Posts Tagged ‘minimum wage’

Yeah, If You’re A Democrat, You’re A HYPOCRITE

May 29, 2015

I was a little surprised when I saw even the Los Angeles Times editorial condemn the rank hypocrisy of labor unions:

Editorial L.A. labor leaders’ hypocrisy on minimum wage hike
By The Times Editorial Board
▼ Los Angeles labor leaders fought for a minimum wage hike; now they want to be exempt from it
▼ L.A. County Federation of Labor is being hypocritical in its stance on raising the minimum wage
May 29, 2015, 5:00 AM

No, employers with a unionized workforce should not be allowed to pay less than Los Angeles’ proposed minimum wage. It’s stunning that after leading the fight for a $15 citywide minimum wage and vehemently opposing efforts to exempt restaurant workers, nonprofits and small businesses from the full wage hike, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor is now lobbying for an exemption for employers with union contracts. That’s right — labor leaders are advocating that an employer should have the right to pay union members less than the minimum wage.

This is hypocrisy at its worst, and it plays into the cynical view that the federation is more interested in unionizing companies and boosting its rolls of dues-paying members than in helping poor workers. Such an exemption would create an incentive for companies to allow unions in — but rather than helping workers, it would undermine the purpose of the minimum wage ordinance, which is to set a new, higher pay floor in order to help lift the greatest number of low-wage Angelenos out of poverty.

Mind you, it was also rank hypocrisy at its WORST when the same damn cockroach labor unions fought like the rabid roaches that they are to get ObamaCare passed – and then demanded that they be exempted from the law they forced everybody else to bow down before and obey.

Because to be a Democrat is to be a fascist who says, “What is good for me to force on thee should not apply to me.”

And of course there has never been in all of human history a politician who exemplified that spirit of elitist liberal entitlement than Hillary Clinton.  Which is why hypocrite Democrats love her so much.

Here’s another one: Same newspaper, same day, revealing how liberals are HYPOCRITES without shame, without honor, without virtue, without decency, without integrity.  As you read the following LA Times article listen to my voice in your head screaming, “JUST HOW THE HELL IS IT THAT THESE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT HOLLYWOOD COCKROACHES WHO DEMAND HIGHER TAXES ON EVERYBODY ELSE ARE CHASING TAX BREAKS RIGHT OUT OF THE DAMN STATE???

Realize before I show the article below that Warner Bros. and pretty much all the other big Hollywood entities are LIBERALS who donated heavily to Obama:

Other media companies have contributed more significantly to Mr. Obama, including Time Warner, owner of CNN and the magazine publishing house Time Inc. The company, which is based in New York and also owns Warner Brothers and HBO, has contributed $191,834 to Mr. Obama in the 2012 election cycle, compared with $10,750 to Mr. Romney

Which is to say, having done the math, that Warner Bros. is 1,692.84 percent more Obama-liberal than it is Romney-Republican.  And virtually every single media outlet today is a whore of liberal ideology, pumping their propaganda into the mindless heads of pathologically depraved cows who gobble it up like pigs shoving their faces into their feeding trough.  I mean, when I was a child, I used to spit into fish ponds and watch in amazement as the goldfish swarmed to be the first to dine on my loogie.  But only now do I realize that I was receiving an object lesson in how liberals teach and how liberals learn.

Liberals are Nazis who say, “What is good for me to force on thee does not apply to me.

Now watch how real liberals act when it’s THEIR money rather than somebody else’s money:

Big movies in short supply in California, FilmL.A. says
By Richard Verrier
▼ Only two big-budget movies released in 2014 were filmed in California
▼ Few big movies have filmed in California because they were excluded from the state’s financial incentives
May 28, 2015, 5:59 PM

The big movie hitting theaters this weekend is “San Andreas,” depicting the destruction of California from a massive earthquake.

The Warner Bros. movie was filmed mainly in Australia, of course.

Such is the reality that California faces in an industry where tax credits and other financial inducements increasingly drive where movies are filmed around the world.

Fresh evidence of that emerged Thursday in a feature film study from FilmL.A. Inc., the nonprofit group that handles film permits for the city and county.

The second annual report found that only 22 of 106 films released by the major studios in 2014 were actually filmed in California. The rest of the movies were shot in New York, Britain, Canada, Georgia, Louisiana, Australia and a dozen other states and countries.

Only two films with budgets above $100 million were filmed primarily in California: Marvel’s “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and Paramount’s “Interstellar.” Even those films spent considerable time and money in other locations that offer tax credits and rebates to lure filmmakers.

The exodus of big movies from California has been happening for years. When local film production peaked in 1997, 64% of the top 25 movies at the box office were filmed in California, compared with 16% last year.

“We’ve waited so long to truly get involved in the competition that we’ve allowed some major production centers to be created around the world,” said Paul Audley, president of FilmL.A.

The report notes that several high-profile movies set in California have filmed elsewhere, including Warner Bros.’ “Godzilla,” which was shot mainly in Vancouver, Canada; 20th Century Fox’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” which was filmed in Louisiana; and Disney’s “Million Dollar Arm,” which was shot mainly in Georgia.

As for “San Andreas,” the movie filmed some scenes in Los Angeles and San Francisco but most of the two-month shoot took place at Village Roadshow’s Studio on the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia.

The $110-million movie, from Warner Bros.’ New Line Cinema unit, received a portion of a $20-million film fund specifically designed to attract foreign productions.

Warner’s decision was not surprising.

Few big movies have filmed in California because they were excluded from the state’s financial incentives.

That’s about to change. To stop the exodus of production, state lawmakers last year approved an expansion of the film and TV tax credit program. The new program triples annual funding to $330 million a year and for the first time allows big budget films to apply for the incentives.

Studios will apply for feature film tax credits under the new program in July.

“The new program should result in us getting several of the large features back in California,” Audley said.

While the same Democrats who are giving tax credits to hypocrite liberal moviemakers impose sky-high taxes on all the other businesses and people they’re crushing and oppressing right out of the state.

If you are not truly and astonishingly STUPID, you understand that low taxes are the key to healthy businesses.  The problem with these liberals isn’t that they’re dumb, it is that they are utterly depraved moral hypocrites who because they are the human equivalent of cockroaches are ONLY capable of caring about THEMSELVES and to hell with everybody else.

Now, elitist jet-setting liberals right out of The Who’s songEminence FrontDO understand that the overwhelming majority of Democrats are just rank-and-goose-stepping-Nazi-file STUPID as well as depraved.  They are little more than dumb farm-animal-cattle who are so easily lied to and manipulated and duped and led by the nose by lies that it is beyond amazing.  But yeah, stupid Democrat: “it’s an eminence front.”  And “it’s a put on.”  That’s what liberalism is, that’s what the Democrat Party represents: an eminence front, a bright-shining lie.

Let’s force ObamaCare.  And exempt ourselves.  Let’s force higher wages.  And exempt ourselves.  Let’s force higher taxes.  And exempt ourselves.  And anybody who thinks liberals give one flying DAMN about the poor are poor – in the sense of completely lacking in either rational or moral-capacity – deluded fools.

If you have any insight whatsoever into the shriveled cockroach psyche of Hillary Clinton, you shouldn’t be one bit surprised that this corruptocrat who wants to be empress got her parasitic little fangs into $100,000 of probably the biggest and worst scandal ever to hit the sports universe:

WASHINGTON — The embattled Clinton Foundation can add a new name to its long list of donors under scrutiny — the scandal-tarred world soccer federation.

FIFA donated as much as $100,000 to the charity headed by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, foundation records revealed, with no further details available.

On Wednesday, US authorities indicted 14 soccer officials.

FBI agents arrested the officials meeting in Switzerland, as the head of the Justice Department described a conspiracy of bribery and corruption in the selection of World Cup host countries and sponsors.

The Clinton Foundation, already under fire for accepting multimillion-dollar contributions from nations including Saudi Arabia, disclosed only the range of the contribution — from $50,001 to $100,000.

Meanwhile, as we speak, on this very day’s headlines, even the New York Times is calling what the Clintons did “distasteful”:

An Award for Bill Clinton Came With $500,000 for His Foundation
By DEBORAH SONTAGMAY 29, 2015

To commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Petra Nemcova, a Czech model who survived the disaster by clinging to a palm tree, decided to pull out all the stops for the annual fund-raiser of her school-building charity, the Happy Hearts Fund.

She booked Cipriani 42nd Street, which greeted guests with Bellini cocktails on silver trays. She flew in Sheryl Crow with her band and crew for a 20-minute set. She special-ordered heart-shaped floral centerpieces, heart-shaped chocolate parfaits, heart-shaped tiramisù and, because orange is the charity’s color, an orange carpet rather than a red one. She imported a Swiss auctioneer and handed out orange rulers to serve as auction paddles, playfully threatening to use hers to spank the highest bidder for an Ibiza vacation.

The gala cost $363,413. But the real splurge? Bill Clinton.

The former president of the United States agreed to accept a lifetime achievement award at the June 2014 event after Ms. Nemcova offered a $500,000 contribution to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia.

Model Invites Bill Clinton to Her Gala

In this August 2013 letter, the model Petra Nemcova rewrote an earlier invitation asking Bill Clinton to accept a lifetime achievement award from Ms. Nemcova’s Happy Hearts Fund charity.

OPEN Document: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/30/us/politics/model-invites-bill-clinton-to-her-gala.html

Happy Hearts’ former executive director believes the transaction was a “quid pro quo,” which rerouted donations intended for a small charity with the concrete mission of rebuilding schools after natural disasters to a large foundation with a broader agenda and a budget 100 times bigger.

“The Clinton Foundation had rejected the Happy Hearts Fund invitation more than once, until there was a thinly veiled solicitation and then the offer of an honorarium,” said the former executive director, Sue Veres Royal, who held that position at the time of the gala and was dismissed a few weeks later amid conflicts over the gala and other issues.

Press officers for Ms. Nemcova and for the Clinton Foundation said on Thursday that the foundation had not solicited the donation and that the money would be used for projects in Haiti, as yet undetermined.

The Happy Hearts Fund and the Clinton Foundation “have a shared goal of providing meaningful help to Haiti,” the school charity’s spokeswoman said. “We believe that we can create the most impactful change by working together.”

Never publicly disclosed, the episode provides a window into the way the Clinton Foundation relies on the Clintons’ prestige to amass donors large and small, offering the prospect, as described in the foundation’s annual report, of lucrative global connections and participation in a worldwide mission to “unlock human potential” through “the power of creative collaboration.”

Similarly, Ms. Nemcova, like other celebrity philanthropists, uses her fame to promote her charity — which has financed more than 110 schools, mostly kindergartens — just as she uses Happy Hearts to position herself as a model-humanitarian.

“This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate,” said Doug White, who directs the master’s program in fund-raising management at Columbia University. “The model has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it — what would be the word? — distasteful.”

In her letter of invitation to Mr. Clinton, Ms. Nemcova, then chairwoman of her charity’s board, said she wanted to show her appreciation for his “inspirational leadership” after disasters.

“My gratitude to you is so strong that should you accept, we will schedule our event commemorating the 10th anniversary around your schedule,” she wrote, speaking of their shared dedication to the survivors of both the tsunami and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.

When the tsunami struck in December 2004, Ms. Nemcova, who had been featured on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue the previous year, was vacationing in Thailand with her boyfriend, a fashion photographer named Simon Atlee. They were swept from their beach cottage and separated in the turbulent waters; Mr. Atlee died.

Ms. Nemcova, her pelvis shattered, held fast to a tree for hours until she was rescued, listening impotently to the cries of children, she has said, which later motivated her to found her child-centric charity.

Happy Hearts rebuilt two schools in Thailand while Mr. Clinton was the United Nations’ envoy for tsunami relief and reconstruction. Most of the charity’s rebuilding has been in Indonesia after the earthquakes of 2006 and 2009.

After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, Ms. Nemcova turned her attention to that small island nation, where both Mr. Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary of state, played outsize roles in the earthquake relief effort and the more problem-filled reconstruction. The country had attracted other celebrity benefactors, too, notably the actor Sean Penn, an ex-boyfriend of Ms. Nemcova’s who had created his own relief organization and forged a relationship with Mr. Clinton.

In the fall of 2011, many players in Haiti’s rebuilding effort, including Ms. Nemcova, attended the Clinton Global Initiative’s membership meeting in Manhattan. Members, who must be invited, pay $20,000 in annual dues, largely for the yearly gatherings, where charity founders and entrepreneurs get to network with world leaders, corporate executives and wealthy donors.

Clinton Foundation Bills Small Charity for Big Donation

Six months after Bill Clinton accepted a lifetime achievement award at the Happy Hearts Fund gala in June 2014, the Clinton Foundation sent this invoice to the charity, run by the model Petra Nemcova. It sought to collect a $500,000 donation.

OPEN Document: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/30/us/politics/clinton-foundation-bills-small-charity-for-big-donation.html

At the meeting, Ms. Nemcova signed a memorandum of understanding with the president of the Inter-American Development Bank to finance schools in Haiti. The development bank has also donated to the Clinton Foundation — just over $1 million — and it partnered with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department after the earthquake to create an industrial park in northern Haiti.

Almost four years after Happy Hearts and the development bank made their commitment, they have yet to complete a single school, partly because of problems finding suitable land. Five schools are under construction.

Happy Hearts collaborated more expeditiously in Haiti with the Digicel Foundation, whose founder, the Irish billionaire Denis O’Brien, is a multimillion-dollar supporter of the Clinton Foundation and whose parent telecommunications company benefited from grants from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department.

Digicel also made a commitment at the 2011 meeting to build schools; the commitment was a formality, though, as Digicel had already taken the lead in Haiti in that realm. It has built 150 schools there over the last seven years; Happy Heart has built seven, six of them joint or side-by-side ventures with Digicel.

One of those schools, operated by the Haitian group Prodev, was featured in the Clinton Foundation’s most recent annual report as “built through a Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action.” The Clinton Foundation’s sole direct contribution to the school was a grant for an Earth Day celebration and tree-planting activity.

In late 2011, Ms. Nemcova dedicated her charity’s annual fund-raiser to Haiti, awarding the lifetime achievement honor to Mr. Penn, whom the Haitian government had named an ambassador at large, and giving a speaking platform to Laurent Lamothe, Haiti’s foreign minister.

The next year, Ms. Nemcova, too, became an ambassador at large for Haiti. And by 2013, she was practically living there, having become romantically involved with Mr. Lamothe, by then prime minister. (Mr. Lamothe, no longer prime minister, is now a presidential candidate in Haiti, and the couple have split up.)

Through the years, Ms. Nemcova, 35, has blended her personal and philanthropic lives; her sister replaced Ms. Veres Royal as executive director of Happy Hearts. She has also mingled her celebrity and charity work, both in ways that benefited the charity and in ways that benefited her personally.

In 2011, when she appeared as a contestant on ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars,” her survival story and charity received ample, positive attention. She brought on Clinique and Chopard as sponsors of the charity, but also accepted personal fees to model their products.

“Ms. Nemcova has a long career as a model in fashion industry for 16 years and has longstanding relationships with many brands,” her charity’s spokeswoman said. “Happy Hearts Fund is grateful for Chopard’s and Clinique’s support.”

At the 2014 gala, Chopard, a Swiss jeweler that was dedicating partial proceeds from a heart-shaped bracelet to the charity, set up lighted showcases in the cocktail area, Ms. Veres Royal said.

“They were peddling exorbitant jewelry at a gala that was supposed to focus on children who have lost their belongings, homes, and often friends and family members,” she said. “It was inappropriate and tacky. Too many people at that event were looking after their own interests first.”

Happy Hearts Fund first asked Mr. Clinton to be its honoree in 2011. Trying again in 2013, Ms. Nemcova sent her first formal letter of invitation in July, asking Mr. Clinton to be the primary award recipient at a Happy Hearts gala on Nov. 4, 2013, celebrating Indonesia.

Mr. Clinton’s scheduler replied with a cordial rejection — “Regrettably, he is committed to another event out of town that same evening” — in an email copied to Frank Giustra, the Canadian mining financier who is one of the Clinton Foundation’s largest donors and also a supporter of Ms. Nemcova.

Haitians protested outside the Happy Hearts Fund gala, which Mr. Clinton attended after Ms. Nemcova pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Her charity has worked with the Clinton Foundation on projects in Haiti. Credit Tony Savino/Corbis

Ms. Nemcova subsequently met with officers at the Clinton Foundation, Ms. Veres Royal said. Afterward, she said, “Petra called me and said we have to include an honorarium for him — that they don’t look at these things unless money is offered, and it has to be $500,000.”

The invitation letter was revised and sent again at the end of August. It moved the gala to 2014, offered to work around Mr. Clinton’s availability, dropped the focus on Indonesia and shifted it to Haiti, and proposed the donation.

“Understanding the need and commitment to ‘rebuilding better,’ Happy Hearts Fund would like to also share the proceeds of the event with the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, committing at least $500,000 in partnership on a joint educational project in Haiti, of your selection,” Ms. Nemcova wrote, ending with her customary signoff, “Lots of Love, Light and Laughter.”

When charities select an honoree for their fund-raising events, they generally expect that the award recipient will help them raise money by attracting new donors. But the Happy Hearts Fund raised less money at the gala featuring Mr. Clinton than it did at its previous one.

Further, it is extremely rare for honorees, or their foundations, to be paid from a gala’s proceeds, charity experts said — as it is for the proceeds to be diverted to a different cause.

And while the original invitation letter spoke of a joint educational project, the Clinton Foundation said Thursday that Happy Hearts had agreed that the money could be “split 50/50” between the foundation’s education programs and its economic development and agriculture programs in Haiti.

In the charity gala world, it is considered unacceptable to spend more than a third of gross proceeds on costs, and better to spend considerably less. If the donation to the Clinton Foundation were counted as a cost, Happy Hearts would have spent 34 percent of its announced $2.5 million in proceeds on its gala.

Its actual expenses — while they might seem extravagant to outsiders, with the total cost of the Cipriani facility alone at almost $300 a head — were in line with what other charities spend on such events.

In the end, the Happy Hearts Fund’s gala was a star-studded event, with celebrities including Naomi Watts and John Legend and the models Karlie Kloss and Coco Rocha in attendance. The Haitian president, Michel Martelly, a former musician who was Ms. Nemcova’s boyfriend’s boss at the time, was a second honoree, and he performed a couple of numbers with Wyclef Jean.

At the start of the evening, school bells rang and, as the master program dictated, “Petra dressed as schoolteacher” appeared, wearing glasses.

“Good evening, class,” said the message on the screen behind her. She later changed into a sheer red lace gown donated by the designer Naeem Khan, with diamond and ruby jewelry by Chopard.

A video by the Happy Hearts Fund framed the moment she presented the award to Mr. Clinton like this: “Ten years ago, two people were deeply impacted by the 2004 tsunami. They met this year again to inspire …”

“Petra did not have to devote 10 years of her life to building these schools,” Mr. Clinton told the crowd. “But what she has done is a symbol of what I think we all have to do.”

Outside Cipriani, about 100 protesters, mostly Haitian-Americans expressing frustration with the earthquake reconstruction effort, stood behind barricades holding protest signs.

“Clinton, where is the money?” they chanted. “In whose pockets?”

Bill Clinton’s speaking fee would have built ten pre-schools in disaster-torn Indonesia.  Not that Slick Willy gives a damn about poor kids.

Here’s another story, fresh just today, detailing the PATTERN of Hillary Clinton using the State Department as her own personal money-machine:

State Department spending followed foreign Clinton Foundation donors
By Sarah Westwood  | May 29, 2015 | 12:01 am

Countries and companies that donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill Clinton heavy fees for speeches saw an increase in State Department activity while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

The presidential candidate’s supporters have dismissed as conspiracy theories allegations that she and her husband traded political favors for contributions to their foundation or for lucrative speaking engagements.

A Washington Examiner analysis of Clinton Foundation donors suggests the State Department ramped up its diplomatic activity, foreign assistance and/or investment in countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation and hosted Bill Clinton for high-profile speeches.

For example, months after Bill Clinton delivered a speech in Riyadh for a price of $300,000, State Department funding for projects and activities in Saudi Arabia spiked.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has also donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.

State Department funding for its diplomatic operations and projects in the country jumped from more than $18 million in 2011 to $67.75 million in 2012, the year after Bill Clinton delivered his speech at the Saudi Investment Authority, according to USASpending.gov.

Much of that appears to have gone toward the construction of new State Department buildings in the country.

The agency poured $177.9 million into building a new embassy in Norway in 2011 over the apparent objections of diplomatic officials in Oslo.

Norway’s government has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

A leaked diplomatic cable sent to Clinton in July 2009 shows plans for the embassy project, which predated Clinton’s tenure as secretary, had been pushed from 2011 to 2020 to free up funding for embassies in key countries.

“We understand the arguments for first building NEC’s [new embassy complexes] where terrorist threats are higher,” the cable said of the delayed embassy plans in Norway.

The cable mentions “Pat Kennedy,” the undersecretary for management and a close Clinton aide, among the State Department officials who had helped to further the project.

Kennedy’s name also surfaced in Benghazi-related emails published by the State Department last week.

Despite the misgivings by agency officials in 2009, the State Department awarded the contract for the Norwegian embassy to Walsh Construction Group on September 27, 2011. It was the construction company’s first overseas embassy project.

Norway teamed up with an arm of the Clinton Foundation in September 2012 for an ambitious health care project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is part of the State Department.

USAID, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Children’s Investment Fund, the U.K. and Sweden supported the development of a type of contraceptive produced by Bayer that was widely distributed in poor nations.

All but Sweden and USAID itself were Clinton Foundation donors.

“The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is proud to have funded the development of this life-saving product,” then-USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah said at the time.

The same year USAID announced its plan to purchase 27 million contraceptive devices from Bayer, which donated between $20,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the pharmaceutical company hired lobbyists with DLA Piper (itself a foundation donor) to lobby the State Department on “federal procurement issues,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Bayer did not return a request for comment.

USAID and the State Department appear to have tapped Clinton-connected companies regularly for well intentioned projects around the world.

One month before Hillary Clinton left office, her agency launched an effort to expand the electronic banking sector in Afghanistan.

Citi, the Ford Foundation, Visa, Omidyar Network, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were each involved in the USAID-backed initiative. All five donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton kicked off a taxpayer-funded effort to bring health information to pregnant women around the world through their phones in 2011 with the help of two foundation donors — Johnson & Johnson and the United Nations Foundation.

The “Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action” initiative won an award for its innovation in 2012 after being judged by an independent panel that included additional donors to the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Health Access Initiative was brought into a State Department health project called the President’s Malaria Initiative alongside two of its major donors.

While the malaria initiative began in the Bush administration, it consumed millions while Hillary Clinton was at the State Department.

Irish Aid, Ireland’s development agency, and the British version of USAID — both foundation donors of between $1 million and $5 million — also shared in the U.S.-backed project in Uganda.

Ireland saw a substantial increase in the money USAID and the State Department spent on operations and projects there while Hillary Clinton was in office.

She even made Ireland the site of her final official trip as secretary of state when she traveled there to receive an award from one of her family foundation’s top donors.

The State Department increased its spending in Ireland from $1.65 million in 2009 to $2.96 million in 2010 and $7.48 million in 2011.

USAID also upped its support of Ireland, taking its funding from nothing in 2008 — the oldest year for which data is available — to $29.87 million the year Clinton came into office.

After the Kingdom of Bahrain donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation, the State Department stepped up its activities in the Middle Eastern nation.

The agency’s contracts, grants, loans and investments in Bahrain climbed from $6.8 million the year before Clinton came to the State Department, to $7.1 million in 2009, to $8.9 million in 2011 and peaked at $11 million during Clinton’s final year in office.

Bahrain also enjoyed nearly $2 million from USAID in 2010, bringing its total State Department funding that year to more than $10 million.

To put that figure in perspective, the State Department spent just $1.9 million on its operations in Trinidad & Tobago, the country whose GDP was closest to Bahrain’s, in 2010. The agency spent just $1.3 million on its operations in Mauritius, the country whose population was closest to Bahrain’s, that same year.

United Arab Emirates and Jamaica, two other countries whose governments donated directly to the Clinton Foundation, also saw the State Department’s funding rise during Clinton’s tenure.

USAID’s support of its operations and other projects in Jamaica crept from $2.8 million the year before Clinton took office to $15.8 million in 2011.

State Department spending in the United Arab Emirates rose from $11.57 million in 2008 to $16.79 million in 2012, peaking in 2010 at $21.18 million.

The Clinton Foundation did not return a request for comment about the nature of its direct work with the State Department while Clinton ran the agency.

The Clintons are so damn cynical it is beyond unreal.  They are the posters of official government corruption on planet earth today.  And Obama tolerated it for the simple reason that it is the heart and soul of the Democrat Party to be corrupt and to cynically exploit the giant government they keep making more giant to enrich themselves and their cronies who support their ideology and their own palm-greasing.

Here’s another story fresh off the headlines of today appearing on Yahoo News’ feed today:

The latest Clinton shoe: Bill’s shell corporation
By Post Editorial Board
May 27, 2015 | 8:22pm

Just two days after President Obama confirmed that Hillary Clinton would be his secretary of state, Bill Clinton set up a shell corporation to “channel” his payments for unspecified consulting work.

Another day, another revelation about the Clintons’ tangled financial web. (Kudos to Robert Wargas of Pajamas Media for pinning down the date Bill set up his dodge.)

With WJC LLC set up as a limited-liability company with no assets and no employees, there was no need to report any of the cash that passed through it — not on Hillary’s personal disclosure statements then, not on her campaign forms now.

This perfectly legal mechanism provides certain tax advantages — notwithstanding the Clintons’ repeated claims that the rich “aren’t paying their fair share of taxes.”

But we’d guess it was the non-disclosure feature that appealed most.

No doubt the Clintons giggled all the way to the bank about their no-funny-business promises to President Obama and his team.

And now Hillary preaches the virtues of “transparency.”

Like everything else about the once “dirt poor” Clintons (now comfortable in the ranks of the 1 percent) the LLC raises huge questions. Questions like those Democrats raised in 2012 about Mitt Romney’s finances.

As the Associated Press (which first reported the existence of the LLC) notes, almost nothing about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton’s business interests, other than his ultra-lucrative speechmaking, is a matter of public record.

The Clinton camp insists it’s all nothing to worry about, that everything has been disclosed. Then again, that’s what they said before ’fessing up to $26 million in foreign donations they’d “overlooked.”

Hillary Clinton cites Eleanor Roosevelt as her inspiration. Sure seems her real idol is Imelda Marcos — because there’s always another shoe waiting to drop.

There are so many examples of Clinton “Pay-to-Play” that it is absolutely unreal.  The level of crony-capitalist dishonesty is rabid.  But being a Democrat means either being so depraved and hypocritical you don’t care are so pathologically stupid and ignorant you don’t know.

No one – NO ONE – who is not a rank, abject hypocrite without so much as a scintilla of honesty or integrity or even shame would EVER vote for this crony-capitalist political whore.

The problem is that to be a Democrat is to be a hypocrite.  So no problem.

This Labor Day, Demand Leftists Professors And Universities Have Their Salaries And Tuition Redistributed To Poor Working Students

September 1, 2014

I am so sick of the left.

On a daily basis, you have the left screaming for a higher and higher minimum wage, beyond what most businesses can afford to pay entry-level and unskilled workers.

The unions want it because they will then demand a wage hike for THEIR workers; after all, if that unskilled slob is now earning twice what he used to, surely that union worker ought to earn twice as much, too, right???

It doesn’t matter how much it hurts the little people who both struggle to run small businesses and struggle to find jobs as they are literally priced out of the market as it simply doesn’t pay to hire them anymore.

So I’m watching the television and there’s this leftist professor demanding higher minimum wages.

Let it come out of HER wages.  Because as a liberal professor, she represents THE most depraved money-hungry predator of ALL:

Between 2002 and 2012, prices for new textbooks rose 82%, while tuition and fees increased about 89% during that period, and overall consumer prices grew 28%, according to a 2013 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

That according to the Los Angeles Times dated TODAY.

Tuition is skyrocketing.  The cost of college textbooks is skyrocketing.  And who runs that vile system lock, stock and barrel?  Cockroach liberals who say “other people ought to be forced to pay more.”

THEY ought to be forced to pay more.

I propose college tuition and books be reduced at the expense of college/university faculty and staff.

I further propose that any “living wage” increase ought to come right out of the wages of union workers who want to force other people to get gouged to pay for.

Let’s call it the “If you want it, YOU effing pay for it!” law.

Consider a smattering of articles I’ve written on the subject of “minimum wage”:

Teen Unemployment Another Proof Of How Desperately Wrong Obama, Democrat Policies Are And How Much They Hurt Little People

Miniumum Wage Increase Means Maximum Employment Decrease

The Party Of Genuine Evil And The Destruction Of America: In 39 States, Democrat Welfare Pays Better Than A Secretary’s Job

Realize That Obama Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ America Into A Failed Marxist State. Just Ask Poor People And Liberals

The Union Label Is Hypocrisy: Unions Hire Minimum Wage Non-Union Workers To Do Their Picketing For Them

Obama: Adding 11 Million Low-Skilled Illegal Immigants To America’s Dependency Roles Will Strengthen Middle Class Rather Than Depressing Wages

The Singularity Of ‘Solutions’ Proposed By Liberal Thinkers Is Only Surpassed By Their Abject HYPOCRISY

Democrats’ War On Poverty Has Been A War On America That Has Done NOTHING To Help The Poor

Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ In Action: Poverty At Highest Number In 52 Years Census Bureau Has Tracked It

Inflation Back On The Table As Part Of Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ Misery Buffet

Minimum wage increases invariably result in fewer employers offering the entry-level jobs that people need to begin working their way up the ladder to self-sufficiency.

Democrats WANT and in fact NEED people to be dependent on government.  That’s why they deliberately sabotage the jobs that people need to be able to succeed without them and their garbage socialism.

Democrats want the redistribution of wealth.  I’m fine with that; redistribute THEIR wealth and see how long they think it’s a good idea.

 

Realize That Obama Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ America Into A Failed Marxist State. Just Ask Poor People And Liberals

September 9, 2013

Quick test.  Who said this:

“The economy is doing poorly. Everything is expensive. With high taxes, we’re not going to be able to pay rent.”

Wrong, Democrat.  It was NOT Karl Rove or some über right wing nutjob who only said this because he hates Obama (and that because he’s “racist”).  Nope.  It was a 34-year-old Hispanic father named Francisco Zuniga at an SEIU-sponsored protest event.  Who would have thought that out of the mouths of leftist whiners could drool wisdom???

This is the fifth year of the Age of Obama.  It is the fifth freaking year of a failed president whose only talent is blaming others for his massive failures.

Let’s break those words from Zuniga down:

“The economy is doing poorly.”

That is something that literally every single person who is not a demon-possessed liar and hypocrite without shame (i.e. a Democrat) knows as a fact.  Obama promised the world; he has delivered economic manure.

What else does Zuniga say?

“Everything is expensive.”

Well, thanks for noticing that little factoid, Francisco.  I’ve written ad nauseum about the Obama Federal Reserve policies that were necessary to “fund” Obama’s reckless and morally and fiscally insane federal spending.  We’ve had Quantitative Easing, we’ve had QE2, we’ve had Operation Twist, we’ve had QE3, and now we’re at “QE Forever.”  And these policies have basically arbitrarily added zeroes to the money supply computers.  As of March of this year, Obama’s chief Fedthug had added over $2 trillion to the money supply – a beyond insane 240 percent increase.

It’s actually probably a lot more than that “mere” 240 percent increase.  CNN Money says that rather than $2 trillion, it’s actually been at least $2.5 trillion.  And as Democrat Bernie Saunders notes, it’s actually an awful lot more than that, given the AT LEAST $16 trillion in “secret loans” that had taken place under Obama’s Federal Reserve.  I mean, holy hell, where did all this cash come from?  From Never-Never Land, that’s where.

Let me put it this way: when Obama took office from George W. Bush, the Federal Reserve balance sheet was $800 billion; it is now $3,601,523 BILLION under Barack Obama.

In an article I wrote three full years ago:

An increase in the money supply is rather like an overdose of drugs. And in this case the effect of the overdose will be hyperinflation. Basically, the moment we have any kind of genuine recovery, our staggering deficit is going to begin to create an ultimately gigantic inflation rate. Why? Because we have massively artificially increased our money supply beyond our ability to actually produce real wealth, and that means that money will ultimately be devalued. There’s simply no way it can’t be. If simply printing money solved financial problems, the government could just mail everyone several million dollars, and we could all retire. The problem is that more money chasing a limited supply of goods simply pushes up prices higher and higher without doing anything to solve the underlying economic problems. If we have a recovery, with increased economic activity, there will be increased demand on the money supply, forcing an upward climb in interest rates as a means of controlling the currency. And then we’ll begin to seriously pay for Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s sins. Paradoxically, the only thing preventing hyperinflation now is the recession, because people aren’t buying anything and therefore aren’t competing for those limited goods.

THAT is why we haven’t yet experienced truly catastrophic hyperinflation YET.  But the moment we ever actually start to get out of the economic hellhole Obama has dug us into, we will see inflation at levels that will shock and dismay you.  You mark my words.  And what we’ve now learned is that having become hooked on the hardcore narcotic known as QE crack, we can’t get off of it – because if we try the stock market will crash and people will start to panic.

Who is actually going to pay for all that money Obama invented?  I pointed out the sad reality a year ago:

Nobody’s talking about what that massive devaluation of our currency is going to ultimately cost us.  Nobody is talking about the fact that the people who are going to pay the highest tax as a result of this action – and it IS a regressive tax – will be retirees who will see the value of their savings drop even as they look at interest rates and pension funds that pay them nothing.  Retirees are not in a position to snort the crack of quantitative easing; they depend mostly on bonds.  And the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve have decided to stab the bond market  that older investors necessarily depend upon in the heart to artificially inflate the stock market.  Until they have to do it again.  And again.  And of course pretty soon again and again after that.

Commodities like oil and food – which conveniently are being ignored as proof positive that we are already seeing MASSIVE inflation – will continue to go up and up and up (see here and here and here for examples).   The fact of the matter is that prices are rising dramatically and HAVE BEEN rising dramatically, and what just happened today will sure that they CONTINUE to rise dramatically.  And everybody but Obama and the Federal Reserve know it.

And everything I predicted in that article and one I wrote back in 2011 turned out to be right.  Except I used the term “QE 4″ and Obama’s economic wizards called it “QE Forever” instead.  And all the way back in 2010 I said it would fail, as it HAS failed.  You need to understand: as I pointed out in May 2011, quantitative easing is the economic equivalent of feeding a diabetic lots of sugar.  It is incredibly unhealthy and will ultimately kill the patient, but once you start feeding that sugar you can’t stop or the patient will crash and die for sure, just as Wall Street will crash and die if Obama stops giving them free sugar candy money.

Let me add another group of people to retirees I described above, Francisco: THE POOR.  Because most of the poor are on fixed incomes every bit as much as retirees are.  And their low wages, their welfare and their food stamps just aint going to keep up with the inflation that has resulted from printing money.  When you print money out of thin air, and you’ve got trillions more dollars chasing the same amount of finite resources, the value of those dollars goes down, down, DOWN.

It turns out that “free money” isn’t really so damn free, after all.

Commodities such as food and fuel are skyrocketing – especially gas as Obama’s failed Middle East policy rears its ugly head in Syria (although, mind you, Obama’s gas prices have been shockingly high all along) – and so, yeah, Francisco, “everything is getting more expensive.”

We’re to the point where we will soon be spending more money in interest to service our psychotic debt than we will on anything else.  By the next decade – and keep in mind we’re nearly half way there NOW – we will be spending the equivalent of the 2009 $862 billion Obama stimulus EVERY SINGLE YEAR.  Only those payments will be going to China while they mockingly laugh at our stupidity that made us their debt slaves.

You aint seen nothing yet, Francisco.  Thanks to Obama, your hell is going to get a lot more hellish.

What else did Francisco tell us?  He told us that Obama’s economy was crappy and thanks to Obama’s moral and fiscal idiocy, everything was more expensive now due to inflation.  What else did he say?

“With high taxes, we’re not going to be able to pay rent.”

I don’t need to point out which party and which failed president of which damn party is behind all those taxes, of course.

Let’s try to put this in terms that Francisco will understand if he doesn’t already: who owns your house you’re paying that rent on?  And what do you think happens when liberal demagogues “tax the rich”???  Here’s what will happen: when Obama and Democrats viciously tax “the rich” who own that house you rent, what’s that high-taxed owner going to do?  He’s going to raise your damn rent, THAT’S what he’s going to do.  And if you don’t like paying more in rent, you’d better show up with a huge mob of likeminded enraged sufferers with pitchforks and torches to drive Obama out of Washington before he creates another monster and kills again.

But you won’t, will you?

I want you to consider something about Obama’s “housing recovery” within Obama’s “economic recovery.”  They’re both radically and wildly FAILED.  I want you to consider, Mr. Zuniga, the ramifications of the fact that SIXTY PERCENT OF HOMES SOLD IN 2013 WENT TO CASH BUYERS.  Before I point out what that means, let me first point out how connected it is with the radically failed Obama Fed policies that have kept the money printing presses going night and day and day and night:

USA: 60 percent of homes sold in 2013 went to all cash buyers
Posted on August 16, 2013 by Stacy Herbert

Stacy Summary: This is what interest rate apartheid looks like.

USA:  60 percent of homes sold in 2013 went to all cash buyers

There was an odd sort of myth floating around the market that the cash buyer  crowd was somehow a tiny portion of the market, like a drop of water in the vast  ocean of home buying.  This delusional dream played into the fantasy that this  housing market was naturally rising because of overall household demand when in  reality, it is being driven by investors leveraging the artificial low rates  created by the Fed.  The flood of money from Wall Street has been large.  Even  anecdotally, it was apparent that cash buyers were driving the market given that  housing is a margin driven market.  That is, at any given time only a small  portion of all homes are on the market for sale.  However, an analysis by  non-other than Goldman Sachs shows that 60 percent of all 2013 home sales are  being driven by cash buyers.  That is, the middle class is largely being pushed  out of this game and has become the minority in this real estate market.

You see, Mr. Zuniga, these rich people are taking advantage of the crony capitalism (fascism) of Obama that has helped the elite investor class at the expense of the poor.  They’re snapping up the homes that YOU’RE going to rent.  And then they’re socking you with higher and higher rents.  Meanwhile, you’ve got virtually no change to ever own a home thanks to Obama.  The American dream is dead meat.  And did I mention this is the FIFTH year of the Age of Obama???  But it’s all Bush’s fault, much the way in the Big Brother society of 1984 it was all “Emmanuel Goldstein’s” fault.

Meanwhile, Mr. Zuniga, it’s getting harder and harder for you to even GET a job in Obama’s wildly failed economy.  The jobless rate just went down to 7.4%.  Hip-hip-hooray.  Only it did so as still MORE of the decimated American working class were destroyed into hopelessness at EVER finding a job.

There is an incredibly significant labor measure called the “labor participation rate.”  It is the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a damn JOB.

There’s an article I wrote a little over a year ago that you ought to consider.  I detailed then the catastrophic plunge in the rate of Americans who actually have a job in the miserably failed Obama economy during and throughout the Obama regime.  At that time, it was the worst it had been in thirty years.  And I noted how each year under Obama’s failed Marxist State, it had just gotten worse and worse.  As an example, I recorded that in November 2010 – and note this AFTER the so-called “recovery” – the labor participation rate was the worst it had been in 25 years.  Which is to say far, FAR worse than anything Bush had ever done, you Democrat ideologues.  The next year, by August 2011, it was the worst in 27 years.  And by May of 2012, it was the worst due to Obama in 31 years.

Here we are, a year or so later, and how have things gone?  Just as I told you they would go under this failed president’s failed leadership and failed ideology: the labor participation rate is now the worst in 35 years.

And the reliably überliberal Los Angeles Times was forced to acknowledge it in these terms:

Although the unemployment rate ticked down to 7.3% last month — the lowest level since December 2008 — it fell largely for the wrong reason. More discouraged Americans gave up looking for work as the percentage of the population in the labor force dropped for the third consecutive month to its worst point in 35 years.

The unemployment rate has been dropping – which has been as good for Obama politically as it has been catastrophic for the rest of America economically.  I predicted a year and a half ago:

At the rate we’re going in Obama’s God damn America, we will have zero percent unemployment and nobody will actually have a damn job.

And, yep, that’s the way we’re headed.

Democrats are demon-possessed bureaucrats.  That’s where they get their name from.  They claim that the labor participation rate is falling as older baby boomers retire.  But that is a LIE FROM HELL.  As an example, it is YOUNG ADULTS who are suffering the most due to Obamanomics.  People cannot find a job who need to work.

And because of ObamaCare, full-time jobs have been “fundamentally transformed” by Obama into part-time jobs with no health benefits.

And if you don’t believe me, again, just ask liberals.  A letter signed by the heads of the Teamsters, the UFCW and UNITE-HERE have this to say about Obama’s impact on workers and the hours they get to work:

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them.  Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

The letter from these liberal unions points out the obvious fact that Democrats refuse to acknowledge about their demonic ObamaCare takeover of healthcare:

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under
the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours
unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

You want to know who is killing your dreams, Mr. Zuniga?  Democrats.

But you keep voting for them anyway, because you prefer lies and more socialism and more welfare and then more lies and still more socialism and still more welfare, to the truth that would set you free if you were willing to finally act like a man and be determined to stand up on your own two feet and demand an economic system that enables you to do that.

You’re siding with the wrong people, the wrong party, the wrong political philosophy.  You’re siding with the people who keep HURTING you.  As you’d understand if you stopped and thought about your own words.

You’re one of those people who still idiotically believes that when Obama “gives” you “free stuff,” it’s actually FREE.  Let me pop your bubble, Francisco: when ObamaCare taxes insurance companies, taxes drugs, taxes medical devices, and mandates (that means forces) the health industry to pay for all of these “free” benefits such as free birth control and 26-year-olds staying on mom and dad’s health plan, the cost of medical care rises FOR EVERYBODY.  And at the same time the quality of health care goes up for EVERYBODY.

And that has had the result that people are getting kicked off health plans rather than all the lies Obama promised.

You don’t understand that everything you and your Democrats want to do – such as force businesses to raise the minimum wage whether they can afford to do so or not, whether they will cut their work forces or not, whether they will be forced to raise prices (which will reduce demand and thus reduce jobs) on poor people who buy from them or not – undermines the economy and hurts the very poor people Democrats dishonestly claim to be trying to help.  Back in 2009, I predicted that Obamanomics with its totalitarian dictate on employers to pay higher wages would be a holocaust for minimum wage workers.  And I was right.  And I just keep being more and more right as Obama’s devastating and disastrous impact on the economy spreads like the cancer that it is.

In order for the economy to create jobs, and create enough jobs to get America out of the hellhole Obama put it in, the government needs to step off employers’ throats.  Quit forcing them to do stuff they can’t afford to do and cover stuff they can’t afford to cover.  Cut their taxes so they have an actual INCENTIVE to create jobs.  And for that matter cut the damn welfare incentive so that working-age adults who ought to be ashamed of themselves if they were capable of that virtue have an actual incentive to start working.

The Singularity Of ‘Solutions’ Proposed By Liberal Thinkers Is Only Surpassed By Their Abject HYPOCRISY

August 26, 2013

I made the mistake of searching for intelligent life in the Los Angeles Times’ editorial section and found this gem:

Re “Why get off welfare?” Opinion, Aug. 22

I never cease to be amazed at the singularity of economic solutions proposed by conservative thinkers. When arguing taxes, conservatives insist that cutting them will encourage small businesses to create jobs, providing a broader taxpaying base, while increasing taxes will reduce jobs and therefore reduce the amount of taxes going to government.

In his article, Michael Tanner argues that if benefit payments were lower than wages for entry-level jobs, it would encourage the poor to seek work.

Why not increase the minimum wage instead? Would that not also encourage the poor to seek employment?

Jack Berens
Alta Loma

Let’s just put the first hoity-toity, sanctimonious, self-righteous sentence together with the very last to see what’s wrong with this argument:

I never cease to be amazed at the singularity of economic solutions proposed by conservative thinkers.

Why not increase the minimum wage instead? Would that not also encourage the poor to seek employment?

Oookay.  Apparently, Mr. Berens is astonished at the “singularity of economic solutions” proposed by conservatives.  Which is a fancy way of accusing conservatives of thinking alike.

So what does Mr. Berens proceed to do, you know, after displaying his naked contempt for “the singularity of conservative thought”???  Why, prove that all damn liberals think alike and document the “singularity of economic solutions proposed by liberal thinkers,” that’s what.

Increase the minimum wage.  Why, no lefty has ever proposed THAT novel concept before.  THAT’S not demonstrating “the singularity of liberal thought,” now, is it?  As long as you’ve got the IQ of a poached egg it’s not, anyway.

For the record, the LA Times published six responses to the Tanner editorial.  One of them was from a conservative (actually five liberals’ to one conservative is about as “fair” as the LA Times is capable of ever getting, so there’s not much point complaining about that).  So five liberals write in – and four of the five call for higher wages.  And the fifth had a couple of other “singular” liberal economic solutions in demanding more government intrusion into education, more government intrusion into child care and more government intrusion into transportation.  So I think I have good grounds just in the LA Times editorial section in pointing out that this Jack Berens is revealing the singularity of economic solutions proposed by liberals even as he attacks the very same thing from conservatives.

The biggest problem with liberals isn’t that they are completely wrong (although that is a major problem with them); the problem is that liberals are abject hypocrites who routinely demonize conservatives for doing the same damn thing that they are doing even when they are at that very moment doing that thing themselves as Jack Berens does here.

Actually, if one were fair or honest (liberals being incapable of either), one would realize that the “singularity of solutions” thing is rather absurd.  Of COURSE there’s a singularity of thought among conservative thinkers… THAT’S WHY WE CALL THEM CONSERVATIVES!!!  If they DIDN’T have the same solutions, they wouldn’t be conservatives anymore than if liberals didn’t have the same damn solutions, they wouldn’t be liberals.  Do you see my point???

I mean, what a dunderheaded argument the LA Times saw fit to print.

Jack Berens’ problem is that he’s a hypocrite who can’t help shaking his fist in the mirror and shouting, “YOU are an idiot!”

I just despise that king of self-righteous hypocrisy.

Here’s another thing that’s wrong with Berens’ “solution”: How do you increase the minimum wage?  By using the raw, naked power of government to FORCE businesses to pay a higher wage.

Now, let’s see: are liberals doing a real good job creating jobs?  Well, if you’ve got that poached egg IQ, I’m sure you think they are.  The rest of us aren’t seeing a whole lot of jobs being created.  And then we’re further stunned to learn that seven out of every eight jobs Obama has “created” in his presidency are part-time jobs rather than the full-time jobs people need to actually earn an actual living.  And ObamaCare has massively accelerated that terrible trend.  And will continue to do so.

Hell, even ObamaCare shills are only hiring their workers part-time so they won’t have to pay the cost of health care that ObamaCare would force them to pay if they didn’t hire part-time.  The damn irony is just too thick here.

Who is going to be forced to pay workers more?  Does Jack Berens believe that every single employer in America is a “conservative economic thinker”???  Does he not realize that plenty of LIBERALS who hire people are paying their workers the same revolting wage that Jack Berens demonizes conservatives for paying???

Why are liberals paying this despicably low wage?  They could pay as much as they want to pay.

The reason is pretty damn simple, kids: both conservatives and the liberals who actually have to live in the real damn world alike are paying what they can afford to pay to retain the quality of help that they need.

Jack Berens is basically saying, “I think other people ought to pay more.”  Which is the PROTOTYPICAL “economic solution proposed by liberal thinkers.”  Let’s force other people to spend their money the way we liberal fascists think they should spend it.  Never heard that line of reasoning before.  Boy, this Jack Berens fellow is anything BUT an example of liberal “singularity,” aint he???

Just how in the world do you think forcing businesses to pay higher wages will incentivize them to hire more workers???  And if employer X and employee Y both agree on a certain wage, then just who the hell made liberals’ Adolf Hitler by giving them the power to interfere with that agreement and say, “Nein!  Employers must be forced by government socialism to pay MORE than they are willing to pay!”

I can document that I put my money where my mouth was in this minimum-wage-employement debate.  In that 2009 article, I made a prediction: I predicted that increasing the minimum wage would decrease the number of minimum wage jobs.  And I was right, right, RIGHT just as liberals were wrong, wrong, WRONG.  As I proved.

This idea that liberals can use the raw fascist power of a totalitarian state to dictate what businesses and individuals do is as naïve as it is evil.  Businesses have a way of doing whatever the hell they can to not be the social experiment stooges that liberals continuously want them to be.  Frankly, the lower-skilled a job, the less valuable a worker is to his/her employer, and therefore the smaller the margin that an employer can pay for what is by definition a marginal job to begin with.  The job simply isn’t worth enough to an employer to want to – or be able to afford to – pay more.  And if government tries to force them to pay more, they will simply not offer the damn job.

And of course, the Tanner article was precisely about the fact that liberals really don’t WANT jobs to begin with: they want to be parasites.  They want to be freeloaders.  The want to be entitlement suckers.  They want to be welfare/food stamp addicts.  And they want government to have the fascist, dictatorial, totalitarian power to decide who wins and who loses, who pays and who doesn’t pay, who has to be forced to pay for ObamaCare and who gets a damn waiver from ObamaCare, and that sort of thing.  So it frankly doesn’t bother them if they kill jobs and hurt poor people who want to work.

Which, of course, is precisely what is happening now as businesses are tripping over themselves to kill the idea of “full-time employees” in order to avoid the ObamaCare hell mandate (i.e., the mandate to go to hell mandated by ObamaCare).

Inflation Back On The Table As Part Of Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ Misery Buffet

April 7, 2012

Obama loves the poor: that’s why he’s created so damn many of them.

In the God damn America of Barack Obama, the poor people that Obama promised his policies would save are (of course) unable to buy a house while watching their rents skyrocket.

They could live in their cars, but damn it’s too expensive for them to pay the regressive tax of Obama’s gas prices.

Of course, it used to be that you could always at least find a minimum wage job to help make ends meet – but Obama in his abundant compassion kept milions from that kind of drear and drudgery.

The thing is, Michelle Obama would never say, “Let them eat cake” and is frankly offended that cake is being wasted on the proletariet who clearly don’t deserve cake until November when it’s time to vote again.

There is a shocking increase in food prices:

As is often the case, there is a big difference between what the government statistics are reporting and what’s going on in the real world. According to the most recent inflation reading published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), consumer prices grew at an annual rate of just 1.1% in August.

The government has an incentive to distort CPI numbers, for reasons such as keeping the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security payments low. While there’s no question that you may be able to get a good deal on a new car or a flat-screen TV today, how often are you really buying these things? When you look at the real costs of everyday life, prices have risen sharply over the last year. For simplicity’s sake, consider the cash market prices on some basic commodities.

On average, our basic food costs have increased by an incredible 48% over the last year (measured by wheat, corn, oats, and canola prices). From the price at the pump to heating your stove, energy costs are up 23% on average (heating oil, gasoline, natural gas). A little protein at dinner is now 39% higher (beef and pork), and your morning cup of coffee with a little sugar has risen by 36% since last October.

Good thing Obama can use the same math to calculate inflation that he’s using to calculate his uemployment rate.  That way he and his media propaganda can keep assuring us that things are going just swell.

Mitt Romney sums up Obamanomics thus:

“Today, we have a different set of ailments. Instead of unemployment coupled with inflation, we have a toxic blend of unemployment, debt, home foreclosures, and bankruptcies,” he says. “Their sum total is what we can call the Obama Misery Index. It is at a record high. Indeed, it makes even the malaise of the Carter years look like a boom.”

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I sum up Obamanomics this way:

I hope none of this is giving anybody a headache.  Because ObamaCare is all about dumping millions of patients into Medicaid – and doctors are fleeing Medicaid the way rats flee sinking ships.  And lifesaving drugs are becoming as scarce thanks to the brave new world of ObamaCare as bread was on the shelves of the former Soviet Union.

Teen Unemployment Another Proof Of How Desperately Wrong Obama, Democrat Policies Are And How Much They Hurt Little People

August 18, 2011

Just over two years ago I wrote an article titled, “Minimum Wage Increase Means Maximum Employment Decrease.”  And I began thus:

The Democrats raised the national minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25. They claim that the additional earnings will help the economy. Just like their stimulus did (right?).

Of course, raising the minimum wage is effectively a tax increase imposed primarily on small businesses. Things always seem so easy when your spending other peoples’ money.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, goes the saying. Whoever first said that surely must have had Democrats in mind.

The economist who literally wrote the book on Minimum Wages predicts that the minimum wage hike will result in the loss of 300,000 jobs. And that’s a HUGE number, consider there are only 2.8 million minimum wage workers; it’s 10.7% of the total minimum wage work force!

THAT’S the way to help the economy! THAT’S the way to help poor workers!

That article cites articles and sources AND MADE A PREDICTION.  And that prediction was that the minimum wage increase would result in far fewer jobs and hurt the poorest people.  You should read it now, given what you are about to see below:

Average Teen Unemployment Rate in D.C. is 50.1%, Analysis Shows
Friday, August 12, 2011
By Penny Starr

(CNSNews.com) – An analysis based on U.S. Census Bureau data by the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) shows that the average unemployment rate for teens ages 16 to 19 in the District of Columbia was 50.1 percent as of June 2011. This corresponds with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showing that for D.C. the annual average unemployment rate for teens in 2010 was 49.8 percent.

Michael Saltsman, research fellow at EPI, provided the 50.1 percent figure to CNSNews.com as an update of an analysis he compiled based on the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

The 50.1 percent figure is almost double the average teen unemployment rate in June 2007 in the District, when it was 26.2 percent, according to Saltsman.

Since 2007, the rate has increased each year: 29.5 percent in June 2008, 44.7 percent in 2009 and 48.8 percent in 2010, based on EPI’s analysis.

“We’re in the midst of the third summer in a row where teen unemployment has been above 20 percent,” Saltsman said when he announced his report on July 8.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not keep monthly unemployment rates on teens, but its data showing the average annual unemployment rate for teens ages 16 to 19 in D.C. for 2010 was 49.8 percent.

The state with the second highest unemployment in the EPI analysis, California, also closely mirrors the BLS annual average for 2010 — 34.4 percent compared to EPI’s 34.6 percent.

The latest data from the BLS on average teen unemployment nationwide – all 50 states and the District of Columbia — as of July 2011 was 25 percent.

“Young people are facing more competition for fewer jobs, a lingering consequence of the recession and wage mandates that have eliminated entry-level opportunities,” Saltsman said. “The consequences for this generation of young people missing out on their first job are severe, including an increased risk of earning low wages and being unemployed again in future years.”

Saltsman’s analysis, which was released on July 8, ranked the 20 states with the highest average teen unemployment through May 2011: the first column shows the actual teen unemployment rate over the teen labor force; the second column reflects the number of discouraged teen workers added to the unemployment rate (also compiled from Census Bureau data).

District of Columbia – 49.0 percent, 52.2 percent

California – 34.6 percent, 36.2 percent

Georgia – 34.6 percent, 35.7 percent

Nevada – 34.3 percent, 36.4 percent

Washington – 33.2 percent, 34.2 percent

Idaho – 31.8 percent, 33.1 percent

West Virginia – 30.2 percent, 32.9 percent

Missouri – 29.6 percent, 31.2 percent

Florida – 29.4 percent, 31.4 percent

Kentucky – 29.0 percent, 30.3 percent

South Carolina – 28.5 percent, 29.0 percent

Rhode Island – 28.0 percent, 29.6 percent

Michigan – 27.6 percent, 29.1 percent

Mississippi – 27.5 percent, 30.7 percent

Tennessee – 26.9 percent, 27.4 percent

Arizona – 26.7 percent, 28.2 percent

Arkansas – 26.7 percent, 28.2 percent

Colorado – 26.1 percent, 26.7 percent

Illinois – 26.1 percent, 27.5 percent

Oregon – 25.8 percent, 26.4 percent

Two years ago Democrats hiked the minimum wage.  Two years ago Barack Obama signed it into law.  Two years ago Democrats predicted that this would lead to greater prosperity.  Two years ago conservative economists predicted it would be a total disaster.

Who was right???  Who was totally freaking WRONG???

Democrats are genuinely evil people.  And to the extent they actually have good intentions, THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH DEMOCRAT INTENTIONS.  Paved high and deep and wide.

Democrats demonize their opponents as being hateful and greedy.  And then Democrats cynically assure the poorest and most needy and most ignorant that they will help those people and make their lives better.

But do they make these people’s lives better?  HELL NO!  Their stupid and depraved Marxist policies undermine and destroy America.  In this particular case, Barack Obama and the Democrats said, “We’re going to demand that employers pay you a wage that exceeds what your labor is worth to them so that you lose your job and all sorts of minimum wage workers lose any chance whatsoever of finding a job.  And we franklydon’t give one freaking damn about the suffering or your family’s suffering because we know that you’re the kind of poor, ignorant schmuck who will believe our demonizing the next time and the time after that and the time after that.

Let me go back to my article that I wrote TWO DAMN YEARS AGO when this stupid and evil law got passed.  After guaranteeing the Democrat policy would fail; after guaranteeing that it would lead to huge job losses for teens and other minimum wage earners; and after talking about how profoundly stupid Democrat voters are for believing these lies over and over again (as I restate above), I concluded:

Democrats are like nurses who bring thirsty patients their very favorite brand of Kool-Aid. It’s a tasty beverage; don’t worry about the fact that it is contains arsenic (which just happens to be the primary ingredient in rat poison). It’s ultimately a terrible way to die, but what the heck, it sure taste good going down.

Obama has screwed all the people he promised that he would save.  Even the reliably liberal Washington Post acknowledges that blacks have been set back DECADES under Obama’s misrule [See update below].  Black unemployment is TWICE the national average under Obama, and even überüberlib Maxine Waters is saying that rabid black support for Obama is hurting the black community.  And the black congressional caucus is tired of making excuses for this failed leader.

And women are losing ground under Obama.

And young people are getting totally screwed under Obama.

Food, fuel and shelter have gone to hell under Obama.  Poor people are more vulnerable to changes in all three than the rich people that liberals always demonize Republicans for protecting.  Obama’s economic legacy is THE HIGHEST POVERTY INCREASE IN FIFTY YEARS

It’s long past time that the American people wised up to the liberal demagogic attacks and understood that liberal policies hurt minorities, hurt women, hurt the young and hurt the poor FAR more than the conservative policies that liberals constantly demonize.

When Democrats attack the businesses that create jobs, they won’t create jobs.  When Democrats attack the people who hire workers, they won’t hire workers.  When Democrats attack the people whose capital investment makes economic expansion possible, they won’t invest.

And the people who will suffer the most are those who are closest to the bottom time and time again.

[Update, 9/14/11: It is amazing how frequently liberal newspapers purge their sites of anything that could be unflatering toward liberalism or Democrats.  The story on black unemployment was purged by the Washington PostBut it is still available here via the Associated Press].

Miniumum Wage Increase Means Maximum Employment Decrease

July 27, 2009

The Democrats raised the national minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25.  They claim that the additional earnings will help the economy.  Just like their stimulus did (right?).

Of course, raising the minimum wage is effectively a tax increase imposed primarily on small businesses.  Things always seem so easy when your spending other peoples’ money.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, goes the saying.  Whoever first said that surely must have had Democrats in mind.

The economist who literally wrote the book on Minimum Wages predicts that the minimum wage hike will result in the loss of 300,000 jobs.  And that’s a HUGE number, consider there are only 2.8 million minimum wage workers; it’s 10.7% of the total minimum wage work force!

THAT’S the way to help the economy!  THAT’S the way to help poor workers!

Anthony Randazo at Reason.org has an article entitled, “My Plan to Save 300,000 Jobs by Monday,” writing:

Supporters of the minimum wage like to believe that they are helping to raise wages. But since the pool of earnings for any business is not infinite, any increase in wages decreases the firms profitability. Generally this leads to some people getting fired, and many, many others not getting a job in the first place. With an unemployment rate of 9.5%, the government should be doing everything possible to encourage firms to hire people. How does making businesses pay their employees more in this down economy help create jobs?

U. Cal-Irvine economist David Neumark estimates in a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research that the impending wage increase will kill “about 300,000 jobs for those between the ages of 16-24.” The White House has projected (not counted) that the stimulus money has created 150,000 jobs so far. Even if that is true, it will soon be wiped out by this new limitation of business development. It is pretty simple math. If you don’t raise the minimum wage, the jobs are saved. End of story.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is on the record essentially saying that the Obama administration’s claim of having “created or saved” 150,000 jobs is tantamount to looking at clouds and seeing animals in the sky.  Which is just one among many, many reasons to laugh at the Obama “job creation” record.  Sadly, 300,000 actual real jobs lost is twice as many as the fake pretend jobs Obama claimed to “create or save.”

The Wall Street Journal has another catchy-titled article, “Mandating Unemployment: Congress prepares to kill more jobs:

Here’s some economic logic to ponder. The unemployment rate in June for American teenagers was 24%, for black teens it was 38%, and even White House economists are predicting more job losses. So how about raising the cost of that teenage labor?

Sorry to say, but that’s precisely what will happen on July 24, when the minimum wage will increase to $7.25 an hour from $6.55. The national wage floor will have increased 41% since the three-step hike was approved by the Democratic Congress in May 2007. Then the economy was humming, with an overall jobless rate of 4.5% and many entry-level jobs paying more than the minimum. That’s a hard case to make now, with a 9.5% national jobless rate and thousands of employers facing razor-thin profit margins.

There’s been a long and spirited debate among economists about who gets hurt and who benefits when the minimum wage rises. But in a 2006 National Bureau of Economic Research paper, economists David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Bank reviewed the voluminous literature over the past 30 years and came to two almost universally acknowledged conclusions.

First, “a sizable majority of the studies give a relatively consistent (though not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects.”
Second, “studies that focus on the least-skilled groups [i.e., teens, and welfare moms] provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects.”

Proponents argue that millions of workers will benefit from the bigger paychecks. But about two of every three full-time minimum-wage workers get a pay raise anyway within a year on the job. Meanwhile, those who lose their jobs or who never get a job in the first place get a minimum wage of $0.

Mr. Neumark calculates that the 70-cent per-hour minimum wage hike this month would kill “about 300,000 jobs for those between the ages of 16-24.” Single working mothers would also be among those most hurt.

Keep in mind the Earned Income Tax Credit already exists to help low-wage workers and has been greatly expanded in recent years. The EITC also spreads the cost of the wage supplement to all Americans, not merely to employers, so it doesn’t raise the cost of hiring low-wage workers.

For example, consider a single mom with two kids who earns the current $6.55 minimum at a full-time, year-round job. In 2009 she receives a $5,028 EITC cash payment from Uncle Sam — or about an extra $2.50 per hour worked. Other federal income supplements, such as the refundable child tax credit, add another $1,900 or so. Thus at a wage of $6.55 an hour, her actual pay becomes $10.02 an hour — more than a 50% increase from the current minimum. (See nearby table.)

But that single mom can’t collect those checks if she doesn’t have a job, and the tragedy of a higher minimum wage is that it will prevent thousands of working moms striving to pull their families out of poverty from being hired in the first place.

If Congress were wise and compassionate, it would at least suspend the wage hike for one or two years until the job market recovers. We know this Congress won’t do that, but someone has to speak up for the poorest, least skilled Americans.

Democrats speak up all the time, of course, but that’s just rhetoric and demagoguery.  They create mess after mess, and disaster after disaster, in the name of “saving the day.”  And then they ride off to let the American people suffer the consequences of their policies, realizing that with the mainstream media’s willing participation they can attribute the agony inflicted on the poor to the Republican’s “lack of compassion.”

Minimum wage hikes clearly have more impact at the lower end of the wage distribution.  They effect low skilled workers and the primarily small business employers who hire them.  Minimum wages reduce employment.  There’s been a substantial body of evidence accumulated over 20 years of recent research and still another 80 years of other research.  And it clearly shows that, essentially – just like when the price of gas goes up people use less gas, or just like when taxing cigarettes people smoke less – when you raise the wages of extremely low-skilled labor employers invariably will try to use something else.

The 300,000 jobs won’t hit tomorrow.  You won’t pick up the paper the day after the wage hike to read the headline, “300k jobs lost,” although given our level of media propaganda you might well see a headline that reads, “300k jobs not lost, dire predictions about the minimum wage hike false.”   But the fact remains that low wage labor market is filled with jobs that turn over very quickly.  And if an employer simply slows down his or her hiring, employment will nevertheless fall pretty quickly.

This is just another in a long line of terrible economic policies in the name of “helping the poor” that will invariably end up HURTING the poor.

According to polls, 57.4% of Obama voters had no idea which party controlled the Congress for the last two years when our economy went from strong to terrible.  That makes it easy for Democrats to demagogue fiction out of fact.  For the record, it was Democrats.  The Dow Industrial Average was at 11,986.04 on November 3, 2006 when Republicans were last in control of Congress. The unemployment rate for October of 2006 was at 4.4% when Republicans last ran things.  Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, and Chris Dodd brought us from 4.4% to 9.5% unemployment which by nearly all accounts is going to get worse and worse.

The fact of the matter is, the Republicans tried to regulate the housing industry, and Democrats – true to form – denied there was a crisis, blocked the Republican effort, and clung to Titanic-sized economic landmines in the name of “helping the poor.” Even right before the housing mortgage industry completely imploded, Barney Frank was claiming that Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac (which DOMINATE the housing mortgage industry) was “fundamentally sound.”

What we come to find out is that “fundamentally sound” just means that liberals are getting everything they want and it hasn’t completely blown up yet.

Democrats are like nurses who bring thirsty patients their very favorite brand of Kool-Aid.  It’s a tasty beverage; don’t worry about the fact that it is  contains arsenic (which just happens to be the primary ingredient in rat poison).  It’s ultimately a terrible way to die, but what the heck, it sure taste good going down.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 596 other followers