest in Switzerland a couple of years ago, howling that he had suffered enough! Wasn’t he prevented from coming to the U.S. to pick up his Oscar in 2003?

You know who’s suffered enough? Anybody who sat all the way through “The Pianist.”

Liberal male misogyny goes back even farther than Polanski’s three-decades-old child rape.

As Phyllis Schlafly points out in her book “Feminist Fantasies” (with a stirring foreword by Ann Coulter), for centuries, famous left-wing men have treated “their wives and mistresses like unpaid servants.”

Their credo might well have been, “From each, according to my needs …”

Schlafly bases her review of liberal woman-haters on the book “Intellectuals” by historian Paul Johnson. Among the left-wing heroes highlighted by Schlafly from Johnson’s book are Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Ernest Hemingway, Henrik Ibsen, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Karl Marx.

Johnson writes that the pint-sized — 5 foot 2 1/2 inch — communist-sympathizing Sartre “was notorious for never taking a bath and being disgustingly dirty.” He said admiringly of the Nazis, “We have never been as free as we were under the German occupation.”

The flyweight Sartre famously turned Simone de Beauvoir into his “mistress, surrogate wife, cook and manager, female bodyguard and nurse.” (Sadly, she never learned how to give someone a sponge bath.) All the while, the smelly midget committed a stream of infidelities, viewing women “as scalps to add to his centaur’s belt.”

In “the annals of literature,” Johnson writes, “there are few worse cases of a man exploiting a woman.”

As he got older, Sartre’s sexual conquests got younger, including teenaged girls.

Like Spitzer, Luster and Polanski, liberal men seem driven by their massive insecurities (often based on physical defects, such as their diminutive size or soap allergies) to choose unconscious, illiterate, servant-class and teenage females as their sex partners. But let’s not drag pocket-sized Woody Allen’s name into this, as my column appears in many family newspapers.

Karl Marx kept a female slave from the time she was 8 years old, eventually using her not only as a servant but as his mistress, never acknowledging his child with her or paying her at all. She waited on him hand and foot while he explained to the world that profit is the stolen surplus value of the laborer. Like so many liberal icons, Marx seldom bathed and left his wife and children in poverty.

As Schlafly says, no wonder liberal women think men are pigs: Their men are pigs.

Maybe Strauss-Kahn is innocent, but students of liberal comportment base their suspicions of his guilt not on fairy tales from Lifetime: TV for Women, but on 200 years of disgusting sexual behavior by liberal men.

I was the one who boldfaced the two paragraphs above.  They were simply too delicious in their total accuracy of depicting the fact that “liberal men are pigs” not to.

I can understand why the left wing would decry the treatment of their fellow socialist hero Dominique Strauss-Kahn; the man truly epitomizes them.