Type to search

Republicans Don’t Really Care About Inequality

Memo Pad Politics

Republicans Don’t Really Care About Inequality

Texas Senator Ted Cruz (Peter Stevens/Flickr)

The Republican Party appears to accept that poverty and the inequities of wealth and political power that have prevailed over the last 15 years are issues it can no longer ignore. Not without paying a price. After all, Mitt Romney’s cool indifference to the everyday struggles of working Americans went a long way toward sinking his 2012 campaign.

But expressing concern about inequality is one thing. Doing something about it is another. The GOP so far appears more worried about its reputation as being the party of the very, very rich, than the empirical reality of its being the party of the very, very rich.

At a recent Republican gathering, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas gave voice to the party’s incongruity of perception and reality. “I think Republicans are and should be the party of the 47 percent,” he said. Later at that same event, billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch announced plans to spend nearly $1 billion through their political network in the next race for the White House, with virtually all of it going to the Republican Party’s nominee.

If the GOP were truly troubled by historic rates of income and wealth inequality, it would rubber-stamp President Barack Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the wealthy and use the proceeds to fund infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, waterways, and sewer systems. Public investments like these have historically garnered broad support, because they are neutral vehicles for achieving the goals of statecraft. Such expenditures would not only create hundreds of thousands of seasonal jobs, as well as many thousands of permanent jobs, but also stimulate economic activity on a national scale. And they’d pay for themselves over time.

The president’s $4 trillion fiscal budget would tap into offshore accounts and Wall Street transactions that only the very, very rich possess and thus care about. In addition to public works, which Obama has been calling for since his took office, increased revenues would be used for free community college and universal child care.

This, or something like it, is what serious people talk about if they are serious about combating inequality. Progressive redistribution, however bitter-tasting the phrase may be, must be on the table. But all we are likely to hear, especially from Republicans aiming high, are platitudes steeped in conservative morality, homilies to the power of private enterprise freed from the bonds of bureaucratic red tape, or the benefits of cutting taxes. Really. Anything. Anything at all to avoid tax hikes even on the treasonous few who hide their money offshore.

All one needs to do to see the difference between what Republicans are saying and Republicans are doing is look at the current session of Congress. The very first item on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s to-do list was passing a bill authorizing the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. That project would indeed create thousands of seasonal jobs, but only about 40 permanent ones. It would have virtually no impact on the U.S. economy. Moreover, the public would get nothing in return, unless you count greater levels of global warming.

That’s not to mention other items being pushed which have nothing to do with serving the greater good. A short list: House Republicans have introduced legislation to restrict abortion (the melodramatically titled “fetal-pain bill”), to dismantle part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and to starve to death the president’s modest executive action on illegal immigration.

Even if the Republicans really did believe, as Jeb Bush is trying to convince us, that addressing inequality is the right thing to do, don’t bet on any action. Doing the right thing had rarely been an incentive, because this is a party now committed to total warfare against Obama and the Democratic agenda. The only way the Republicans will take action on inequality is if they are forced to, but even then, they’ll likely do everything short of raising taxes on the very, very rich.

That’s why we should keep our eyes on the minimum wage and paid sick leave. House Speaker John Boehner has said he’d rather kill himself than raise the minimum wage. Conservatives are poised to attack Republicans entertaining mandated sick days. But in terms of inequality, these are the easiest ways to say you’ve done something without raising taxes on the very, very rich.

So yes, inequality is emerging as a major issue in the 2016 presidential race, and Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and others are going to try hard to convince us that the Republican Party cares, really cares, about the plight of the poor and an ever-shrinking middle class. But remember the last time a major candidate talked about such “compassionate conservatism.” By the end of his second term, the greatest beneficiaries of that compassion were the very, very wealthy.

John Stoehr is managing editor of The Washington Spectator. Follow him on Twitter and Medium.

Photo: Peter Stevens via Flickr



  1. Lynda Groom February 6, 2015

    On my, I’m shocked to read such a result coming from todays GOP.

    1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

      I am shocked to hear that you think you can read.

      1. Lynda Groom February 7, 2015

        Thats what you’ve got? Just another sample of childish and insulting behavior. I wish I could say I’m shocked, but clearly you proven that impossible.

    2. Dominick Vila February 7, 2015

      John Stoehr was a bit disingenuous when he referred to the growing inequality as a 15-year phenomenon. Financial inequality has been an integral part of society since the earliest days of civilization, and when it comes to the USA it can be traced to our earliest beginnings and, certainly, to the days of the robber barons. The Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Hearst and others paved the way for the Bushes, Kennedys and all the other billionaires that dominate all facets of life – and policy making – nowadays. Some earned their wealth the old fashion way, they earned it. Others were crooks, and others inherited their wealth. Some were compassionate, but most were greedy individuals who would stop at nothing to accumulate more wealth, often at the expense of their workers and fellow Americans.

  2. Daniel Jones February 6, 2015

    They. Want. Inequality.
    Why? You ask, “For God’s Sake, Why?”
    If their sponsors get all the money, they get sponsored more.
    Welcome to Plutocracy 101.

  3. Independent1 February 7, 2015

    Mr. Stoehr, could we please set the record straight: the GOP is not the party of the ultra rich. The GOP is the party of corporations, and their wealthy owners and/or the management of corporation’s; the CEOs and board members who may well often influence politicians counter to what the employees of the corporations they represent may well have desired, had they been given a vote prior to the corporation sometimes spending millions to influence politicians in a way that is counter to what the majority of the workers in a corporation may have wanted (just one more reason why Citizens United is so farcical. The vast amount of money that some corporations spend influencing America’s politics is probably often not what the corporation really wants, but what the handful of super rich running the corporation want – thereby clearly giving a huge voice to the wrong people in a corporation – once again – the minority.)

    And if you take into account the counties that legislators in the House represent, you will find that it is Democrats who represent by far the counties in America where the majority of truly ‘ultra rich’ actually reside. And if you had analyzed Obama’s 2 inauguration galas, which drew a plethora of very wealthy Americans, to the point that airports in the DC area had difficulty providing space for all the corporate-sized personal jets which brought in the truly Ultra Rich to attend Obama’s inaugurations; it would be clear that the true party of the Ultra Rich is the Democrats.

    Super rich GOP supporters such as the Kochs, the Waltons, the Adelsons, etc, and even a number of super rich hedge fund owners such as Mr. Singer; are all business oriented people who in one way or another oversee the operation of Corporations. It is these corporate-biased super wealthy who that have ulterior motives for working to influence our government in as many ways as they can to get legislation passed that is favorable to the operation of the CORPORATIONS they either own or manage. And for the most part, these are devious people who will resort to any means (including trying to influence an election by suggesting employees may be laid off if Obama won the election), whether legal or illegal, to get what they want. Anyone who believes they are beyond pulling very shady deals is either naive or purely delusional.

    So please – do not paint the Ultra Rich with such a broad brush. The vast majority of Ultra Rich are compassionate people, who know full well that, if you’re willing to play the game honestly and straight up, that Democrats will advance their wealth to far greater heights than Republicans. But if you’re more inclined to not caring whether or not you’re playing the game fairly by doing what you can to bend the rules; or influence politicians to bend the rules for you – then your more likely to favor supporting Republicans.

    1. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

      There is something to be said about brevity. Perhaps you could open with a synopsis.

  4. joe schmo February 7, 2015

    What a crook of crap.

    “The GOP so far appears more worried about its reputation as being the party of the very, very rich, than the empirical reality of its being the party of the very, very rich.”

    The Liberals are the party of the very very rich (which includes Hollywood) and the poor ignorants and innocents.


    1. stcroixcarp February 7, 2015

      Joe Honey, who is richer the highest ten paid Hollywood stars or the Kock Brothers? Sheldon Adelman or the whole New England Patriot team? The Liberals have one billionaire< George Soros, and the Kocks are 5 times richer than him. Take your meds and mellow out.

      1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        The Kock bro actually worked for their money as opposed to Soro’s. I wonder who has the most employees that support their families and pay taxes?

        1. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

          The Lefty’s hate rich people because they are trained to do so. Parrotmonkey’s don’t know any better. Then again, it may just be envy!

          1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            The poor are always envious of people who have more than they do. In the liberals eyes they are all rich so naturally they are evil. I would love to be evil.

          2. jmprint February 7, 2015

            No, Mikey we don’t hate, hate is not for humans, we just don’t like their greedy hands on our tax money.

          3. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

            I just knew you are from a parallel universe. Hate is not for humans? Maybe not in your world. But you think Democrats are the way to go and that is a fairy tale too.

          4. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            You aren’t very bright, are you? Many ‘lefties’ ARE rich people. In fact, the richest people of all are ‘lefties’ — including Bill Gates. You really should learn to talk about things you actually know something about.

        2. sharon1026 February 7, 2015

          For one thing, it’s Koch and not Kock, and for another, they most certainly did not work for their money they inherited it. They inherited it from their John Bircher father who was a criminal in his own right. Google is your friend, I suggest you use it.

          1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            What are you talking about.

          2. sharon1026 February 7, 2015

            Ah, I see you corrected the spelling so it would make my comment look ridiculous. Nice try but many have already read your comment and also saw the way you spelled it.
            Typical GOP move….it only makes you look bad.

          3. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Looking bad is good, it scares the morons away. You have proven you are fearless.

          4. sharon1026 February 7, 2015

            Well, I might have made a mistake because I now see the comment before was the one who misspelled their name. If you didn’t correct it because you didn’t misspell it, the I apologize. However, I still stand by what I said about them inheriting their money.

          5. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

            Dang, if you make a spelling error, call it a typo if it makes you feel better, deal with it. You aren’t going to get your hand cut off.

          6. sharon1026 February 7, 2015

            Well, if you’re going to defend criminals, at least spell their names correctly.

          7. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

            Your knowledge of history sucks.

          8. sharon1026 February 7, 2015

            Which part? The part the inherited their money or the part about the John Birch Society? They expanded the Koch Industries but at the expense of the environment and their only goal is to be the kings of this country….hell, maybe the world. But if you or hic up there think they give two damns about you, then I really pity you. They laugh at people like you for defending them.

          9. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

            I cherish the right to express my views as our Constitution allows. These rights extend to all citizens, you, me, Koch, Soros, Steyer, liberals, conservatives, nut cases, jerks and perverts. When any of these aforementioned parties try to infringe on these rights, then there is a problem. That is when the government steps in, to defend the Constitution, assuming it is not the infringer. Voltaire: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. Extend that courtesy to your fellow citizens and resist all those, including your government, that think they have the right to limit expression of opposing views.

          10. Buzzi Butt February 8, 2015

            Are the Kochs any more reprehensible than George Soros, Thomas Steyer, or Michael Bloomberg? I realize they aren’t conservatives, but that doesn’t absolve them of anything. Steyer made his money in hedging and coal. Oops. Bloomberg’s wealth comes from the Wall Street and the financial industry, Soros made his fortune from hedging and the securities business. His tactics broke the Bank of England. His affairs are mostly private-so no one knows what he is doing or with whom he deals. The hedge fund industry is noted for spectacular failures with the losers being the investors, not the management. Calling the kettle black are we?

          11. sharon1026 February 8, 2015

            Political Action Committee (PAC) Spending (2000 to 2014)Koch Industries: $16.03 millionSoros Fund Management: $0

            Lobbying Expenditures (2000 to 2014)Koch Industries: $97.95 millionSoros Fund Management: $260,000Open Society Policy Center (Soros-Funded): $42.55 million

            Individual Donations to Federal Candidates, Parties, and PACs (1989 to 2014)Koch Brothers: $2.58 millionGeorge Soros: $1.74 million

            Individual Donations to 527 Organizations (1989 to 2010)Koch Brothers: $1.5 millionGeorge Soros: $32.5 million

            TotalsKoch: 118.06 millionSoros: 77.05 million

            According to federal lobbying reports, Koch Industries’ top issues include energy, environmental, tax and homeland security policies. The Open Society Policy Center has mainly lobbied on issues relating to foreign relations, civil rights, and law enforcement policy.

            VERDICT: When it comes to the combination of institutional lobbying, 527 group donations and PAC expenditures, Koch Industries far out-spends Soros’ hedge fund and think tank, $57.4 million to $12.8 million. Most of this money is attributable to lobbying expenditures.

            Source:OpenSecrets.org and IVN

          12. idamag February 7, 2015

            Those facts are out there – they inherited it. What do they do with it? They have five political fund raising groups that the IRS is not supposed to touch and tax.
            Everyone should ask themselves: “Who owns my legislator.

          13. sharon1026 February 7, 2015

            I don’t have to ask myself, I’m from NC and know they own both my Senators and my Representative, Virgina Foxx.They also own my Governor via their puppet Art Pope. Most politicians are nothing but bought and paid for political whores, but more Republicans than Democrats….not that their aren’t some of those too, but just not as many.

      2. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

        I’m guessing you mean the Koch Industry and family. It isn’t just a couple of brothers that have all the wealth. This family organization and associated businesses employ about 70,000 people world wide. Soros does not compare to this at all. If Koch family if right, then they are a counterbalance to Soros on the left. I’d rather have this fight going on than live with the anarchy, butchery and poverty in Africa and the Middle East.

    2. raineysboy February 7, 2015

      What does a “crook” of crap mean? “Crook means the hooked staff of a shepherd or an dishonest person. Obviously your intelligence (or lack thereof) is apparent in your statement. It is true there are many rich people that are liberals, moderates or Democrats… But anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that the core of the Republican Party is the economic principle that if you provide money to the top that it will “TRICKLE DOWN” to those less fortunate… The principle of the Democratic Party is the teachings of Jesus that we are responsible to the least of our brethren first and foremost, So it is “TRICKLE UP” Economics. “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” – Abraham Lincoln

      1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        According to your Jesus theory you owe me some money.

      2. The lucky one February 7, 2015

        If you think the democrats represent the Christian teaching you cite then you should take Abe’s advice.

      3. itsfun February 7, 2015

        So now the Democrats are the party of GOD?

        1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

          Sounds about right to me. God, fictional character who created us all equal. You better hide here comes the collection plate.

        2. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

          Does GOD stand for grand offending demons?

      4. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        Are you not awake yet? He is a crook and also full of crap.You need to follow Abe’s advice.

      5. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

        I like that trickle up idea. We get those that have nothing to give to those who have something. Great concept. The government is a master of that philosophy.

      6. idamag February 7, 2015

        German is probably his first language. I have noticed, before, he has trouble with English.

    3. adler56 February 7, 2015

      You are out of touch with reality. Derivative guys are all republicans and most “earn” a billion a year- BUT- only pay 15% in taxes- if that much.

      1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        That’s a lot money, just think of all the welfare checks that amount covers. How many welfare checks do your taxes cover?

        1. jmprint February 7, 2015

          Mine just covers your SSI check.

          1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Oh thank you I was starting to worry. I could use some more would you consider a second job?

      2. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

        So, you have access to the personal financial data of the derivative guys? Your fortune teller got you this info during a seance?

    4. atc333 February 7, 2015

      I guess you choose to ignore reality, including documented factual issues such as the GOP’s minimum wage which they continue to impose on this nation effectively results in US state and Federal taxpayers subsidizing Walmart, Target, and other low paying corporations billions of dollars a year for employee wage costs, even referring their underpaid employees to seek food stamps, housing subsidies, food pantries, and other social safety networks to survive.

      Any fool, other than those Republicans in Congress,knows it is impossible for a family of 4 to survive on minimum wage pay, even when two parents are working. Take the time to do the math. It is impossible.

      The GOP would rather continue with low wages, and subsidized Corporate America’s employment expenses with taxpayer money, than have these corporations pay a living wage, and cut their employees dependency on safety nets. also resulting in more tax revenues, and more employee self respect.

      Better to be a Democrat, a party you claim is a party of the very rich, but proven to be a party which cares about the reality of all Americans face every day. 3 GOP Administrations, and 6 years of GOP block and stall have proven beyond a doubt that the GOP, the party of Greedy Old People, have no plan, no solutions,and no answers, which has redistributed over 40% of all of America’s wealth to the top 2%, and added 10 trillion to the Federal Deficit, shrunk the middle class, and expanded the number of Americans living at, below, or just above the poverty level.

      Great Job!!!!

      1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        The GOP is just awful. All those greedy old people need to be euthanized . Then their college grad kids who live in the basement could move up stairs.

      2. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

        Do you think that if the government took less money out of my pocket that I might be inclined to use it to hire people and pay them more? Well yeah–happy employees are more productive. Any business has a fixed amount to spend. It can’t just create money out of thin air like the Feds. So should business owners pay higher and higher taxes that the government spends on itself and its chosen programs of non-productive people, or does it stay with the business for the owners to decide how to spend? Like to pay workers more, higher more workers, expand production and the like.

        1. atc333 February 7, 2015

          Don’t you think that the Bush II years are proof enough that your statement is nonsense? His administration should have been a golden age for employees, with the top 2% and Corporate America having all that extra money to pay employees more and create new jobs.

          It was not, and they did not. Instead, they took the money and invested it into more wealth for themselves. and those tax cuts ended up in creating massive deficits, without creating new jobs, and more tax revenues to hold deficits in check.

          Minimum wage has less than 70% of the purchasing power it did 12 years ago. Why is that OK for you? Are you perhaps like the 5 individual owners of Walmart, who combined, now own more wealth of American than the bottom 47% of all Americans?

          1. idamag February 7, 2015

            It did create more jobs in India, Sri KLanka, China and anywhere else where they could get labor from slave to 83 cents an hour.

          2. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

            The economy, human nature, tradition, policies, belief systems—good or bad—are not going to change overnight. Every President and Congress inherits that which the previous elected representatives set in motion, starting with the first Congress. To expect the magic wand to appear and erase all that you don’t like isn’t reality. This country is too diverse and too big to ever expect one person’s or one group’s philosophy to prevail. Rather than try to homogenize everybody, tolerance of differences should be the goal. We do not need more government control. That creates less money in the private sector-by way of higher taxes and more restrictions that prevent a business from succeeding. That stymies growth. Don’t pay people to not work. Why do you think we have all those immigrants coming in from down south? Why do you care if someone is wealthy? Who decides what a fair tax rate is? Why does minimum wage have less purchasing power? What devalued the dollar, you should ask. Do you think the bottom 47% who tend to support Democrats have figured out that their group is growing larger as the federal government grows larger? Think there might be a connection?

          3. atc333 February 7, 2015

            Why don’t you take a look at tax rates before Reagan, growth rates before Reagen, Federal Deficits before Reagan, Distribution of wealth before Reagan, It all fell apart when Reagan attempted his failed concept of cutting taxes for the job creators to create more job, and expand the economy.

            1. I could care less if someone is wealthy. I do however think it is obscene for an individual to be paid millions as a CEO of a large corporation as Joe the worker gets paid $8.25 and hour. No one is worth millions. . I think it is obscene when Magic Mitt pays only 14% in taxes, when many Americans earning between 55 and 100 thousand a year end up paying a much higher rate. Do you think that is reasonable, when most Americans living in the bottom 60% need more of their total income to simply survive.

            So, consider this fact. If Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II had not lowered taxes, but had spent in the same rate, and the Democratic Administrations had also maintained their same rate of spending, where do you think the Federal Deficit would be? About the same level as it was before Reagan began his great experiment with the American Economy.

            What does that tell you?

            You should be able to figure out why the minimum wage has less buying power today, than it did years ago without me having to explain about inflation, and greed of Corporate America hiking prices, simply because they can. .

            You really think that there is nothing wrong with the 5 individual owners of Walmart controlling more wealth than all of the wealth of the bottom 45%?

            It certainly was not because the working class was being paid too much for their labors.

            So, answer this one question. Considering that Bush II implemented all the elements of trickle down economics, beginning with a balanced budget complements of the prior adminstration, why did he run up 8 trillion in Federal Deficits? Why wasn’t his 8 years a golden age of GOP economic prosperity for America?

            You want to shrink the Federal Government, and end supporting so many “deadbeats” The fix the economy the GOP destroyed with trickle down economics. Invest in job creation, give the struggling masses a way out of dependance upon the Federal,state, and local safety nets the GOP drove them to rely upon.

            Do your own research, don’t rely up on Faux News which gets political information wrong 66% of the time –down right false, or pants on fire wrong!!!!!!!!

            What you fail to comprehend is the 47% grows larger as the GOP continues to devalue their work, and contribution to society.

          4. Buzzi Butt February 8, 2015

            You have the opinion that this group or that pays too much taxes, not enough taxes, earns too much or earns too little. What is your basis for deciding this? Zuckerberg, Gates, other super rich are noted for their charitable donations totaling millions upon millions of dollars. Based on your thinking, they should never of had that much money to begin with. It was rightfully owed to the worker bees or should have been taken by the government as taxes. Who decides what is fair and just? Why do you not complain about your government’s management that has devalued the dollar? That you can blame both political parties for. And, exactly, how much of your surplus money to return to circulation to benefit a homeless person, a disabled person or someone who just lost everything in a house fire? You believe so strongly in the liberal-socialist methodology, I just know you have nothing saved for retirement, you don’t have any health insurance supplements because you believe The Government will take care of you. Go for it.

          5. atc333 February 8, 2015

            It is more that I fully comprehend the massive failures of the GOP Administrations over the past 20 years, which have damaged this nation far more than any terrorist attack ever could.

            You have chosen to avoid refuting any of this Nation’s economic history, and the massive damage the GOP has done to this Nation’s economy, simply because you cannot, so you go to plan B, attack the messenger.

            The proof is in our nation’s economic history. Take time to educate yourself, instead of relying upon Fox News, The Blaze, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the various GOP Candidates who will say whatever it takes to pander to the Faithful as they pray to the Gods of Elections that they can win their primaries, totally ignoring what a majority of the people in the US want, or need.

            As far as the government devaluing the Dollar, it has been doing that for years. Why don’t you bother check out inflation rates over the years

            How about GOP employment rates? Less than half of what it was when the Democrats were in the Oval office. Just another factual nail in the Right Wing GOP Coffin.

            As far as my retirement, and supplements, all are just fine, but thanks for your caring and concern as to my personal well being..

    5. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

      You can deny, deny, deny, deny…that’s what your backward ideology is ALL about. Denial doesn’t ever change facts we can all prove in a court of law. Your posts are the same redundant, insane denials we can hear any day of the week on CNN out of the mouths of your CZARS like Gowdy, Haley, Murkowski, Boehner, McConnell, Grassley and the rest of the dipshits who hate change and refuse to move on to 2015. You post day after day the same brand of BS that any two bit fiction writer can drum up. Not a word you post can EVER be proven in a court of law.

      That’s the reason you ideology is broken, pathetic and unworkable for the masses and only workable for morons like you with the HAVE and MUST HAVE mindsets. Get a job and get off your butt. Your denials of facts prove you’re a liar and worse, willing to continue your lies just to get your way. Big babies are like that as anyone who has parented a spoiled child knows.

      1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        Did you learn all this from looking in the mirror?

      2. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

        One of the benefits of an opinion is that it doesn’t have to be substantiated. You have no idea what can or cannot be proven in a court of law until it actually happens. Prior to that, opinion, supported or off the wall, is as plentiful as a cow poop in a slaughterer house and usually worth less.

    6. The lucky one February 7, 2015

      There is only one party. Some call themselves republicans, some democrats, but they all with very few exceptions represent the very rich and the large corporations.

    7. bobnstuff February 7, 2015

      If you want to know if the Rich are Republican or Democrat Forbes has the answer. Of the top wealthiest people in the country, 56% support the republican party, 30% support both, and 14% support the democrats. Koch Industries employees 50,000 people in the US making them large but not in the top 10 list, it’s 12% of the number employee’s at Wal-Mart. Hollywood makes news but are really non players as far as money goes. Check the facts.

  5. Gloss Finnish February 7, 2015

    Obama is a menace to mankind.

    1. lucimar2 February 7, 2015

      Morons like you are a menace to mankind you idiot.

      1. halslater February 7, 2015

        Your name says it all, Gloss, you are on the wrong page. Troll elsewhere, please.

      2. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

        Name calling is so constructive. It’s a classic escape for those that don’t, won’t, or can’t actually converse in a mature, informative fashion–like all the trolls.

    2. adler56 February 7, 2015

      Your lack of a brain is a menace to America.

    3. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

      Please tell us how he is a menace.

      1. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

        Or. better yet, you tell us why he isn’t.

        1. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

          I am not the one making the accusation and if someone is going to make the claim they should be explain their statement. So since you agree perhaps you will provide the data.

          1. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            Good Day Granny, One recent speech from Obama basically justified the actions of ISIS by referencing the Crusades. Strangely enough, the Crusades were in response to the actions of Muslim’s. However, it should be noted that radical Islamists refer to us as Crusaders. Seems to me he has taken sides, and it’s not our side.

          2. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

            Sorry I disagree Gary – Isn’t the National Prayer Breakfast attended by politicians domestic and foreign, businessman and religious leaders?
            Did Obama not say: “… But part of what I want to
            touch on today is the degree to which we’ve seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. “ “But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge — or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of
            barbarism — terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.”

          3. jmprint February 7, 2015

            I loved the statement when President Obama made it, and I loved reading it again.

          4. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            Granny, there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing. However, in this case I suggest you continue reading his speech when he say’s “we shouldn’t get on our high horse” and continue reading. Although I don’t believe we should we should get involved with another war, we most certainly should be saddling the horse. In my humble opinion, I believe that Obama is a radical Muslim sympathizer. He has managed to reopen the Cold War with Russia, which I believe has a special purpose, that we are soon to find out what it is. It won’t be very nice. With that said, you have a wonderful weekend and please pass along my best wishes to all in you family, you included of course.

          5. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

            I have read his speech in it’s entirety. I am sorry but I don’t believe Obama is a radical Muslin sympathizer, and how has he re-opened the Cold War with Russia? What special purpose? Gary,I hope you have not gotten caught up with Alex Jones conspiracy theories. Best wishes to you and yours and have a fun filled weekend.

          6. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            Granny, the US funded the coup in the Ukraine and put the person they wanted in control as Prime Minister. There is video of meetings with people in the Obama Administration and those who are now in charge in the Western side of Ukraine. The whole world knows this happened. Russia is furious over this. It will not end well I fear. Hope you don’t live near any cities if things do get bad, I wouldn’t want a nice person like you being harmed.

          7. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

            Gary give me one bi-partisan or non partisan link that reports this. The only ones that I see when I look up are questionable to say the least. I live in Vegas, so they would target Boulder dam.

          8. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            No problem my dear. Here is a video with Obama admitting to have brokered a power transition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeV9grU6ERM

            I have been to Vegas 5 times. Special weapons training at Nellis AFB. Always looked forward to those trips. I had a feeling you lived in a decent place, I have found that Vegas folks are nice people.

          9. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

            Thank you – will look at later. Most of us here in Vegas migrate from other states. We are nice people, but many can not drive worth a S*it.

          10. Grannysmovin February 8, 2015

            Sorry you know how opinionated I am, so i needed to do some research after watching the video. The funding, didn’t that start in 1992 and to date totals
            an estimated $5 billion? Journalist Richard Perry stated: “We saw a destabilization of a country–which had problems, no question, and had leadership that was very flawed. But still, instead of going through a constitutional electoral process,
            another approach was taken. And Yanukovych did agree–after the protests turned violent, he agreed to a deal negotiated by the E.U. to advance the elections and to have the police stand down.” Wasn’t there an agreement brokered by EU diplomats, which called for: * the creation of a national unity government, * a presidential election by December 2014, and * a return to an earlier Ukrainian constitution that would have curtailed Yanukovich’s powers. Should the US have stayed out of it yes, but when has that ever stopped us before. This was not our first rodeo in
            this arena. What was Putin’s justification when he took military action in Georgia in 2008? Putin was and is still wrong for his military action in Ukraine. Putin’s actions in Crimear is wrong but the history there is very complicated. It will take calm heads and people who are not war mongers to sit down and resolve their issues.

          11. Gary Miles February 8, 2015

            I’m not sure when the funding started, my impression is that’s it’s all very recent, but I haven’t found anything to verify that. How cool is it that I was going to link a Perry article on the subject!?! Don’t get me wrong, many President’s have interfered with other nations, but this one concerns me the most. Obama had his fun with the Arab Spring nations, so I don’t understand why he would poke the Bear. I know he and his administration are in with the Muslim Brotherhood, but why use Neo-Nazi’s in Ukraine? This move is very out of character and should be observed carefully. Have a great day today!

          12. Grannysmovin February 8, 2015

            “I know he and his administration are in with the Muslim Brotherhood” – documented proof please.

          13. Gary Miles February 8, 2015

            February 8, 2015

            The Obama White House has finally released the names of the fourteen Muslim “leaders” who met with the President this past week. Among the group — which included a comedian, along with a hijab-wearing basketball player and a handful of left wing activists — were a select few individuals with disturbingly close ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood.

            As previously uncovered by Breitbart News, the White House confirmed that Azhar Azeez, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was one of the Muslim leaders that met with President Obama. ISNA was founded in 1981 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. Federal prosecutors have previously described how ISNA funneled its money to Palestinian terrorist group Hamas (via Investigative Project):

            ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” the original name for the HAMAS military wing. Govt. Exh. 1-174. From that ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to HAMAS leader…

            Azeez’s bio also reveals him as a founding member the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter. CAIR has also allegedly funneled money to Palestinian terror groups and was also started by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

            In October, 2014, Azeez signed a letter endorsing Sharia Islamic governance. Under the Sharia, non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens. The Sharia also endorses thehudud punishments in the Koran and Hadiths, which state that apostasy from Islam is punishable by death.

            A d v e r t i s e m e n t

            Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) was also in attendance at the Muslim leaders’ meeting with President Obama.

            MPAC, just like CAIR and ISNA, was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has written and often endorsed a paper rejecting the United States’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and has insisted that the Jewish state of Israel be added as a state sponsor of terrorism. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, has publicly encouraged officials to look at Israel as a suspect in the 9/11/01 attacks.

            He has said that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel should be seen as “legitimate resistance.” In a 1998 speech at the National Press Club, an MPAC senior official describedthe Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah as one that fights for “American values.” In an MPAC-sponsored March 2009 protest to “Defend al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Quds,” participants could be heard chanting slogans encouraging Palestinians to wipe out Israel. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” demonstrators chanted.

            Mohamed Majid, who serves as Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), was also in attendance at the White House meeting with the President, and senior advisors Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett.

            In 2002, ADAMS was raided as part of a U.S. government initiative called “Operation Green Quest,” where federal agents suspected the group of supporting terrorist organizations. Government documents said that the ADAMS Center was “suspected of providing support to terrorists, money laundering, and tax evasion.”

            Majid is also an official with the brotherhood-affiliated Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

            He also signed the October 2014 letter, along with White House meeting attendee Azhar Azeez, insisting that Sharia law should be an acceptable political system worldwide.

            It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Islamic cleric (and Hitler admirer) Hassan al-Banna after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

            The group seeks as its end-game to install a Sunni Islamic caliphate throughout the world. al-Banna said of his organization’s goals, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood. Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

          14. Grannysmovin February 8, 2015

            Sorry when I saw the Breibart I did not read – no respect for Breibart. Have a nice weekend.

          15. Gary Miles February 8, 2015

            Not a fan either, but the list and people are accurate.

          16. Grannysmovin February 8, 2015

            sorry can not consider anything from Breibart as accurate. What about a non-partisan media forum or a bi-partisan. Otherwise it is just a bunch of conspiracies theories and I am not a big syfi fan. Have a good evening

          17. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Yes you are, your are saying he is competent. Show your data. You can start with Obama care and work your way up to golf.

          18. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

            Are you a ventriloquist because if you are – don’t give up your day job. You are speaking for someone else and not saying anything and putting words in my mouth that I never said. A statement was made and I asked for support of the statement. Still waiting.

          19. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            If I did not put words in your mouth you would have nothing to say of any consequence.

          20. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

            I know I have won an argument when people make feeble attempts to respond with insults rather than respond with substance.

          21. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            If you call that winning an argument it just shows I need to put more words in your mouth.

          22. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

            Apparently you really don’t have clue. Have a nice weekend and for Lent why don’t you give up your failed attempt at ventriloquism.

          23. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

            Nope, wasn’t trying to say you, but Gloss Finnish. One of the problems with using pronouns: They are imprecise.

          24. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

            Love your avatar.

        2. idamag February 7, 2015

          Tell us why you are not a slut if I choose to say that.

          1. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

            You can name call all you want. It only reinforces the lack of value of anything you say. Just to help you focus should you chose to make a meaningful comment, Obama was the subject.

      2. idamag February 7, 2015

        These people are not smart enough to respond to. Deep and intellectual – name Calling? I don’t think so. It is immature, stupid and vile.

      3. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        Have you heard his prayer breakfast comments???????

        1. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

          Read the whole thing and here is part of it: “But part of what I want to touch on today is the degree to which we’ve seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. “ “But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge — or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism — terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.”

          1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Is your great and wondrous leader comparing modern Christians to Muslims? I don’t care about Obama one way or another. Black white it does not matter. What matters to me is there is something about this man that is not right. I am quite concerned about our future but I could be wrong. I certainly hope I am.

          2. Grannysmovin February 7, 2015

            I believe what he is saying is that any Religion at any time in history that claims their acts of terrorism, violence and war in the name of God is unacceptable and against God’s teachings. Perhaps what you find offsetting about him is his self control. I think there are times I am glad he controls his emotions, than there are time I wonder how he controls them, and than there are times I wish he would show more emotion. I believe because of this control he comes off as aloof. Have a nice weekend

          3. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            He stepped on all good peoples toes. You can keep making excuses for him but that does not change things. I know I will never get you to see what I see you certainly have a right to your own opinion. I really hope you are correct in your evaluation.

    4. pattreid February 7, 2015

      Wow, you really caught me off guard with your well thoughtout, fact-filled and insightful post. Good for the cons of this country to have such profound standard- bearers.

      1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        Well, your finally beginning to see the light. Welcome to the world of sanity.

        1. pattreid February 7, 2015

          Recognition of sarcasm is not in your wheelhouse, eh?

          1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            You might want to rethink that comment. I know it will strain your resources but give it a try.

          2. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

            Sarcasm isn’t your domain only.

          3. plc97477 February 7, 2015

            That is not the only thing it is not good at.

    5. jmprint February 7, 2015

      Figures, your brain has a glossy finish, you are a perfect match, you’re in, you qualify to be a republican, no common sense.

      1. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

        printy, you are the one confused. Democrats have not common sense. They think money comes from thin air.

  6. Dominick Vila February 7, 2015

    The statements and policy proposals made by some – not all – Republicans, suggest they actually do care about inequality, and are willing to do everything they can to keep it the way it is today.
    As for people like Sen. Cruz, all I can say is that he is trying to do everything he can to dispel the Donald Trump birth certificate effect. Live by the sword…

    1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

      Why would I care about inequality? Donald Trump is a rich conniving dolt who is an embarrassment to humanity .But I am really fascinated by his hairdo. He would look better if he shaved his head and sewed his mouth shut . Sitting on a cucumber might help his attitude.

    2. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

      I guess no one understands why Congress has several hundred elected reps, serving short terms, or why the tripartite government we have is so ponderous. It keeps individuals of any ilk (like a dictator, despot, nut case, rich dude, radical ideologue ) from taking control.

      1. jmprint February 7, 2015

        But, when you have money like the Koch brothers, you can buy the party.

        1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

          If I had their money I would party around the clock.

        2. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

          When you have money like Thomas Steyer, you can buy the other party.

  7. adler56 February 7, 2015

    Sounds like 2 good choices for Boehner- so pick one orange man.

    1. darkagesbegin February 7, 2015

      sorta like killing two birds with one stone…

      1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        Or flushing two turds at with a single pull.

        1. jmprint February 7, 2015

          And down goes hicups and Mike, yeah!

          1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            No, that would be four and would require a plunger.

          2. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

            Following your lead, for sure.

          3. jmprint February 7, 2015

            No, I think they were intrigued by your name, it was YOU they were following.

          4. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

            It’s a better name that ButtFart, which is all that most of these blah-blah discussions amount to.

  8. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

    After you spend 33 years as a Republican and a GOP President comes along like Bush, you get to know certain things about the GOP ideology. The first is that it’s base on male domination. That’s why they will only put woman in as VP, never the Presidency. That male domination is based entirely on their bloated egos. Which, in play, has to operate on the basis of lies, deceptions, double speak and worst of all “denial.”

    Republican men believe by denying facts and truth, they can just move on to the next back room agenda. Please don’t tell me this isn’t so. I live in NJ. Chris Christie has said this in public many times, “Let move on.” About BridgeGate and the increase in property taxes and his gifts from the Dallas Cowboys team.

    Here’s how well I know the GOP men by now. They’ve been at their obstruction for over a dozen years. But guess what? Their ideas of mindless austerity have done far more damage and now it’s catching up to them. Infrastructure in the northeast is deadly. The GOP has spent billions on endless wars and pumped more tax dollars into Big Oil, Fracking and coal mining. All of which are now going bust.

    The reality you all need to face about the GOP is what it’s really all about: a backward culture predicated partly on people who live as if it’s still the days of the Great Depression and a massive plantation mentality that subjugates all American HAVE NOTS in favor of the 1% and corporate welfare recipients.

    They proved this when the very first thing they tackled was Keystone. Big Oil is down on its last leg and they are still forcing Americans to pay taxes to keep it in existence.

    1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

      How many people do you employ? How much do you get paid for being an agitator and do you pay income tax on it? Do you have someone helping you compose your fiction? Could you possibly be a fictional character? Do you have to carry around a fire extinguisher in case your pants catch on fire?

      1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

        I’m a published author..You can find my books in Barnes and Noble or on Amazon. Jealous? Maybe you need to get a life.

        I’m also an SEO online ghostwriter of over 4,000 articles and white papers. Jealous? Good…I love a man whose testicles shrink when he can’t keep up.

        1. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

          Your just a Communist fool and a bad liar.

        2. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

          You have already copied and pasted this many times. You need to fabricate a new persona this one is getting stale

        3. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

          Yawn. 4,000 articles? Were you having trouble getting your point across? I guess communication is not one of your skills.

          1. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            They’re all copy and pasted BS from other Left Wing sites. She’s the Queen parrotmonkey. She just repeats what she hears and reads (parrot) and when someone don’t agree with her lies, she throws poop (monkey) in the form a personal attacks.

          2. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Have you read what her supposedly ex husband has to say about her? He is on this site. He said she is batshit crazy. I don’t really believe that she sounds so qualified. LOL

          3. Louis Allen February 11, 2015

            “supposedly ex husband”? I AM (I admit to being) her ex husband.
            She IS crazy.
            She was a Republican for 33 years (HER own words!) during which she “had to endure all sorts of bad, cruel, conservative men” (she is such a DINGBAT that it took her 33 years to notice that !!)
            A COMPLETE IDIOT, my (scorned) ex (thank God !) wife Lenore ….

          4. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

            A true nut case, for sure. But in the great U.S.A. even the unbalanced can express an opinion, and, crape, vote.

        4. hicusdicus February 10, 2015

          Yes sir, there are shelves of them in Barns and Noble nobody will buy them. You have to read them right to left. That the author’s politics.

      2. jmprint February 7, 2015

        Hicups, why don’t you ask yourself the same questions and think about it for awhile.

        1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

          I don’t want to think about it, way to much stress. The safest way for me to comment is sitting in a firetruck.

        2. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

          I have a few liberal genes. I can;t think and talk to myself at the same time.

    2. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

      For the last 40 odd years the presidency has been about a 50-50 split between Republicans and Democrats. So, if the Republicans are the cause evil, the Demonuts are obviously incompetent. They have had plenty of time to fix things. During this time the Dems were the dominant party of the Senate. It might be more accurate to blame the Democrats for failure to lead and govern.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

        Sorry Lady GAG, But, there are two…got that 2 parties in this country. If you don’t like that, too damn bad.

        Your GOP has had enough failures since Warren Harding to prove who is really incompetent. I have NO intentions of letting you forget that it was Republican President Harding whose Secy of Interior tried to sell off public lands dirt cheap to oil interests. Secy Herbert Fall ended up in jail.

        Hoover? The Great Depression. Don’t bother to play your Lil Magnolia Belle denial games. Hoover was responsible for the Great Depression that occurred as a result of the same assinine overspeculation your GOP today stupidly buy into.

        Eisenhower warned of the build up of the “military complex” and endless wars. But you asshats don’t listen to your own Republican president’s advice. Oh no..You big mouths know it all.

        Nixon? Watergate infamy and a forced resignation in disgrace…Need more GOP incompetence?

        Reagan, 2nd term Recession. Bush ’41? IranContraGate and the bail out of his own son and uncles S&Ls on taxpayers dollars.

        Bush ’43? Lies about WMDs, Halliburton CEO Cheney’s no bid contract to…tah dah…Halliburton…Bush’s 3 tax cuts which the GAO reported in 2004 made the first tax cut increase the wealth of the 1% by 11%. Bush’s 2nd term recession, the Sept. 2008 Financial Meltdown.

        Now do you want to shut you moron pie hole and pull up your tail and walk away or do you intend to try erase history while you feast at the table of denial..

        This I’ve got to see… Ruby Rottgut trying to deny any of what I’ve posted. Come toots…I’m waiting.

    3. itsfun February 7, 2015

      Should we move on from fast and furious, Benghazi, IRS scandal, spying on reporters etc. Should we move on from spitting in the faces of world leaders in Paris? How about moving on from spitting in the face of the leader of Israel? Should we move on from the crusades? Should we blame the crusades for ISIS cutting off the heads of people and burning them alive?

      1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

        When the GOP chose an 8th investigation, all they proved is that there is NOTHING more to Benghazi than was already provided in testimony by the GOP’s OWN witnesses they and they alone chose.

        Yes..we should move on. Why in the hell wouldn’t we? Should we just keep treading in the same GOP rut over and over and over? To what end? Until the GOP exhausts all possible witnesses to these issues? Until the witnesses give up in desperation? Until all of the testimony becomes so suspect that no word spoken isn’t regurgitated by the GOP to their bizarre need to prove they are right even when NO Proof exists?

        Trying to prove negatives by the these GOP twerps is getting really really expensive. They wasted $12 million on White Water and came up empty handed after nearly 7 years.

        Is that YOUR idea of economic stability?

        1. idamag February 7, 2015

          The entire premise is linking Hiliary Clinton’s name and Benghazi and hinting, like the viscous gossips, they are, that there is something untoward afoot. It only proves that one party is the party of liars, even if the other party is the party of wimps.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

            Ida, you and I have lived in these female skins long enough to know how men will always stack the cards against women. Always. In my 68 years of womanhood, with 5 brothers and half brothers, 1 ex, 2 sons, 11 nephews and 24+ years with an all male engineering team, I can’t remember a single moment when these guys didn’t sabotage anything and everything women do to get ahead.

            It wouldn’t be as amusing if women were really only competing with men. Most of the time, we women have always tried to go the distance, make improvements in a neat, organized, honest and truthful way.

            Put a man in the equation and the minute he lays eyes on the woman he perceives as “competition” for his ladder climbing, he starts to act like Kong Kong on steroids.

            I agree with your post 100%. It isn’t out of the realm of possibility that the DEM King Kongs also would rather be boiled in oil than allow the White House to be in the hands of any woman.

            Just this week, our First Lady secured a $500 million donation from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for childhood obesity.

            This will be denied by her detractors even though AP has published it in just about every media outlet in the country. Let a woman be successful and the “Testosteronies” go bananas.

          2. idamag February 7, 2015

            I was fortunate enough to have loving brothers, a wonderful father, a loving husband and three wonderful sons. As an added bonus, I got two beautiful daughters who are smart, too.

          3. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            Good grief, when are you going to learn to stop painting all men with the same brush? Why is it that you hate your father, your 5 brothers and half-brothers, your ex (this may be understandable), your 2 sons, your 11 nephews, an all-male engineering team (all of whom you hated enough to stay with for 24 years), and 3.6 billion people you’ve never even met?

            Gender bashing is a character defect, and it’s no more acceptable from a woman than it is from a man. Get over your personal issues already — it detracts from your otherwise good points.

        2. plc97477 February 7, 2015

          They are going to continue the investigations into benghazi until Hillary is no longer a factor in the election.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

            Hillary may not even choose to run. What are they going to do then? Go after Elizabeth Warren? Their games are getting old and stale.

          2. plc97477 February 7, 2015

            Yes but it’s all they got.

        3. itsfun February 7, 2015

          We have been treading in the same liberal rut for the last 7 years now. All we get is higher taxes, more scandals and lies from the White House. We have a justice dept that protects criminal acts of our president and his cronies. In the last 50 years, how many of them have the Republicans controlled both houses? The Democrats are the one responsible for our problems now, and they just try to pass the blame on to the Republicans. The last election showed the American people are catching on to the lies and policies of the Democrats. Why talk to you about what has happened, you are the one that believes it takes 62% of the Senate to pass a bill. If that is true why is the Vice President the one that votes to break a Senate tie vote?

    4. plc97477 February 7, 2015

      I am sorry to say it but I think even women in the vice presidency would not be tolerated by the gotp. I think sarah palin was the gift that gave Obama the presidency.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

        I agree. Look at how they dug and dug and dug up anything they could find on Geraldine Ferrara. And she was the first to break through the glass ceiling on the VP seat.

        The problem the GOP is going to have is that a lot of their Texan women are furious with the bullying in their state. It’s why they tried to dig up as much petty trash as they could find about Wendy Davis. They knew if she wanted to, she could have run for president. They were not going to “allow” that. That’s precisely the operative word of all GOP bulls…”allow.”

      2. idamag February 7, 2015

        It might have been because when they said, “Raise your right hand,” she had to see which was the left by the watch on her wrist.

  9. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

    You want to really tantalize the righties and Obama haters? All you need do is give him or the First Lady a single compliment and they are on top of it like roaches after the last crumb.

    About a month ago, I posted that OPEC was behind low oil prices. Now, here’s the proof from the rightest of right wing newspapers. This article comes from the NY Post, Feb. 3, 2015:
    “Hedge-fund mogul and oil bull Paul Singer is taking aim at Saudi Arabia.” Singer, the $25 billion Elliott Management own 6% of the US oil and gas producer Hess.

    Singer stated in his Jan. 30th, 2015 annual investor letter that he predicts “over a period of coming weeks and months, a growing number of leveraged and high-cost producers will shut down production and/or file for bankruptcy” as a result of OPEC causing a “shortfall in demand” and Saudi Arabia’s refusal to exercise “control” over OPEC to lower production.

    Once again, the GOP led Keystone Boys are about to do precisely what they did in the days prior to the Crash of ’29, over produce oil that can’t compete with OPEC prices since Keystone Oil is dirty tar sand oil that requires more complex refining that isn’t cost-effective. Yet again, taxpayers will end up paying for another GOP bankruptcy of which this party is legend.

    All 3 Bush sons dumped tens of millions on taxpayers for bankruptcies. Bush ’43 and his $12 million Arbusto Oil bankruptcy, Neil Bush and his Silverado S&L bankruptcy which Daddy bailed him out of and the icing on the Bush Bankruptcy cake: Neil and JEB’s $2 million Miami Federal bankruptcy in the early 2000s.

    1. charleo1 February 7, 2015

      Well sure! It’s a thru the looking glass narrative, that the Saudis can’t control OPEC. It’s OPEC that desires to, but cannot control the Saudis production levels. That are aimed at directly at Iran, and to a lesser extent, the market share their product is losing to the trillions of cubic feet of natural gas being brought to market in the Dakota fields. And, the fact is, it does put tar sands out of the economic equation. So, ironically, the Party that constantly harps about the free market, and the perversion of gov. stepping in, and picking winners, and losers. Are advocating, and lobbying for gov. action to intercede on behalf of the apparent market losers, who backed the Canadian Tar Sands project, and the XL Pipeline. Hypocrisy much?

      1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

        You bring up a very interesting point in your last sentence. The Canadian Tar Sands project was begun, according to my friends in Alberta, back in 2006. That was the year all of the top Canadian papers reported GWB’s visit to Alberta to meet with then Premier Ralph Klein.

        When I visited Alberta and Calgary for 9 days back in 2000, I was amazed at how much Calgary’s Big Oil district looked like what you see in Houston’s Big Oil district. That similarity was obviously not missed by Big Oil Bush.

        We drove near the Hardisty AB tar sand site on our way to British Columbia. If anyone asked me what was the most shocking part of that tar sand mining operation, I’d have to say it was those water cannons shooting out millions of gallons of water with such force that it literally split the sandstone of those Canadian buttes. From there, the sandstone dropped into these long, huge troughs (not sure of the technical name for them.). Where more water was needed to further separate sand from oil.

        In 2006, the Canadian papers were full of the “deal” between Bush and Klein to build a 2500 mile long pipeline from Hardisty to Galveston. By 2007, Klein went to DC to visit with Bush at the White House. This too was reported in Canada’s National Post, the Calgary Sun and Calgary Herald.

        Mind you, the battle between Alberta and British Columbia had just been settled in 2006. British Columbia refused to allow that pipeline through their province.

        The real reason that Boehner, McConnell, Alaska’s Murkowski and that OK Okee Doke Senator are all chomping at the bit for Keystone is nothing more than conflict of interest. When you check all of their campaign contributors, you see the shadowy figures of Charles and David Koch who have had oil interests in Trans Canada for more than 3 decades.

        I’m not sure the GOP is stupid enough to push Keystone without realizing how easy it is to prove the connection between Koch campaign contributions and legislation that ties Koch oil interests in Trans Canada to GOP legislators.

        1. charleo1 February 7, 2015

          Very informative post. Thank you for the light! And, oh yea! I’m sure the Republican Party is stupid enough to promote just about anything the Koch Brothers tell them to. They literally cannot help themselves. It’s a bit frightening, this box they’ve managed to build for themselves. Or, foolishly allowed their big money interests to build for them. And now have all the latitude of a rat in a trap. They dare not go against their aristocratic benefactors, and so are struggling to control the radicals of their Party on a variety of issues. While being dragged apart from the center of American politics where the Presidency resides, by both ends of their increasingly dysfunctional organization. It’s what happens when a Party chooses to make itself the servant of multiple masters, and finds it can serve none to satisfaction. As rudderless as a circling row boat full of control freaks. Each insisting the direction of land is, “That Way!”

    2. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

      So who are the Keystone Boys? Over 50 mining companies have stake in the oil sand reserves, mostly Canadian. Are picking on Canada now? Arbusto bankruptcy? Again you are fabricating lies. You have little understanding of business, especially volatile ones like the petroleum industry.

  10. charleo1 February 7, 2015

    I’m sure many supporters on the Right, who have been successfully lobotomized by the insular propaganda apparatus they religiously turn to for facts, and guidance. Will see no inconsistency in the formerly unabashed wealth worshipping Corporate lapdogs in the Republican Party. Suddenly embracing the idioms of populous economics, and attacking the Left from the left. In a sort of absurd, “I Caesar, humble man of the people,” attempt at political jujutsu. It is the irony of ironies, is it not? That a group of voters who’s trademarks have proudly been cynicism, suspicion, dis, and mistrust of politicians, would swallow this whopper whole? From the same Party that was hell bent on cutting food aid to their fellow Countrymen, in the worse economy since the Great Depression. Claiming then, it was better the rich man’s food rot in the ground, than for him to create a ‘moral hazard,’ by sharing it with his starving neighbor. So concerned were they about reducing the debt, and lowering corporate taxes. Now their angst, and heartfelt consternation is for the poor, the lower wages, oh my! And the scourge of the lack of full time employment, for those struggling Americans on the short end of the stick. As wolves forming support groups against the sheep dog’s poor diet, and working conditions. Or the concerned conglomerate of foxes, on the ongoing and deplorable condition of hen house doors. The frustration in our politics as they are. Is of course, watching the droves of lemming sheep, and hens, that will march to the polls and vote in favor of the Wolves, and Foxes, in the hope of better food, and better built chicken coups.

    1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

      The only inequality they care about is their red states. The rest of us can just fold up and die for all they care. What they don’t get is that the more they exclude the other party in government in government meetings, investigations and the debacles like the one they pulled with Bibi Netanyahu, the more they show how powerful they are and they more their dictatorship begins to be visible.

      Now, the Dems are planning not to attend that Netanyahu address before Congress and rightfully so. If the shoe was on the other foot, the GOP wouldn’t fail to do the same.

      1. itsfun February 7, 2015

        Wasn’t the Republican Party excluded in the healthcare tax debate and implementation and content?

        1. charleo1 February 7, 2015

          First, there was no debate. There was the Republicans position of being entirely against the implementation, and content, of their own formerly proposed reform.

          1. itsfun February 7, 2015

            Seems like I remember during his campaign Obama promising live meetings to be on CNN with both parties and promising to listen to both sides. They had one open meeting on healthcare and when the Republicans didn’t kiss the behind of Obama, that was the one and only public meeting about the obamacare tax. Then the “most transparent administration ever” held behind closed doors bribery meetings to get democrats on board. No Republican plan was ever allowed out of any committee or brought to the whole Senate for debate.

          2. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            Well since there’s no way the Dems. could have possibly kept them from publicly laying out their alternative plan. Why is it then, they still haven’t produced anything, but the tinkering around the edges remedies, they trotted out over and over
            at the time? As I said, but obviously it didn’t penetrate. The reason the GOP didn’t have a plan, was because it was their 1993 plan, that was now being proposed by the Dems.

          3. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            Well, the Congressman said the White House wasn’t listening. Was his own Party listening? HIs solutions were totally unacceptable to the Democrats that controlled Congress. First of all, I think we have to look at what, “allowing insurance companies to sell across State lines,” looks like in function, and action.
            The first thing it does is abridge the individual State’s
            Rights to regulate business, and commerce within it’s
            jurisdiction. Not something we usually hear on the Right. Unless they’re just making things up to oppose
            the opposition’s proposals. Or advance the interests of their big money constituents. Secondly their well known affection for block grants requires the trust the States will actually decided to use the Federal Funds, contributed by all States, for their intended purpose. The ACA provided generous funds to the States to expand their respective Medicaid programs. Which some of the Republican run States refused. If used in that manner. Even if the funds provided for the expansion saved their States 100s of millions in the process. So my question is, if they were handed this big pile of Federal monies to use as they seen fit. How much of those funds could we reasonably expect, would ever find their way to increasing the number of insured individuals in their States? Block granting funds to Republican run States to increase the number if insured. Would be akin to handing the State of Israel a pile of money to pay for pork dinners. It just wouldn’t happen. And, the Congressman’s plan would have found no support, if President Obama had delivered it personally to Congress.

          4. idamag February 7, 2015

            If that dipped-in really wanted to know the truth he could look up the committee meeting on the internet and see who was on it and who said what.

          5. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            Yes, but healthcare reform being, “rammed down the throats of the American People,” sounds so much better than the truth! Which is, after all complicated, nuanced, and in the end doesn’t support their bumper sticker slogans.

          6. plc97477 February 7, 2015

            Who says it wants to know the truth?

          7. idamag February 7, 2015

            Certainly not that dipped-in. He can download a copy of the minutes, but that won’t fit his lies.

          8. plc97477 February 7, 2015

            Considering how much of the stimulus money was used as directed, I would say they could not be trusted with block grants.

          9. itsfun February 7, 2015

            Your post said the Republicans didn’t have any alternatives to the obamacare tax, I showed you one. I really like the way you throw around the word funds like it means free money. Where do you think this money comes from? Government doesn’t create any product it sells for a profit, it just takes the profits made by individuals.

          10. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            Well, you know, whether it’s funds, taxes, fees, block grants, or whatever it’s called, healthcare is not free. It’s provision, whether to the under paid, working poor, our military, or the Seniors, it all costs big money. And with corporate, and private sector business supplying fewer and fewer of those dollars over the years. The thing is, they must come from somewhere. This, above almost anything else, being of vital importance to the Country, and the health of
            the people, and workforce. So I know it’s not free money. That’s why most industrialized Countries today handle their healthcare thru the public sector.
            Because they just can’t afford to deliver it the way we do here. Their budgets are much smaller. So they spend far less, (about a third.) And their lifespans, and outcomes rival, or beat ours. And so this is the deal for me. We must somehow provide access to quality healthcare. And we must not spend ourselves into insolvency to do so. Now the Right doesn’t seem to want to change anything. But decides to save money thru exclusion. I don’t agree with that, at all. I have grandchildren, and they will have children. And I don’t support trading lives for dollars. And I won’t except we cannot do what other Counties have beed doing, and doing very well for years.

          11. idamag February 7, 2015

            I remember Obama going around the table (bi-partisan health plan committee) and asking every one of them their input.

          12. plc97477 February 7, 2015

            Looks like they know their base pretty well doesn’t it.

          13. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

            I dare say that the reform proposed by the Republicans didn’t look anything like what was passed as ACA. Could be why they didn’t support it. I have to wonder why Republican ideas are bad, but Democrats ideas aren’t. Nothing is that black and white in the real world-except maybe death.

          14. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            Oh, I don’t know about that. The one the Republicans proposed in ’93, had mandatory participation in private for profit insurance plans. No pre existing exclusions, and subsidies for low wage workers not covered under employer plans. Now, whether or not the Republicans at the time actually supported such a plan is debatable. Because they sure didn’t bring that or any plan forward over the next 14 years they controlled Congress. So, I think maybe Republicans really don’t care much at all if health insurance costs rise far above the capacity of working Americans to afford it. Or, that their employers provide it, as a supplement to their wages. Or, provide in lieu of their wages. Or don’t provide it at all. I think it goes to the heart of the vision Republicans have of the Country they want to create. A paradise for the lucky few. But a miserable living hell for the masses. And an authoritarian State just powerful enough to keep the lid on. That seems generally black, and white to me.

          15. Buzzi Butt February 7, 2015

            I don’t think the ’93 boys and girls are the ones in Congress dealing with ACA.

          16. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            I don’t believe the Republican boys in Congress in ’08, were dealing with ACA either. I don’t believe they were interested in dealing with anything, Not the recession, the wars, the immigration, Wall Street, jobs, unemployment, thousands losing their homes. Just making Obama “A one term President.”
            Epic fail, as far as I’m concerned.

          17. Buzzi Butt February 8, 2015

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion, thoughts which may or may not be supported by fact.

        2. jmprint February 7, 2015

          No they weren’t left out the were on vacation like always.

          1. itsfun February 7, 2015

            Were they with Obama on taxpayer money?

          2. jmprint February 7, 2015

            No, that why ACA was passed. You snooze you lose!

          3. itsfun February 7, 2015

            BS. The healthcare tax was passed by Democrats alone. It is proving to be extremely expensive and will continue to be more and more expensive in the future. The healthcare tax was passed using special senate rules and same party bribery.

          4. jmprint February 7, 2015

            And the republican were on vacation.

          5. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            When having to deal with liberals that is a good place to be.

          6. atc333 February 7, 2015

            Do you have any idea what state, local, and the Federal governments were paying out for health care for the uninsured up until Obamacare was enacted?

          7. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

            Were you with Bush when he tried to privatize Medicare and SS? Who do you righties think you are playing your games with? You can’t have our payroll tax deductions to flush to your Wall Street investments. You already all did that and caused 5 Wall Street crashes. SS is 80+ years old and has not crashed once. Open up those dead cells in your brain. These are facts you cannot deny.

          8. itsfun February 7, 2015

            What Bush wanted to do with SS was allow a person to put up to 10% of their monthly payment in a 401 of their own. Not exactly a complete privatization of it. SS is only managed by the government. Our employers and us put the money in it. Then the government gives us back what it feels like. Seeing as how we are paying for our SS, what is wrong with allowing us to have a say in 10% of our money?

          9. idamag February 7, 2015

            If the dips would have watched all the proceedings on C-span, they would have seen an equal bi-lateral committee and seen which party presented plans and which party said, “Yahbut…”

          10. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            OMG do you actually watch C span. You really need to rearrange your life.

        3. johninPCFL February 7, 2015

          If they were left out of the debate, how did 168 GOP amendments get tacked on to the ACA?

        4. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

          No they were not. Check the number of GOP politicians who were part of the number who passed that ACA legislation. No party has domination on Congressional voting according to the US Constitution. You need 62% and part of that has to come from both parties.

          1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            Ellie dear:
            “The problem with our Liberal friends is not that they don’t know anything, but that they know so much that just ain’t so.”
            NO REPUBLICAN SENATORS voted to approve Obamacare, not even ONE !
            NO REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN voted to approve Obamacare, not even ONE !
            YOU (again !) LIE, Ellie dear.
            You are pathetic.

          2. itsfun February 7, 2015

            Here is how the Senate voted, not one republican voted for the obamacare health care tax. Get a clue, you have absolutely no idea of what is happening in the world or who is doing it.

            U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes
            Congress –

            as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary

            On Passage of the Bill
            (H.R. 3590 as Amended

            Vote Number: 396 Vote Date: December 24, 2009, 07:05 AM

            Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed

            Measure Number: H.R. 3590
            (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

            Measure Title: An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

            Vote Counts:YEAs60


            Not Voting1

            Vote SummaryBy Senator NameBy Vote PositionBy Home State

            Alphabetical by Senator Name

            Akaka (D-HI), Yea

            Alexander (R-TN), Nay

            Barrasso (R-WY), Nay

            Baucus (D-MT), Yea

            Bayh (D-IN), Yea

            Begich (D-AK), Yea

            Bennet (D-CO), Yea

            Bennett (R-UT), Nay

            Bingaman (D-NM), Yea

            Bond (R-MO), Nay

            Boxer (D-CA), Yea

            Brown (D-OH), Yea

            Brownback (R-KS), Nay

            Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting

            Burr (R-NC), Nay

            Burris (D-IL), Yea

            Byrd (D-WV), Yea

            Cantwell (D-WA), Yea

            Cardin (D-MD), Yea

            Carper (D-DE), Yea

            Casey (D-PA), Yea

            Chambliss (R-GA), Nay

            Coburn (R-OK), Nay

            Cochran (R-MS), Nay

            Collins (R-ME), Nay

            Conrad (D-ND), Yea

            Corker (R-TN), Nay

            Cornyn (R-TX), Nay

            Crapo (R-ID), Nay

            DeMint (R-SC), Nay

            Dodd (D-CT), Yea

            Dorgan (D-ND), Yea

            Durbin (D-IL), Yea

            Ensign (R-NV), Nay

            Enzi (R-WY), Nay

            Feingold (D-WI), Yea

            Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

            Franken (D-MN), Yea

            Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea

            Graham (R-SC), Nay

            Grassley (R-IA), Nay

            Gregg (R-NH), Nay

            Hagan (D-NC), Yea

            Harkin (D-IA), Yea

            Hatch (R-UT), Nay

            Hutchison (R-TX), Nay

            Inhofe (R-OK), Nay

            Inouye (D-HI), Yea

            Isakson (R-GA), Nay

            Johanns (R-NE), Nay

            Johnson (D-SD), Yea

            Kaufman (D-DE), Yea

            Kerry (D-MA), Yea

            Kirk (D-MA), Yea

            Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea

            Kohl (D-WI), Yea

            Kyl (R-AZ), Nay

            Landrieu (D-LA), Yea

            Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea

            Leahy (D-VT), Yea

            LeMieux (R-FL), Nay

            Levin (D-MI), Yea

            Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea

            Lincoln (D-AR), Yea

            Lugar (R-IN), Nay

            McCain (R-AZ), Nay

            McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

            McConnell (R-KY), Nay

            Menendez (D-NJ), Yea

            Merkley (D-OR), Yea

            Mikulski (D-MD), Yea

            Murkowski (R-AK), Nay

            Murray (D-WA), Yea

            Nelson (D-FL), Yea

            Nelson (D-NE), Yea

            Pryor (D-AR), Yea

            Reed (D-RI), Yea

            Reid (D-NV), Yea

            Risch (R-ID), Nay

            Roberts (R-KS), Nay

            Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

            Sanders (I-VT), Yea

            Schumer (D-NY), Yea

            Sessions (R-AL), Nay

            Shaheen (D-NH), Yea

            Shelby (R-AL), Nay

            Snowe (R-ME), Nay

            Specter (D-PA), Yea

            Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

            Tester (D-MT), Yea

            Thune (R-SD), Nay

            Udall (D-CO), Yea

            Udall (D-NM), Yea

            Vitter (R-LA), Nay

            Voinovich (R-OH), Nay

            Warner (D-VA), Yea

            Webb (D-VA), Yea

            Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

            Wicker (R-MS), Nay

            Wyden (D-OR), Yea

            Vote SummaryBy Senator NameBy Vote PositionBy Home State

            Grouped By Vote Position

            YEAs —60

            Akaka (D-HI)
            Baucus (D-MT)
            Bayh (D-IN)
            Begich (D-AK)
            Bennet (D-CO)
            Bingaman (D-NM)
            Boxer (D-CA)
            Brown (D-OH)
            Burris (D-IL)
            Byrd (D-WV)
            Cantwell (D-WA)
            Cardin (D-MD)
            Carper (D-DE)
            Casey (D-PA)
            Conrad (D-ND)
            Dodd (D-CT)
            Dorgan (D-ND)
            Durbin (D-IL)
            Feingold (D-WI)
            Feinstein (D-CA)
            Franken (D-MN)
            Gillibrand (D-NY)
            Hagan (D-NC)
            Harkin (D-IA)
            Inouye (D-HI)
            Johnson (D-SD)
            Kaufman (D-DE)
            Kerry (D-MA)
            Kirk (D-MA)
            Klobuchar (D-MN)
            Kohl (D-WI)
            Landrieu (D-LA)
            Lautenberg (D-NJ)
            Leahy (D-VT)
            Levin (D-MI)
            Lieberman (ID-CT)
            Lincoln (D-AR)
            McCaskill (D-MO)
            Menendez (D-NJ)
            Merkley (D-OR)
            Mikulski (D-MD)
            Murray (D-WA)
            Nelson (D-FL)
            Nelson (D-NE)
            Pryor (D-AR)
            Reed (D-RI)
            Reid (D-NV)
            Rockefeller (D-WV)
            Sanders (I-VT)
            Schumer (D-NY)
            Shaheen (D-NH)
            Specter (D-PA)
            Stabenow (D-MI)
            Tester (D-MT)
            Udall (D-CO)
            Udall (D-NM)
            Warner (D-VA)
            Webb (D-VA)
            Whitehouse (D-RI)
            Wyden (D-OR)

            NAYs —39

            Alexander (R-TN)
            Barrasso (R-WY)
            Bennett (R-UT)
            Bond (R-MO)
            Brownback (R-KS)
            Burr (R-NC)
            Chambliss (R-GA)
            Coburn (R-OK)
            Cochran (R-MS)
            Collins (R-ME)
            Corker (R-TN)
            Cornyn (R-TX)
            Crapo (R-ID)
            DeMint (R-SC)
            Ensign (R-NV)
            Enzi (R-WY)
            Graham (R-SC)
            Grassley (R-IA)
            Gregg (R-NH)
            Hatch (R-UT)
            Hutchison (R-TX)
            Inhofe (R-OK)
            Isakson (R-GA)
            Johanns (R-NE)
            Kyl (R-AZ)
            LeMieux (R-FL)
            Lugar (R-IN)
            McCain (R-AZ)
            McConnell (R-KY)
            Murkowski (R-AK)
            Risch (R-ID)
            Roberts (R-KS)
            Sessions (R-AL)
            Shelby (R-AL)
            Snowe (R-ME)
            Thune (R-SD)
            Vitter (R-LA)
            Voinovich (R-OH)
            Wicker (R-MS)
            Not Voting –
            Bunning (R-KY)

    2. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

      Chaleo, There has always been and always will be several different classes of people. It’s not a Republican invention. I can only shake my head at some of the insane garbage that is written here. I often wonder if anyone on the Left has ever taken a 6th grade history class.

      1. charleo1 February 7, 2015

        Classes of people are not the issue. For me, it’s the idea of whether it’s in the best interests of the larger society, to allow, promote, and enable the further empowerment of
        the powerful, over the other classes. And, at the lower class expense. And, if that’s in the interests of, or upholds, and supports all our other democratic principles. And it seems clear to me anyway, the GOP are slavish working for a corporately run Plutocracy, without any vested interests in equality in any of it’s forms. It also seems very apparent, our domestic Corporate Capulets, get along swimmingly with the Totalitarians, and Communist abroad. While constantly finding themselves at odds with all the power sharing, and compromising with the struggling Montagues, here at home. All that grief being necessarily involved with a democratic system limited by such institutional checks and balances against the concentrations of power being vested to any one class. In short, I think they chafe at the enormous expense of buying out such a system. When in a smaller, albeit less inclusive, less democratic system, a few well placed bribes will accomplish their desired goals quite easily. And I also believe they are convinced if they, with their bottomless pockets, just keep hammering away at the foundations of liberty, freedom, and equality for the masses here. They can at last create a system they can control as cheaply as the Communist regimes with which they now share a loving, and blissful bed.

        1. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

          I’m sure that by now you know I have equal disdain for both parties when it comes to the Federal level. I believe they are all on the same team, they just talk as though they are at odds. Ultimately, their actions tell the true story. It’s easy to see the evil of the Democrats as the GOP, after all, it was the Democrats, only the Democrats that pulled off the Fascist marriage between government and corporation. Don’t fret, I have no doubt the GOP has done the same at some point in the past. I think our differences are small, as we both desire freedom and liberty. I don’t believe that is achievable through Government action, but rather simply doing what they were intended to do, protect the rights of the people. Both parties are equally guilty in failing in this responsibility.

          Governments cannot legislate fairness or equality. It is simply not feasible to do so, as one man’s fairness is another man’s expense. To best understand how the Left thinks, what is fair and who gets to choose what is fair? How can it be fair when it comes at the expense and unfairness of another? What few people fail to understand is that life just isn’t fair and that’s never going to change, ever. No government can make that happen. The best thing that could help achieve some sort of fairness would be to end the Federal governments involvement with corporations and big money. End lobbying, end all the insane alphabet agencies that just cost money and protect big business by regulating their competition out of business.

          Get government out of the peoples business, completely and the chance of achieving fairness can be pursued with greater success. Remember, our government is supposed to protect our liberties so we can PURSUE HAPPINESS. Nothing is guaranteed. The Feds are doing everything they can to keep people down by working hand in hand with big money. Until we can change that, talking about fairness is useless, because the cause of what you champion, can’t fix it. PEACE

          1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            TRUER words were never spoken; thank you:
            “Governments cannot legislate fairness or equality. It is simply not
            feasible to do so, as one man’s fairness is another man’s expense. To
            best understand how the Left thinks, what is fair and who gets to choose
            what is fair? How can it be fair when it comes at the expense and
            unfairness of another? What few people fail to understand is that life
            just isn’t fair and that’s never going to change, ever. No government
            can make that happen.”
            Simple, huh??
            BUT (BIG but), the liberal-leftists idiots will never understand such a simple principle.

          2. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            Yeah, it’s simple all right — so simple that I don’t even have to read it because I can smell it a mile away. Greedy, cheating, deadbeat right-wing zealots wouldn’t understand the meaning of fairness if they were slapped senseless with it. Come to think of it, that’s exactly what usually has to happen. Society will force you to behave with a certain level of fairness to other people whether you like it or not. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that anyone is giving you a choice in the matter.

          3. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            Ok jimmy. I am going to let you explain it to me (try NOT to make a fool of yourself, please ?!).
            Explain what “fairness” is to you.
            I am ALL EARS (even though, by saying that, I am setting myself up for you to say: “Louis, that’s ALL you have, EARS !!) LOL !!!
            It’s OK, I really want you to explain “fairness” to all of us “stupid” conservatives.

          4. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            I know this is going to be difficult for you to comprehend, so pay attention:

            Fairness means that you respect the wishes, desires, and needs of other people with exactly the same level of importance that you expect them to respect your wishes, desires, and needs. For people who aren’t selfish, bigoted knuckle-draggers this is a very simple exercise in common sense, but for those who are greedy, selfish, and deceitful it presents a real challenge.

            Here’s a case in point that you may study for however many weeks it takes you to grasp the concept (or not):

            Let’s say you fall in love with a woman. You decide you want to make a legal commitment to each other, and enjoy the benefits that society provides for such a commitment. You would hope that other people would happily abide by your decision and respect it. Good people do.

            Now to be sure, there are people who would rather marry members of the same sex. They may not share your man/woman idea of relationships as their ‘ideal’ arrangement. They may attempt to block your right to marry a member of the opposite sex, and attempt to make laws that only allow same-sex marriage and outlaw any other type of marriage. This is known as ‘unfairness’. Are you following?

            Fair people realize that your marriage to a member of the opposite sex is important to you, and that it doesn’t really impact them in any way, and besides — it’s your belief and not theirs. Despicable people don’t care about your wishes — they only care about their own. They stupidly try to force their wishes and beliefs upon you — all the while fully expecting you to respect their wishes.

            I know it’s difficult for you, but let’s see if you can study this concept until a light comes on — however dim. Good luck.

          5. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            Gary: Copying you on what I requested from “jimmy”:

            Ok jimmy. I am going to let you explain it to me (try NOT to make a fool of yourself, please ?!).
            Explain what “fairness” is to you.
            I am ALL EARS (even though, by saying that, I am setting myself up for
            you to say: “Louis, that’s ALL you have, EARS !!) LOL !!!
            It’s OK, I really want you to explain “fairness” to all of us “stupid” conservatives.

          6. Gary Miles February 8, 2015

            Good Luck. Expect a massive amount of contradictions.

        2. plc97477 February 7, 2015

          I hate to be the one to say it but there were way too many multi-syllable words in your comment for miss miles to be able to follow the post.

          1. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            I know. I should probably keep it to, govament bad,
            freedum is good. Don’t take my gun!

    3. idamag February 7, 2015

      How much did Jesus charge for loaves and fishes? How much for healing the lame, the blind, and the sick?

      1. charleo1 February 7, 2015

        It’s interesting the Religious Right have mostly abandoned the New Testament in favor of the Old. But, there again carefully picking, and choosing their chapters to advance. Leviticus is a favorite when bashing the Gay communities. But left out. is the part about it being a sin to have relations with another man’s slave, without his permission. Eating shell fish, or wearing clothing made of two different materials, are also described as sin. It’s also interesting that Fascists describe Christians, and Jews, as being cut from the same Socialist/ Communist clothe, as thieves, and union antagonists. That believe in taking wealth from the industrious Capitalists, and redistributing it among the slothful masses.

        1. plc97477 February 7, 2015

          They have been cherry picking the parts of the bible they want to follow since the book was written.

      2. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        A whole lot less than Obama care.

        1. 1standlastword February 7, 2015

          Hicus–Obama care is the new brand for before now…”Nobody cared”

          You are right about the costs because the primary winners are the insurance companies as even more people now have insurance they can’t afford to use. I know because I own and operate a small behavioral health clinic.

          Dammit Hicus sometimes I have to agree with you as sometimes you be right…Don’t get a big head…LOL!

  11. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

    If there is one thing you can count on by the GOP white male dominators, it’s that you will never ever see a Black or female GOP president in the White House. They only allow Hispanics like Rubio and Cruz to show face because they know they need at least minimal minority vote. In their bigot thinking, that means only minorities who are as close to white as it can get.

    1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

      My, My now there is a racist statement. The white half of Obama is going to be angry with you.

      1. joe schmo February 7, 2015

        Isn’t it funny how they call Republican whites racist when I don’t see how in the past decades the whites have done anything but progress with regards to equality. We all have. Funny how they call people of color ‘Uncle Toms’ or say they are tokens for the Republican party when Conservatives have only embraced and welcomed people of color. On the other hand, I have seen many Democrats of color attack Republicans, literally. Seems that there is a fox in the hen house. I can then deduce who the racist truly are, and it is not the Conservative…..

    2. jmprint February 7, 2015

      I think it’s about mentality verses gender, or color of skin, if you lack common sense your in, your liked, you rule.

      1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        Say what?????

        1. jmprint February 7, 2015

          Yes, I forgot to say, that you also have to be able to repeat what your master tell you to repeat.

          1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            You actually forgot to say something? How did that happen?

          2. jmprint February 7, 2015

            I was eager to hit the post button.

          3. joe schmo February 7, 2015


          4. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            That’s interesting, when I need to post something I use a zipper.

    3. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

      Dang, Ellie, the entire world discriminates against the white side of Obama. They never mention it. Ignoring something does not make it go away however. Obama is a blend of a Caucasian and negro. Why do you persist in calling him a black President? Are you trying to link his governing abilities to one of his genetic traits? Bad girl. That makes you a racist.

      1. idamag February 7, 2015

        Like hitler, many think one drop of Black blood makes the person Black.

        1. joe schmo February 7, 2015

          Has Obama ever mentioned anything about his white side. Nada…. You would think he would be unbiased….. Not!

          1. joeg2028 February 7, 2015

            Well, I just googled “Obama and his mother” and “Obama and his grandparents” and got 23 million+ hits and 11 million+ hits, respectively. So I guess he hasn’t once said anything about his “white” side. As some schmo recently said, “Do some research for a change.”

          2. idamag February 7, 2015

            He has to learn to read English first. I have never heard Obama mentioned any of his genealogy. He mentions the respect he had for his mother and the love he had for his grandparents.

          3. joe schmo February 8, 2015

            Obama’s bias is certainly showing. No he has never mentioned them in ANY conversation I have heard him mention. He does go on and on in his book and in conversation about his Muslim Father (who was quite a drinker and ladies man. He ended up killing himself by crashing into a tree) and Muslim Step Father. It seems his fathers anti-colonial/Marxist ideology is by far of greater importance to him than that bland WHITE side. I always do my research, joeg? They are never mentioned.

          4. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            Here’s joeg’s reply to you re the KKK (see above):

            “Yeah, joe schmo, you see, what I really, really, really wanted to say
            was that I was on the NEXT helicopter, the one RIGHT BEHIND the one that
            was fired on, …. well, er, … what I really, really meant was that
            my helicopter reached the scene 1 hour after the one fired upon. But I
            spent 2 HARROWING nights in the desert !!

            Now that you confronted me
            with my defective historical information, what does it matter to this
            conversation if that organization had a link to any party THEN?

        2. joeg2028 February 7, 2015

          I’m sure you meant to say like Thomas Jefferson and all others who sired children with their female slaves. Those children, like their mothers, became and remained slaves too. And I don’t think the KKK recognized people’s white half (or less) when lynching people, burning crosses in front lawns, or otherwise terrorizing their partly white neighbors.

          1. joe schmo February 7, 2015

            Seriously! Another jughead who doesn’t know that the KKK were the terrorist leg of the Democratic party. Oh and by the way, you mean all 2000 – 5000 left in America. Do some research for a change.

          2. joeg2028 February 7, 2015

            Dear JS, Are you familiar with the meaning of “past tense,” which is what I used in reference to the KKK? What does it matter to this conversation if that
            organization had a link to any party then, especially considering that Nixon’s Southern strategy moved most of those folks to the Republican side in the late ’60s?

            Once again, I was talking in the past tense, not about the KKK’s membership today. I haven’t heard of any recent lynchings or cross burnings–though I’m sure they harass minorities whenever they think they can get away with it. (BTW, I took your advice and did some research: The SPLC estimates KKK membership at 5,000 to 8,000 in the good ol’ US of A, as much as four times your numbers.)

          3. idamag February 7, 2015

            And..there are still nazi parties in this country. The SPLC helped run some of them out of my state.

          4. joeg2028 February 7, 2015

            But from your comments, I’m not sure if you think that’s a good thing or not.

          5. idamag February 10, 2015

            Most of us, in this state, were very happy to see the Aryan nations go.

          6. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            Yeah, joe schmo, you see, what I really, really, really wanted to say was that I was on the NEXT helicopter, the one RIGHT BEHIND the one that was fired on, …. well, er, … what I really, really meant was that my helicopter reached the scene 1 hour after the one fired upon. But I spent 2 HARROWING nights in the desert !!
            Now that you confronted me with my defective historical information, what does it matter to this conversation if that organization had a link to any party THEN?
            Oh brother. The hypocrisy.

          7. joeg2028 February 7, 2015

            OK, Louis, please explain to me why the link between the KKK and the Dems from the 1910s and ’20s matters to this conversation as the two major parties have basically traded places in regard to race relations (and a lot of other issues). If you disagree with that, please let me know.

          8. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            OK, joeg, let me explain to you what should have been obvious (but apparently wasn’t):
            When it serves your leftist agenda, you Lefties/Liberals “cite” and “use” historical events in your favor (or, as happened with the disgraced liar Brian Williams, LIE about what really happened).

            BUT, when confronted with FACTS, then you hurriedly put your “car” in shameful “reverse gear” and now claim that the historical event was not relevant after all.

            EXACTLY that was what transpired during your exchange with joe schmo:
            You claimed that the KKK did not “… recognize[d] people’s white half (or less) when lynching people, burning
            crosses in front lawns, or otherwise terrorizing their partly white
            neighbors.” Then, when joe schmo confronted you with the fact that the KKK were “the terrorist leg of the Democratic party”, you all of a sudden come up with: “What does it matter to this conversation if that organization had a link to any party then, …”

            EXACTLY the same kind of “retraction” and intellectual dishonesty happened with Mr. Gruber: when he was “crafting” Obamacare and visited the White House so many times, he was a “key player”, but when he claimed that the Administration lacked transparency in the process and that voters were “stupid”, then, and ONLY THEN, he was “a nobody” !

            You Leftist-Liberals will say/claim ANYTHING as long as it jibes with the talking points fed to you by your handlers.
            Oh brother.

          9. joe schmo February 8, 2015

            Geelee willakers, joeg. That’s a might large group ya got there. I betcha there are more bias Black Panther/Farakahn/LaRaza/Muslim haters on the Left (and they are more modern killers as well) than there ever were KKK on the Right. But then again, you do realize that it did start with the Democrats? So get over it.

          10. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

            One of the main reasons the south went from blue to bloody red has to do with their Southern Baptist religion. According to several books on this subject, the reason had to do with the rebellions of the 60s. The whites in the south and midwest hated hated hated the idea that other northern whites would join Civil Rights Marches to fight for Civil Rights.

            The entire premise of the Civil War was based on states’ rights to “keep and own slaves.” …The same BS jargon the gun nuts use to “keep and own” their arsenals.

            The author Thomas Frank, a native of Kansas who wrote the book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas” states that these states left the Democratic Party when it supported Civil Rights and now they are in backlash mode by supporting candidates they know “don’t really support their interests.”

            How many of the red state politicians are tied to Koch Industries as a matter of campaign contributions. Both Koch are notorious invested in Wall Street funds, stocks and oil interests. So it’s hypocritical for the south and midwest to view blue states as “latte” states and “investor” states.

          11. joe schmo February 8, 2015

            God save the religious, Eleanore. Something you will never understand because you are such a hypocrite.

            What a stupid comparison guns to slavery. Doesn’t surprise me that such a ridiculous idea would come from you.

            Ummmm, aren’t there now more Red states than Blue? Doesn’t it make you wonder why?

          12. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            joe: People like joeg and Eleanor CAN’T “do some research” ! Remember, FACTS are their worst enemy!!

          13. joe schmo February 8, 2015

            Yup, they live on the edge of a conundrum of emotions that jump the gun.

        3. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

          For a country that seems to be obsessed with eliminating racism, its unfathomable that the President’s main claim to fame is his race. I’d have preferred his accomplishments or leadership or military record (if he had one) or something that isn’t related to his DNA.

          1. idamag February 7, 2015

            You liars don’t really think you are lying, do you? Obama has never claimed anything ab out race. Now, for facts, do you know what facts are? They are provable by reliable sources. Let me say, “reliable” again. The fact is the SPLC, who keeps a close watch on hate groups, says white supremist groups doubled when Obama became president.

      2. joe schmo February 7, 2015

        That’s because, nowadays, being WHITE is a bad word.

        1. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

          Only for some. The band wagon of political correctness is running on flat tires.

          1. joe schmo February 8, 2015

            So is the word ‘racist.’

      3. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

        Ruby: Since you are confronting something that Ellie Male Hater said, here’s your answer: because to blind liberal lefties, and specifically to Lenore, facts DO NOT matter.

        1. Ruby Rott February 7, 2015

          One can always hope that the door to sanity might open for those lost. Finding the key is a challenge. It may always be lost; it may be just around the bend.

  12. idamag February 7, 2015

    Black and Hispanics in the Republican Party are tokens to attract votes.

    1. joe schmo February 7, 2015

      You are a moron. In this modern day and age your response is irrational. Many on the right have the greatest regard for people of color. In fact we admire them very much. Oftentimes they have more common sense than the Whites in our party. By the way, Dr. Ben Carson is highly thought of an in the running for President. Along with Rubio, Cruz and Jindal. You all hate Cruz, should I call you a racist? You are merely race-baiters who live in the past. I mean the recent past. Before the 1960’s to be exact.

      What have you got running? Two WHITE woman. Chairman Mao Hillary and Marxist Warden. How should I respond to that?

      1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

        Hey, joe: Dr. Carson is highly thought of, I could not agree more. But to these Left-wing morons, he is the “wrong” kind of black, because he absolutely refused to consider himself a victim and thus distanced himself from the liberals who could have “helped” him (….live and stay inside the plantation).

        1. Independent1 February 7, 2015

          Ben Carson is “highly thought of”?? Wow!! have you considered going into comedy? That’s the biggest joke I’ve heard in a long time. Ben Carson may be highly thought with respect to politics by only RWNJs who have reverted to believing in insanity!! The vast majority of what Ben Carson says is absolutely delusional!!

          1. joe schmo February 8, 2015

            Can’t handle it can you? He absolutely has ten times more common sense than you ever will. Eloquent, educated, smart, innovative, rags to riches, principled and successful 🙂

          2. Louis Allen February 10, 2015

            joe: zzzzzz ….. zzzzz….. complete silence from this idiot DEPENDENT1 …..

        2. joe schmo February 8, 2015

          Yes, they love to keep the Blacks ignorant and dependent. Geez, what a switch. Obama was OK and Dr. Carson is a dimwit because he is Conservative. Does that make sense to you?

          1. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            No, but you have to remember that to these idiots down is up, bad is good, cold is hot and ignorance is bliss ….

      2. raginyank February 7, 2015

        Dim Wit troll

        1. joe schmo February 8, 2015

          Hmmmm, I see you have nothing to contribute…. Guess you lost this debate.

      3. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

        Herman Cain…..Sarah Palin….Michelle Bachmannistan…where are they today?

        1. idamag February 7, 2015

          I have no desire to respond to the nazi’s son. He never learned Democracy from his parents.

          1. joe schmo February 8, 2015

            No one says you have to respond to my comments. It’s still a free country….. Democracy? You have no clue what that even is. You have become as unAmerican as it comes.

        2. joe schmo February 8, 2015

          What does that have to do with anything, Eleanore?

          1. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            joe: NOTHING.
            But that’s the size of her brain.
            She gets occasional brain MRIs and her bill always states: “N/C” ….
            RMAOFL !!!

  13. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

    Hey Stoehr:
    Quoting you: “[The Keystone XL Pipeline] project would indeed create thousands of
    seasonal jobs, but only about 40 permanent ones. It would have virtually
    no impact on the U.S. economy. Moreover, the public would get nothing
    in return, unless you count greater levels of global warming.”
    “… no impact on the U.S. economy.” ??!! WHHHAAAATTTT???!!!
    Goebbels said it best: “Repeat a lie time after time after time, and it becomes accepted as the truth.”
    P.S. – It’s not “global warming” anymore (that’s too discredited), Stoehr, now it’s “climate change” ….
    P.S.2. – Hey, brush up on your talking points, John.

    1. raginyank February 7, 2015

      Talk about repeating lies often enough and they become facts; where the hell would the GOP be without that very premise?

      1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

        rag: Is that the best you can come up with?
        Can you at least address what John Stoehr says?
        Come on, buddy ….

        1. raginyank February 7, 2015

          I will not respond t mindless trols

          1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            Oh, I see. Typical liberal-leftie answer when they have no clue.
            Go to your mama and tell her: “Booo hooo, booo, hooo, Mama, there is this fellow who is confronting me with something that I said. He dared to ask me to at least address the issue at hand !! He is a mindless troll, Mama !!
            He is abusing me !! Booo hoooo, booo, hooo !!!

          2. raginyank February 7, 2015

            You seem to like hearing yourself talk; go ahead a waste your rage within your little mind, it should help sooth the ache within.

          3. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            AGAIN, address the ISSUE. Don’t skirt it !
            Can’t you at least do that?

          4. raginyank February 7, 2015

            Republicant; as in cannot get under a smarter persons skin. Peace OUT!!!

          5. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            I know. Don’t worry though, lame-brains like you can not get under my skin.

          6. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

            You don’t agree with anyone do you? Do you eat rusty nails for breakfast too?

          7. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            Not at all, Ellie !
            Rusty Nails are what caused your (original) brain damage, dear. At present, your (additional) brain damage has (already) been caused by not using your brain.
            LOL !!

          8. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Tsk, tsk — is that the best you can do? Really, can you flog the long-dead Benghazi horse a few more times? You right wing hacks would be good for comic relief at least, if only you’d come up with some new conspiracy theories once in a while. Why don’t you go feed Rush a few pills, and perhaps he’ll spew out some new talking points for you.

          9. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            little-brain jimmy:
            I know that to you Leftist/Liberals Benghazi is a “long-dead-horse”. I know, I know. I wasn’t expecting anything else from you mor^^s.
            BUT to decent people (now, how would you know anything about THAT?) in this Nation of ours, the REAL dead (not a “dead horse”, mind you !) were 4 BRAVE MEN that Killary “Under-Sniper-Fire” Clinton and her boss Barack “Urgent-Golf-Game” Obama LEFT TO DIE.
            Let me remind you of their names, jimmy “brains”, because I know you have forgotten them:
            1) Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens
            2) Sean Smith
            3) Glen Doherty
            4) Tyrone Woods
            Shame on you, jimmy half-brain.

          10. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            So you are angry over the people that the Republicans got killed? I don’t blame you. I know that cowardly right-wing nuts always blame liberals for the American kids they get killed, but nobody is ever fooled. Why don’t you write to your Tea-Bagging Congressman and tell him you want more cuts to embassy and consulate security so that you can freeload more government benefits — something you right-wing goobers are always good at.

          11. idamag February 7, 2015

            My sentiments, exactly. If they throw out some real facts and they are not in agreement with mine, I will consider them and research them. Canned rhetoric is not facts.

      2. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

        You mean like “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”, or like “The Benghazi incident was caused by a video.”??

    2. atc333 February 7, 2015

      It is still Global Warming causing climate change. The “brush up” you refer in what it is called these days to is to deal with those individuals who cannot understand that the changing weather pattens are a result of global warming, caused by our even increasing dumping of carbon based pollutants into the atmosphere. It affects air quality, air circulation, and water temperatures in the oceans, all which is rising.

      Unfortunately too many people limit their understanding of climate change, and global warming to what they observe around them, in many cases more snow, more ice, and cooler weather, all called by the adverse consequences of a few degrees increase in average temperature on our established weather patterns.

    3. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

      No it would not create thousands of jobs. YOu’d know that if you read all of the news accounts from Canada’s National Post, the Calgary Herald and the Calgary Sun…the Keystone Pipeline as was testified in Congress by Alaska’s other Tundra Tootsie Murkowski and the OK Okee Doke, Trans Canada OWNS the Keystone Pipeline.

      As such, that ownership means that Canada, not the US has sovereignty over the building, construction and maintenance of their pipeline. This was the deal set up in 2006 between Bush and then Premier Ralph Klein.

      The number of jobs created will be in Galveston Texas by Texans not anyone on the east or west coast states or those in the Pacific northwest. According to YOUR own GOP Keystone rah rah bulls and cows, the pipeline was already begun 2 years before it actually was approved. Ask the people who own land in NB about how their land was taken by Canada by eminent domain.

      You are too stupid to post much less exist.

      1. idamag February 7, 2015

        I watched the documentary about that pipeline. A man turned on the water in his sink and lit it on fire.

        1. joe schmo February 7, 2015

          Eye yay yay…… This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. What a bunch of lies.

          Here in CaliMexico, before the oil rigs went in offshore, we used to walk on our beaches and our feet would be full of tar. Oil flowed naturally from the ocean floor before it was tapped. I have also been in the back country and I have seen oil seeping from the ground, naturally. Isn’t it less polluting to soak it up with a rig? Geez, you don’t get it…..

          1. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            joe: idamag has been tutored by:
            1) Brian “Downed-Helicopter” Williams,
            2) Hillary “Under-Sniper-Fire” Clinton,
            3) Lois “I-didn’t-Do-Anything-Illegal” Lerner,
            4) and by Barack “You-can-Keep-your-Doctor, and I-Won’t-Increase-Taxes-on-Anybody-Making-Less-than-$250,000” OBAMA.

      2. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

        Ellie, sweetie:
        I am “too stupid to post much less exist”??
        Wow! Shakespeare (look him up, dear) said it best: “Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned”
        You very well know why I left you, dear ….

        1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

          Maybe EW need to refresh her abilities on how to get posted. Some qualified postings might her back on track.

      3. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        How can I read Canadian news accounts I don’t know how to speak Canadian. But I can sayt A.

    4. Independent1 February 7, 2015

      The EPA just put the nail in the coffin for Keystone XL; Obama made it clear that he would only not veto legislation approving the building of XL if it could be demonstrated that XL would not impact climate change. Well, the EPA just came out an said that Keystone XL would have a significant impact on climate change. Consider the issue closed. That statement may well convince even some Dems who may have thought about voting for it on a veto override to change their minds.

      See this:

      EPA on Keystone XL: Significant Climate Impacts from Tar Sands Pipeline

      In a draft assessment of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, consultants for the U.S. State Department judged that building it would have no significantimpact on greenhouse gas emissions. Why? Because the analysts assumed the tar sands oil would find a way out with or without the new pipeline.

      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not agree. Keystone XL’s ability to carry an additional 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day is vital to expanded production of the tarry crude in Alberta. The EPA contends that the analysis by State got the economics all wrong. In particular the consultants were too optimistic about the ease with which the oil could be moved by railroad–an alternative already in use. But such tar sands oil transportation alternatives can more than triple the cost of moving crude. State’s report also neglected to consider the potential for congestion on the railroads with an uptick in oil transport, EPA contends. Of course, from a greenhouse gas perspective, transport by pipeline results in fewer emissions than transport by rail, truck or barge.

      The bottom line, from a climate perspective: “oil sands crude is significantly more [greenhouse gas] intensive than other crudes, and therefore has potentially large impacts,” wrote EPA’s Cynthia Giles about the State Department’s attempts to assess the full implications of Keystone. “Lifecycle emissions from oil sands crude could be 81 percent greater than the average crude refined in the U.S.,” a difference that can grow “depending on the assumptions made.”


      1. 1standlastword February 7, 2015

        This explains why a republican fantasy agenda would be to dismantle the EPA and the FDA. No EPA no FDA and corporatist can rape, plunder and poison the Earth we live on: A perfectly parasite like relationship with the Earth we all depend on. And if taken with what Ellen shared above claiming the pipeline being under the protocols of a Trans-State project, thus making American taxpayers legally responsible for cleanup in the event of a catastrophic spill, Trans Canada is off the hook for liability.

        Once again another version of too big to fail, the buyers and sellers of influence get to conduct another transfer of public wealth–stealing taxpayer funds in the light of day to further benefit their future profits.

        How long can the American people tolerate these corporate and government sponsored schemes before we have to water the tree of liberty (not a libertarian not a happy victim either) …I mean isn’t this the staging of the complete theft of our democracy? Lastly, just imagine what the contribution of Fast track authority of TPP will do to add to the momentum of the state sponsored plundering of the people’s basic rights, health and welfare lifting it to a global agenda.

  14. stsintl February 7, 2015

    The GOP tent is supported on five Gs.
    God [Right wing evangelicals]
    Gold [Zionists]
    Gamblers [Adelson and Investment Bankers]
    Guns [NRA]
    Greed [Neo Capitalists like Koch brothers]

    1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

      The DNC tent is supported on SIX Ds:
      Debauchery (as in what Bill The Rabbit did to the Office);
      Dole (as in public dole);
      DUH ! (as in leftie-liberal concepts);
      Doubt (as in “are we a decent nation? “should we pre-empt terrorists?”)
      DEBT (as in 18 trillion public debt and “we should increase it out of ‘fairness'”);
      DUNG (as in “if your house is full of dung to a height of 6 feet, …. increase the height of the ceiling”)

      stsintl: Please STOP this kind of IDIOTIC post, pretty please??

      1. stsintl February 7, 2015

        Learn some facts. Reagan Tax cuts doubled the DEBT of 200 years in four years. GWB Tax cuts increase the DEBT by another 85 percent. So most of what you griping about has been done under Republican presidents. BTW, US Congress has the final responsibility for the DEBT not the President. GWB with his trillion dollar illegal war and deregulation of the Wall Street left the mess for the next president to clean it. Don’t get your info from Rupert Murdoch’s news empire.

        1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

          st: Don’t be an ignoramus, please.
          Only the liberal idiots on this site would swallow your “theories” here.
          Let’s see: The National Debt has been raised by Republican presidents and NOT by this president.
          But, after having made clear that it was the Rep presidents’ fault, you go on to state that “BTW, US Congress has the final responsibility for the DEBT not the President.”
          Like I said, only Left-Wing Liberal Obama UNCONDITIONALS will believe you.
          It’s called, “having your cake and (trying) to eat it too.”
          Get you act together and then come back.

      2. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        If everybody on NM stopped their idiotic posts there would be no NM.

  15. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

    Listen everybody:
    This is a copy of a post that, in answer to Eleanore Whitaker, I have been trying to post (The Nat Memo is stiil – for 15 minutes now) “considering” its publication);
    you be the judge:

    Ellie dear: Your own words: “… you will never ever see a Black or female GOP president in the White House.”
    In your mind, what would be wrong with Dr. Ben Carson in the White House?
    Too black?
    Not a resident of “the plantation”?
    Too small an example of a “rags-to-riches” story?
    Too little of the “victim” mentality?
    Too much reluctance to practice political correctness?
    Too inclined to call a spade a “spade”?
    Too much risk that he could whip Hillary/Warren’s a**?
    None of the above?
    Just “because”?
    What, Ellie, what??
    Are you now wishing you had not said what you said?
    Tell me dear.
    Enlighten us with your words of wisdom …., please.
    Tell us.

    1. atc333 February 7, 2015

      Too Radically Right wing for 80% of Americans. Have you even listened or read any of his claims and comments?

    2. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

      Phooey to youeee Louie…Who do you think you are fooling? Ben Carson? Really? Herman Cain remind you of how far he didn’t get in the GOP race? Just why did it come down to Romney and not Cain? After all both are GOP bulls aren’t they?

      You proved beyond a doubt what men like you are capable of…lies, hypocrisy on steroids and more BS than a herd of long horns can produce in a century…Herman Cain…..Herman Cain……Ben Carson…..Ben Carson…..yeah right.

      Now, as you know…if Hillary chooses not to run, WE have Elizabeth Warren, Linda Sanchez, Cory Booker …want more? How about stick it in your ear?

      1. idamag February 7, 2015

        Al Franken.

      2. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

        Ellie dear:
        As is your MO, given your very meager intellectual wherewithal, you skirted the question; the question was not whether you think Dr. Ben Carson has a chance of being nominated by the GOP, but whether you, dear, would vote for him and if not, why not?
        Answer the question, dear.
        Your slip is showing ….

        1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

          I don’t think it is her slip that is showing.

          1. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            It’s really her Liberal-Leftie hypocrisy….
            … or is it round and towards “the bottom” ?!!
            RMAOFL !!!

    3. Independent1 February 7, 2015

      If Ben doesn’t even make it to the nominations, it won’t be about his color; it will be all about many of his pathologically crazy notions; just because he may be a gifted surgeon, in now way guarantees he doesn’t have crazy ideas on many issues; too many crazy ideas to ever even think about allowing him to get into the oval office.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

        What shocks me is that a doctor like Ben Carson would not see he’s the GOP’s token black man. The GOP is not notoriously popular among blacks. Look at why. Where are most of the red states located? In MS, MO, KY, NC, SC, GA, TN and LA. Not exactly states that welcome minorities and women. Who’d want to vote knowing that these are the Stars and Bars Confederates ready for the “South to Rise Again.”

        1. Independent1 February 7, 2015

          Yeah! It’s my sense that if Ben got nominated, that he’d lose a national election in a landslide, because anyone who thinks a large percentage of Republicans in those states you listed would actually come out and vote for black president – even if he does have GOP-loving wacky ideas – is dreaming.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2015

            I agree. The problem with Republican men today is their backlash Slash and Burn, Shock and Awe ideology.

            While they put an educated guy like Ben out there, you just know they are skanking around in the back room with a totally different trick up their sleeves.

            If politicians of the GOP cannot function on the basis of serving ALL of the people, ALL of the time, and skankage is all they offer, what good are they to this nation?

        2. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

          1) “Where” are most of the red states “located”??!!
          From a woman that claims that she has written 2 books?! What happened to your English, dear?
          2) FYI, sweetie, after the 2014 DemocRat DEBACLE, the states you mention (8) do not constitute “most of the red states”. That is because, like it or not, Toots, 31, yes, 31 states are now “red” and only 19, yes, 19 are now “blue”.
          3) Dare to answer my question about Dr. Ben Carson, dear.
          4) Your “slip” (read “Liberal-Leftie hypocrisy) is showing, Tootsie.

          1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Does she still wear a slip? She talks like she wears a jockey strap.

          2. joe schmo February 7, 2015

            Most likely she does. Her lies never cease. Now she claims she’s written 2 books. I thought it was 1. One thing she is really good at is lying or should I say stretching the truth…..

          3. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            joe: She, as her handler Brian “Fib” Williams, and as her idol Hillary “Under-Sniper-Fire” Clinton, does not lie: she “conflates” and she “mis-remembers”.

          4. joe schmo February 7, 2015


        3. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

          There is something that actually shocks you? What do you have your finger in now?

      2. idamag February 7, 2015

        Maybe they choose their tokens, carefully, so as to guarantee that they won’t become president someday.

    4. LotusJoan February 7, 2015

      Ben Carson is not even the acknowledged GOP front runner for election as president and it s doubtful that he will be. So Ellie is right and you are just wishfully thinking.

    5. charleo1 February 7, 2015

      Because Ben Carson is wrong. Because he is so wrong, in a field of wrongheadedness, he stands out as being the worst of the lot. And assessing the lot, that is really saying something. Plus, Ben Carson has no intention of running. If they handed him the mantel and said go for it! You have our undying support! Which they would never. But if they did, he would not run. Ben Carson is a flame thrower. With a
      paper thin understanding of what the issues even are. Much less,
      understanding them. To paraphrase another non-candidate, token Black of the 98% White Republican Party, Herman Cain. “I don’t know who the President Usz-beckie,beckie stan is! And, I don’t care! Well, neither does Ben Carson.

      1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

        charleo: Listen to yourself. You prove my point that the reason you Left-Wing Liberals do not like him is that he is the “wrong” kind of Black, the REAL rags-to-riches guy (and NOT your liar president).
        P.S. – He did not BLOCK access to his university records, like Obama did and will forever do.
        Your hypocrisy is having a flare-up, …. again.

        1. charleo1 February 7, 2015

          I said, he should not be President because he is wrong on the issues. I also said, because he is an entertainer, and serves as store front dressing to disguise a 98% all White Party from looking too exclusive to appeal to a wider audience. As if window dressing elected Presidents. Barack Obama didn’t win because he was Black in the Democratic Party. He might have even won in spite of. But he did win because the majority of voters believed his positions, and priorities, to be in agreement with their own.

          1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            Oh, wow! Again, listen to yourself !
            You should wait (perhaps for… 4 hours?!) before you translate your thoughts into words.
            “Barack Obama didn’t win because he was Black in the Democratic Party.”
            WHHHAAAATTTT ??? !!!!
            Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaa!!!!
            You are killing me, charleooooo !!!!!
            ROTFL !!!!

          2. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            Well, you’re kind of a hoot yourself. But now I’m bored. So, have a nice whatever you have.

          3. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            I know, I know. And it’s OK for you to get bored with something that demands a little bit more than the talking points your liberal handlers feed you.
            “Barack Obama didn’t win because he was Black in the Democratic Party.”
            Do you now admit that was a stupid statement?!!
            Who came up with THAT, charly??

          4. NoNumberNow February 7, 2015

            I think you hurt charleo’s feelings.

          5. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            I think you made choke on a bean burrito.

          6. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            Yep !
            Dimwits actually choke on a grain of salt !!

          7. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            I agree. That is the most asinine statement yet.

          8. NoNumberNow February 7, 2015

            BO didn’t win because he was black? Then why does the press keep referring to his race if was immaterial to his getting elected and being president? I think they are using it as the excuse for his poor performance.

          9. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            I think your entire premise is subjective. As the press seldom mentions his race gratuitously, or out of context. Because his race had no more to with his becoming President, than Jackie Robinson’s had in his being signed to the Brooklyn Dodgers. They both got to be firsts, by their merit. And that is significant, in a Country famous, and well known for it’s historical bigotry. And I also think your statement bears that out. Like what? Fox News I guess was making excuses for Bush, because he was White then? That would be stupid to say, now wouldn’t it? It’s very much like something Rush Limbaugh said of the NFL with respect to Steve McNair. Before they promptly showed him the door after his first, and only debut as a sportscaster. There just seems to be something about race, you fellows either can’t or refuse to grasp. Something you just can’t get past. The feeling is always, I think he’ll be awful, and I’ll bet those other people will make excuses for him because he’s Black. And, of course, you’re as predictable as rain in this. In believing you were right all along. So, what do want me to say to you?

        2. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

          Charleo has been gorging on bean burritos to help validate global warming instead he had a flare up.

          1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            Ha, haa!! That was GOOD, hicus, spot on.
            I think charleo has as much brains ……. as a bean burrito !!
            Be well, my friend !

      2. itsfun February 7, 2015

        Charlie: If a Republican made the kind of statements you just made he/she would be called the worst kind of racist. It reads like you said Ben Carson is not black enough to be a Democrat.

        1. James Bagley February 7, 2015

          Carson is simply a nut — exactly the token black person that nutty right-wing zealots can love. Nobody believes that Carson is a serious contender, but Republicans all puff up at the chance to praise the rare black Republican. Parties that don’t have a historical racism problem don’t need to make such a big deal over a black candidate — even a nutty one like Carson.

        2. charleo1 February 7, 2015

          I didn’t say that did I? I said in effect, I don’t believe he’s a serious person, Dr. Carson, when it comes to what he’s doing. Why? Because, he’s proven he’s smarter than that. And now, he pretends he’s not. And I do know Republicans see they have a problem with appealing to minorities. And I don’t believe there’s a whole lot they see they can do about it at this point, but improve the optics. And here, I believe they see Dr. Carson as a good asset. But not electable. Now where is any of that racist?

          1. itsfun February 7, 2015

            I can almost guarantee if I talked about having Obama tap dancing at a Democratic fund raiser, what do you think I would be called?

          2. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            If Obama’s job was to play the class clown, serving red meat to the patrons, while ridiculously pretending he has a chance of being nominated, like Dr.Carson You’d be called astute. Play acting is play acting. Play acting for effect in politics is I think dishonest. As is selling books while pretending to run for office, dishonest. And we saw a lot that on the Right last time. When are they going to get serious? It all has the feel of a big frat party.

          3. itsfun February 7, 2015

            I don’t think you are a racist, however if I talked about Obama tap dancing for a Democrat fund raiser, what do you think I would be called?

    6. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

      I am waiting with baited breath to hear the response from bait breath.

      1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

        She can only answer the congratulatory messages of her fellow idiots.
        Eleanore relies only on long, rambling rants that are read only by her fellow Obama sycophants.
        And The National Mummy (wait a minute, THAT would be Nancy Pelosi), The Irrational Memo (wait a minute, THAT’S what Joe “The Con-Man” Conason writes), FEARS SO MUCH what I post on this site that they actually ELIMINATED this answer to Lenore Whitaker. But I went ahead and posted it up here anyway.
        “The Irrational Mummy”, why are you afraid of my posts?

  16. plc97477 February 7, 2015

    One other thing the public would get from the xl pipeline is more spills, more explosions and more danger to our neighborhoods and to our water table.

    1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

      I would normally agree if the media wasn’t own by the Big 5 Ultra Conservative billionaire media moguls: Zuckerberg, Murdoch, Charles and David Koch and Adelson. These guys are pretty good at sabotaging the real meaning of Freedom of the Press. To them that means Freedom to Suppress the Press.

      1. idamag February 7, 2015

        Years ago, when I was studying to be a technical writer, I asked a professor what would happen is large special interests managed to get control of the media. Wouldn’t it be dangerous to the country? He said that would never happen in this country. If he is still alive, I wonder how he feels now?

        1. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

          Years ago, when I was studying Economics, I asked a
          professor what would happen if the voters in our dear USA voted (for president) for a complete unknown who came out of nowhere, and who managed to SEAL his academic records while claiming to have always been an American citizen, with the servile and submissive cooperation from a mainstream press. Wouldn’t it be dangerous to the country? He said
          that would never happen in this country. If he is still alive, I wonder
          how he feels now?

          1. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Do you really think anyone believes this? You should have paid more attention in class, then perhaps you wouldn’t need to come out here posting ridiculous whoppers.

          2. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            Little jimmy:
            As if Gary Miles had not PUMMELED you enough already, you come to me now asking for more punishment.
            Before setting you straight, please go back 3 posts and read idamag’s post; I was quoting, verbatim, idamags allegations on my post (with some very deliberate variations).
            Now, little jimmy, what, in your (veeeery humble and uninformed) opinion, constitutes a “whopper” and something that nobody believes?
            a) Is it the FACT that the voters of this rapidly decaying nation of ours voted “… for a complete unknown who came out of nowhere” ?
            b) Is it the FACT that Obama “… managed to SEAL his academic records while claiming to have always been an American citizen” ?
            c) Is it the FACT that Obama absolutely REFUSES to release those academic records ?
            d) Is it the FACT that Obama managed to SEAL his academic/Social Security records “… with the servile and submissive cooperation from a mainstream press” ? A press, may I add, that has very recently shown (AGAIN !!) its proclivity to shamelessly LIE and mislead its (NBC, in THIS case) viewers ? (Brian – Fib – Williams: “I CONFLATED 2 events on 2 different helicopters…” Oh, brother !

            Now, little jimmy, pray tell, which of the above FACTS constitutes a “whopper” and something that nobody believes?

            You should have attended school, jimmy, at least to fifth grade !

          3. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Listen, sonny, you wouldn’t be the first snot-nosed brat that I had to whup some sense into. If you think that anyone here believes that you asked your Economics professor such a question years ago then you are smoking too much wacky weed. Everybody here knows a ridiculous partisan hack-lie when they see it.

            Obama was elected President — twice. That’s all you need to worry about, so now you can crawl back under your rock and cry about it.

          4. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            little “brains”jimmy:
            First, you obviously can not understand SIMPLE assertions: I repeat: “I was quoting, verbatim, idamags allegations on my post (with some very deliberate variations).
            Second, try to force your little brain a little bit and ANSWER which of the above FACTS constitutes a “whopper” and something that nobody believes?
            I know, I know, FACTS are something liberal idiots like you can not deal with …

          5. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            Lying Louie:

            I don’t care who you were trying to quote. You came up with the BS on your own — it wasn’t authored by anyone else. So the fact that you admit it’s false doesn’t exactly disqualify my observation.

            Now let’s move on to your other whoppers:

            “a) Is it the FACT that the voters of this rapidly decaying nation of ours voted “… for a complete unknown who came out of nowhere” ?” -Lying Louie

            That the US is rapidly decaying is your opinion and not fact. I suppose you thought the country was doing just swimmingly when Bush invaded Iraq. Obama was a United States Senator for God’s sake — how is that equivalent to being an ‘unknown’?

            “b) Is it the FACT that Obama “… managed to SEAL his academic records while claiming to have always been an American citizen” ?” -Lying Louie

            Obama sealed nothing. Any student’s transcripts are private unless they choose to make them public. Bush never released his Yale records either, rather, they were leaked. There is nothing new about this at all — it’s always been this way.

            Obama has always been a US citizen — at least from his birth onward. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

            “d) Is it the FACT that Obama managed to SEAL his academic/Social Security records “… with the servile and submissive cooperation from a mainstream press” ? A press, may I add, that has very recently shown (AGAIN !!) its proclivity to shamelessly LIE and mislead its (NBC, in THIS case) viewers ? (Brian – Fib – Williams: “I CONFLATED 2 events on 2 different helicopters…” Oh, brother !” -Lying Louie

            Academic and Social Security records are private for EVERYONE. The only way these can be released to the public is if the individual does so themselves. And why would anyone release any of their personal records to nincompoops like you? I wouldn’t either.

            “Servile and submissive cooperation from the mainstream press” -Lying Louie

            Does this include Fox News, who didn’t release them either? You are a true nitwit. Please go sober up before posting any more ridiculous nonsense to embarrass yourself.

          6. idamag February 8, 2015

            Obama was not only invited to join the Harvard Law Review, but he served in office. The Harvard Law Review requires applicants have a 3.8 GPA or better. Even if he had been born in Kenya, he would still have been an American Citizen as his mother was an American. I know people who served in the military and had babies born, overseas, and the babies are still citizens. When Obama posted his birth certificate they still didn’t believe he was born in Hawaii. It didn’t fit the nut job birthers made up rhetoric. When Obama was elected, the white supremist groups doubled. — SPLC.

          7. joe schmo February 8, 2015

            LOL, he is just clueless………:)

          8. idamag February 7, 2015

            Liuar. A good economics professor does not do politics unless it is a small southern podunk college.

          9. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            idamag: You just made my day ! I have LAUGHED so hard !!
            1st – It’s “Liar”, you idiot, NOT “Liuar” (but that’s not why I laughed);
            2nd – You Leftists/Liberals have NOOO sense of humor, no imagination, no ability to “see” what’s staring at you right in front of your very nose, and no common sense: Didn’t you notice that I was quoting you “verbatim” (look it up, idamag !)
            For crying out loud ….

          10. idamag February 8, 2015

            Thank you for pointing out the error. I fixed it. Yes, I noticed. Now as to leftist-liberal: I do not belong to a party and never will. I follow the dictates of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. They said political parties would cause division and chaos.

          11. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            Yeah, right.
            So you do not “belong” to Obama’s Dem party, but you voted twice for the guy and you are “not” a Dem but “instead” are a flaming leftist/liberal.
            Next thing you are going to tell me is that you realize that Obama (the Dem) is WRONG on so many issues….
            Yeah, right.

          12. idamag February 9, 2015

            I,d rather lean left than be a fascist. Yes, I voted for Obama twice, before they outlaw one party and only give you one candidate to vote for. You hate mongers are so intolerant that you quickly call names to any one who believes different than you do. I don’t want to try and engage you in a wholesome argument and, in your small-small-wee world there is not room for opposing opinions.

      2. joe schmo February 8, 2015

        Ummm, Eleanore, I think you best go back and rewrite your flub. Zuckerberg and Adelson (both of which you mentioned) along with Katzenberg, Soros, Gates and Simon are all high dollar Liberal donors.

        ‘Sheldon Adelson: ‘I’m Basically a Social Liberal’


        The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress.


        Get your facts straight, woman…..

      3. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

        Ellie: Repeat after me: “wasn’t ownED”, “wasn’t ownED”, “wasn’t ownED” !!
        No wonder your proofreader committed suicide …

        1. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2015

          I type over 210 wpm. I don’t proofread my posts. But you need to proof read yours. Not a single one of them contains facts provable in a court of law. I’m guessing you just had an orgasm because you found a single word spelled correctly but in the wrong tense? Happy organism Fathead.

          1. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            Ellie dear:
            How can you TYPE “210 wpm” when your (pea-sized) brain produces those words at a speed of 2.5 per minute??!!
            You are funny, Ellie baby.
            P.S. – Again, it’s “orgasm”, NOT “organism”, you dumbass.
            P.S.2. – I don’t have to prove “in a court of law” that we were (WERE, thank God !) married.
            P.S.3. – You sound stressed out and tense, Ellie.

          2. Eleanore Whitaker February 9, 2015

            How? It’s simple. You find a 100 word essay or document. Use a timer to time how many words of that text you can type in 5 minutes ..error free. Then, you divide the minutes it took you to type by the number of words. Gee…you really are a dipshit when it comes to math aren’t you?

            I think you are sick pallie. Sick enough to be locked away in a cage where you can have your orgasms with the other animals you breed with.

          3. Louis Allen February 9, 2015

            Oh Ellie dear,
            You can be “played” so easily.
            And I repeat: your (pea-sized) brain produces words at a speed of 2.5 per minute !!

          4. Eleanore Whitaker February 10, 2015

            Oh Phooey Louie Dolt…I outed you so many times in so many of your posts, your tone and input have long ago been proven to have the value of a sand flea.

          5. Louis Allen February 10, 2015

            Ellie, sweetie:
            Do you keep responding to my posts because you still harbor a little hope (inside that empty, brainless skull of yours) that I might decide to come back?
            Ellie, I won’t.

          6. Eleanore Whitaker February 11, 2015

            Phooey Louie…Don’t flatter yourself. If you didn’t want a response, an intelligent person would simply disappear. But, we all know a BS artist like you and a certifable mental case as well, needs attention the only way a neurotic like you can get it.

            So..no…you won’t get the pleasure of the last word. That’s what you mental cases all want. To rule with an iron fist. Stick your fist up your butt for all I care. But you won’t get the satisfaction and orgasm you get from having the final say.

    2. joe schmo February 8, 2015

      First of all, let’s get one thing straight, the pipeline is buried 4 feet underground. There are more spills via rail lines and the Alaska pipeline which has become a refuge for reindeer by the way, has never had any issues.

      Explosions? Trains are more likely to have an explosion than a pipeline buried 4 feet under the ground. Neighborhoods? Most of the pipeline is going through farmland. Most Ranchers and Farmers approve.

      Water table? How would an enclosed pipeline interfere with the lowering and raising of the water table? Did you mean seepage could cause water contamination? Get your facts straight, man.

  17. LasloPratt February 7, 2015

    I have to take issue with your headline. Republicans DO care about inequality. They are staunchly in favor of it.

    1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

      Me to,.and I am not a republican.

  18. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

    If anyone should ask me what I learned being a female Republican for 33 years, it’s this: Never EVER trust what you hear or see any Republican man do. That’s just the picture they “want” you to see. Meanwhile, their dirty deals are already in motion while you are focusing on whatever issue they throw out there.

    So..it’s a redoux on Benghazi to get revenge for not getting a toe hold with WhiteWater, MonicaGate and any other gates these idiots drum up. But, while you are all focusing on these issues, they are up to no good like all dirty little boys always are.

    1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

      The one thing you are an expert on is dirty little boys there is nobody who knows the ropes like a little dirty legged girl.

    2. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

      Listen to yourself, sweetie !
      1) WHY, why did it take you 33 years to learn that ALL (Republican) men are bad? Methinks you are “slow” (understatement, Lenore !);
      2) So REPUBLICAN men can not (ever) be trusted, …. BUT what Bill “The Horn* Rabbit” Clinton did NEVER HAPPENED??!! Methinks you are a little simple-minded NINCOMPOOP, Ellie dear.
      Get a life, without me, Lenore, and STOP hating men !

  19. 1standlastword February 7, 2015

    “House Speaker John Boehner has said he’d rather kill himself than raise the minimum wage.”
    Even if I supported Boehner’s sentiment by arguing this is a comment out of context, I cannot begin to comprehend why anybody elected to serve the interest of the people would utter such a calloused statement if his truest intent was to really serve the people!

    My faith in American leadership gets fainter with every headline

    1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2015

      Is he planning a public spectacle and can we watch the broadcast?

      1. 1standlastword February 7, 2015

        Well the bungled attempt to poison him had it succeed might have resulted in a raise in the minimum wage. That is a broadcast some might have appreciated (wink) and most certainly would have raised to the level of the spectacular

      2. plc97477 February 7, 2015

        I might pay for that.

      3. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

        I don’t think they will allow the handicapped to view it.I will narrate it for you only if you keep your JS covered and out of sight.

    2. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

      Have you thought about the economic impact of such a decision? I doubt it, so let me explain what will happen if the minimum wage is raised to12 bucks (that’s a good number, don’t you think?). First, it would likely be challenged in court, as the Constitution does not allow for such action. But forget about that, let’s look at the economics. Let me first explain what a profit margin is. It is what investors are guaranteed as a return on their investment. Every company has a profit margin, even small business’s without investor’s.

      To meet the profit margin, the first thing that a company will do is try to NOT raise prices. That means people will lose their job FIRST. That is not likely to work, so price’s will rise. To this extent, those who got a nice pay raise will be in the same shape they were in prior to the pay raise, because prices have destroyed any benefit of the raise.

      This price increase will also mean that those folks who worked their way up and are making 12 -19 bucks an hour are now poorer, because of price increases. They will buy less, which means supply will be much higher than demand, causing prices to decrease, forcing layoffs to meet profit margins.

      The bottom line is that a raise in the minimum wage will not help low wage workers and it will hurt those who have worked their way up. This will simply make more people poorer, it will in no way help low wage workers. It will most likely hurt them, as there will be less jobs and more people out of work. But hey, if you guys still think it will work some other way, keep pushing for it. PEACE and best wishes to you and yours!

      1. Independent1 February 7, 2015

        Where do you get all this BS you post: the Constitution doesn’t allow such an action!! What kind of BS is that. Washington state with the highest min wage in the nation for a state-wide min-wage, at between $9.50 and $10.00 /hour has job creation numbers that far exceed the national average. In fact, in 2014, the states that had raised the min wage actually led the nation in job creation.

        And in case you’re not aware, during the 2014 elections, in several RED STATE voters actually approved min wage increases in their states.

        1. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

          We are discussing US Congressional action, you know, where John Boehner works. Maybe you should get our of Mommies basement and get a reading comprehension education.

          1. Independent1 February 7, 2015

            What in the world are you talking about?? You do realize that Congress last updated the “Fair Minimum Wage Act” back in 2007??? And that if having a minimum wage law at the Fed level was unconstitutional it would be unconstitutional at the state level!!

            See this from Wikipedia:

            The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007[1] is a US Act of Congress that amended the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to gradually raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. It was signed into law on May 25, 2007 as part of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. The act raises the federal minimum wage in 3 increments: to $5.85 per hour 60 days after enactment (2007-07-24), to $6.55 per hour 12 months after that (2008-07-24), and finally to $7.25 per hour 12 months after that (2009-07-24). In addition, the act provides for the Northern Mariana Islands andAmerican Samoa to make the transition to the federal minimum wage on alternate timetables.

            As of 2008, 13 states already had minimum wage rates at or above $7.25 per hour. These states were therefore unaffected by the increase.

          2. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            Yes, I’m fully aware of the Federal minimum wage. It has yet to be challenged in a court of law, which is one reason that there isn’t a strong push by the Democrats. It’s all talk, to keep you and your ilk entertained. If it ever is raised significantly, it will be challenged and it will likely lose. Read the Constitution and show me where it gives the Federal government the authority to dictate wages. It don’t, but you can look. Now, before all you parrotmonkeys get all your little panties in a bunch, if it is challenged and it loses, then under the 14th Amendment, all State minimum wage laws will also go Bye Bye. Be careful what you ask for, you may get a lot more than you bargained for.

          3. Independent1 February 7, 2015

            You aren’t fully aware of anything: you’re totally oblivious to reality and anything that resembles facts. There’s absolutely nothing controversial with respect to the constitution about the feds having full authority to establish minimum wage guidelines; it’s all done as part of the Federal Government’s clearly established authority to govern interstate commerce.

            Min wage and other labor guidelines related to pay standards and what constitutes overtime pay etc. is all defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act and applies to all companies who do business that involves interstate commerce – like selling products that were created in another state.

            So your attempts to open this issue up to questions about whether the feds have a constitutional right set min wage standards ins nothing but pure delusional BS!!

            See this:

            The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to “employees who are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or who are employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,”[8] unless the employer can claim an exemption from coverage. Generally, an employer who does at least $500,000 of business or gross sales in a year satisfies the commerce requirements of the FLSA,[citation needed] and therefore that employer’s workers are subject to the FLSA’s protections if no other exemption applies. Several exemptions exist that relieve an employer from having to meet the statutory minimum wage, overtime, and record-keeping requirements. The largest exceptions apply to the so-called “white collar” exemptions that are applicable to professional, administrative and executive employees. Exemptions are narrowly construed; an employer must prove that the employees fit “plainly and unmistakeably” within the exemption’s terms.

          4. idamag February 7, 2015

            As long as prices go up, people are going to ask that wages go up. I worked for a large well-known retail outfit. We raised prices and people paid it. So, then management said “raise them again.” One of my tenets is that greed and ignorance are the two greatest threats to our society and greed feeds off ignorance. Look at where television has gone from the 1950’s. It used to be paid for by advertisers. Then cable came in. We had some good programs for awhile. Now it is budget reality shows that pander to the new mantra that ignorance is a virtue. There are several infomercials that are nothing more than advertising non-stop. And, reruns that you can watch until you have the dialogue memorized. To top it all off you get 15 minutes of program and 15 minutes of advertising for every half hour show. How much are you paying for this? The cost of living is the same way. Prices go up and up at a rate that wages cannot keep up with.

          5. NoNumberNow February 7, 2015

            You know, at one time $16,000/yr was top dollar for a college grad entering the white collar work force. Now that is a poverty level income.. The problem isn’t minimum wage levels. It’s what has happened to the value of the dollar. Anyone citing historical monetary figures would know that they have to be adjusted for inflation to be comparable through time. But you also have to have an understanding of economics and monetary policies. Quotes from Wiki don’t cut it.

          6. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            The dollar is collapsing and will continue to do so because it can no longer be stopped. It has gone past the point of no return.

          7. Independent1 February 7, 2015

            I’ve done a lot of checking on the Wikipedia articles that I generally use for reference and given that what they’re recording can hardly be considered controversial; and I’ve yet to find any outright misstatements – you’re welcome to try disproving what I’m cutting and pasting; And I’ll assure you what’s generally included in Wikipedia articles is light years more accurate than you’ll find recorded in any RWNJ websites like Breibart and others!!!

            And from your comments you appear to be a typical right-winger who clearly refuses to believe that we’re living in the 21st century and not 80 or more years in the past.

          8. NoNumberNow February 8, 2015

            I have no problem with Wiki. Generally, articles with references can be as reliable as the references. One learns from the past. With this in mind, there are major failings amongst politician’s and commenter’s opinions and actions. The past is not just 80 years ago, the previous political regime of last year or even a millennium back. Talk about planetary topics, a 1,000 years is essentially insignificant. Talk about human events and a 1,000 years is a really long time. Too many table bangers pick and choose fragments of true and untrue data to support their beliefs, disregarding pertinent data that may contradict them. Whether RWNJ or LWNJ, neither side is more correct than the other with these inherent flaws in their arguments. You and so many resort to insults, catch-all trash labels, and name calling to denigrate others and their opinions when, in fact, your views are no more valid. Fortunately, NM and the like are nothing more than modern versions of the koffee klatch or jawin’ during TGIF.

          9. Independent1 February 8, 2015

            Just more proof that you’re living in total denial with your irrational comment: You and so many resort to insults, catch-all trash labels, and name calling to denigrate others and their opinions when, in fact, your views are no more valid.

            People like you who put their head in the sand and refuse to see the absolute disaster that the current flock of RWNJs in our government are working to foist on America, and can make the absurd claim that LWNJ opinions and views have not been more benefial than those of RWNJs over the past 100 years, are clearly in a state of absolute denial and delusional living.

            The fact that RWNJ administrations have been responsible for 17 of the 20 recessions and depressions that have occurred in America since 1901 and have forced Americans to struggle mightily – including all 3 of the depressions. Is a mater of fact.

            The fact that since 1900 even the stock market when a Democrat was in office as GROSSLY OUTPERFORMED the market when a Republican was in office- is another matter of fact: Since 1929 under Democrats the real stock market return has be 300%+ under Democrats and ZERO under Republicans.

            The fact that America’s GDP growth during that same time under Democrats is around 4.5% while only 2.56% under Republicans is another MATTER OF FACT NOT OPINION!!

            The fact that since Nixon’s 2nd term, he and the following 3 Republican presidents all spent like drunken sailors resulting in Nixon, Reagan and the 2 Bushes being responsible for more than 95% of our current 18 trillion in debit is also a matter of fact.


            So for you to make the idiotic statement that LWNJ views are not MORE VALID than the totally misguided views of RWNJs who know absolutely nothing about running a country – is NOTHING BUT ABSOLUTELY TOTAL DENIAL OF REALITY.

          10. NoNumberNow February 8, 2015

            Love the caps. Still ignoring history, I see.

          11. Buzzi Butt February 8, 2015

            You are too didactic. I guess you agree that FDR started WW2. To repeat, as you are a bit hardheaded: Previous events are the leading cause of what the sitting President has to deal with. After the his first term, he might be able to claim some credit for what has happened since he was entered office.

          12. NoNumberNow February 19, 2015

            If we have a federal government and 50 distinct state governments, why is it that RWNJ are responsible for everything that goes wrong? IT was a Democrat that got us in WWII you might remember. Congress has had at least 2 dominant political parties for the last couple of hundred yet the Dems never screwed up? Get real.

          13. Independent1 February 19, 2015

            I’ll tell you what, you identify for me some statistics that show that the Democrats have worked tirelessly to downbeat the already downtrodden like the Republicans, and I’ll stop bashing them.

            Show me where the Dems have fought tirelessly to destroy Social Security, arguably the most popular government benefit ever enacted – and similarly Medicare – trying to turn these both into voucher programs which in time would disappear. If you don’t know that , you have your head in the sand.

            And here’s just some statistics for you to make up your own mind, statistics in addition to those I quoted for you above.

            There are 17 states in America that get back less money in federal aid than they send to Washington in tax revenues. Why is it that only 3 of those 17 states are Republican run states? And that those three states get back between 96 and 99 cents for every dollar they pay in taxes??

            While it’s 14 Democrat run states that get back less than 80 cents in federal aid, and a number of them close to 60 cents in federal aid for each dollar they pay in taxes. Making it evident, that it’s these 14 Democrat run states that are ACTUALLY SUPPORTING AMERICA!!

            And why is it that out of 24 states that have more than 12% of their populations living below the poverty level, that 20 of those 24 are Republican run states – that’s 80% of Republican run states that have BY FAR the biggest segments of their populations living below the poverty level. Why is that??

            And why is it that people living in Republican led states live on average 2-3 year shorter lives than people in Democrat run states?? Why is it that not one Democrat run state has a life time expectancy of less than 78 years, yet there are 10 Republican run states that do and actully 3 of them have longevity projections of less than 75!!
            While 9 of the 11 states where people are expected to live to 80 and over, are Democrat run states!! Only two of the miserable Red States have people living that long.

            And talking about ‘miserable’ states, why is it that every time the survey group 24/7 Wall street does a survey on the 10 most miserable states and cities in America to live, that it’s always Republican Run states that are included in both of those lists??

            And why is it that even with respect to being born, that 12 of the 15 states that have the highest incidences of infant mortality, and even maternity mortality, are dominated by Republican run states???

            Are you starting to get the picture? Republican led states are nothing more than one disaster after another waiting to happen. And that even relates to Homicides by gun which are led BY FAR by Red States. Not only do red states lead the nation in the percent of people owning guns – they dominate in the list of states where people die the most each year for every cause imaginable – and that includes by guns!!!!!!!

            And even one more ridiculous statistics, the Red State of Oklahoma was just awarded the state with the most earthquakes in the nation!! And most likely why?? Because Oklahoma has let the oil and gas fracking industry go wild in that state and fracking is now causing earthquakes right and left!! Republicans care nothing about anything but money, and will even allow disasters to happen every single day just so they can stuff money in their pockets!!!!!!

          14. NoNumberNow February 20, 2015

            Statistics? That is you answer for the what is wrong with the world? It’s people with their traditions and habits that have caused problems. There is not one life been saved by someone yammering numbers. It takes action. So, why don’t you stop talking and show us what you have actually done to alleviate suffering and wrong doing. Just add a link to a video so that we all can see your real accomplishments to make life better for mankind.

      2. stsintl February 7, 2015

        Trickle down economics didn’t work for thirty years and is not going to work now. Economics 101 says, investors don’t create jobs and wealth, consumers and employees do. Consumers are willing to pay a “Fair Price” for goods as long corporate tycoons are willing to pay a “Fair Wage”. When minimum wage goes up by law, all competitors are affected equally. There should be an ROI on the time and effort employees invest in creating the wealth and not just for those who provide capital.

        1. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

          Nothing personal, but your understanding of economics is ZERO. When a person(s) start a business, they grow and hire employees. AS the business grows, they hire more employees. When a business wants to expand, they ask for investors to fund the expansion. As the business grows, more employees are hired and a profit margin is now part of the equation and must be met contractually. When wages are forced to rise, what I wrote in my post WILL occur, it is an economic reality. I suggest you get a better education on this matter, you are seriously bankrupt on the subject of economics. Once again, nothing personal.

          1. stsintl February 7, 2015

            Nothing personal but your theory is Neo-Capitalism where employees are considered liability instead of asset. Study Henry Ford’s and George Westinghouse’s Capitalism to understand how US created the largest middle class envy of the world, during and after WWII. However, since 1980, the Neo-Capitalists have infiltrated the Halls of Congress, the Board Rooms of Corporations, the Benches of the Supreme Court, and decimated the middle class, while sucking up their sweat and blood up to the top 1%.

          2. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            In other words, my theory is correct and can’t be refuted.

          3. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            How does their businesses grow, Gary? You said their businesses grew, and they hire more people to work. Where does the extra work come from? Lower taxes don’t create jobs. Less regulation? Less regulation doesn’t do it. It generally costs money. Lower wages, higher education costs? Less opportunities, less expendable wages, for workers? All that bearing the brunt of a financial collapse, where the rich got richer, and the Middle Class lost their homes. And the rich got the tax breaks protected, and profited from the labor glut. And their money piled up in their bank accounts. So where is the promised investment? When 95% of the recovery gains went to the top 1%. And they stuck it in China. How in the World is any of that going to create anything but more low wage jobs here, in the U.S.?

          4. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            Come on Charleo, you know why business’s grow. That’s a silly question. If a business owner pays high taxes, that is less money that can be used for wages of employees, economic FACT. When regulations cost money to comply with, it takes money away from paying employees, economic FACT. The housing bubble was caused by banks giving loans to people who couldn’t afford them, thanks to Obama, Barney Frank and many other Democrats who cried racism. This is also a fact and when government gets involved by forcing business’s to do things they know is a bad business decision, this is what happens. It seems that few liberal’s have learned from this.

            last I heard we were having a great recovery and I heard that some 11 million jobs were created thanks to the Obama administration. It appears you are not in agreement with him, am I reading you correctly? 41000 business’s left the States beginning in 2001. Thanks to NAFTA, which Clinton signed, it made this inevitable. The US has the highest corporate tax rates in the world, why would a company NOT move to a place with lower taxes and far fewer expensive regulations. You can’t run a business by emotions, your run one economically for a profit. Because we have respectful debate, I can honestly say that my post above is economically correct. It isn’t good news, but it’s what I believe will happen.

            I didn’t make up the laws of economics, I did learn a great deal about it as a Teamster rep. Having negotiated several contracts for over 900 members for a hospital, economic reality is a hard pill to swallow sometimes. But it is what it is. When governments change the laws of economics by interference it will ALWAYS have a bad result. PEACE

          5. charleo1 February 7, 2015

            On this one you’re just factually wrong. But, it’s a bit like a hoarder house in there. There’s just too much junk to remove, and unravel. And you wouldn’t believe what I pointed out when I got it all sorted thru anyway. But suffice it to say, Barack Obama was not responsible for the 70 trillion dollar derivative market that imploded. Nor was Barney Frank, or Chris Dodd. Nor was lending to people who couldn’t afford the mortgage. The property was looked at by the banks in the scam, as the 100% collateral. Not the ability
            of the buyer to pay. The banks never kept the morgages they bought on their books. They sold them to investment houses, that bundled them all together, and sold them as revenue producing debt. And the ratings companies gave them a triple A. So these bundles, 100s of millions of dollars a piece! Could be sold to retirement plans, and foreign governments, with guaranteed returns of 10% or more. Talk to a realtor. It will amaze you a lot more than that Wall Street lie, you’ve been fed.

          6. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Your ‘theory’ has been debunked.

          7. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Like miles said you need to brush up on your economic theory’s

          8. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            You have no evidence to back up your claims. The minimum wage has been raised many times in the past. If the results were what you claim then you would be able to cite specific examples. Feel free to do so.

          9. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            First, if you claim that my theory is wrong, you prove it is wrong. Begin by reading the first three lines of my original post, if you are capable of understanding WHAT I was actually talking about, then maybe you can attempt to refute it. As of now, your silly banter of nothingness shows that you cannot read and comprehend very well and that you have very little knowledge of economics. So, start over jimmy, because your not getting the gist of the post, which seems to be common with you and your ILK.

          10. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            I ran your nonsensical response through my trusty right-wing-zealot-pretending-not-to-be translator and here’s how it came out:

            “I know I have no evidence to back up my claims, and now that I’ve been called on it I will resort to my usual insults, deflection, and refusal to back up my own claims with facts. When that fails I will pretend that I despise all political parties, hoping that doing so will distract people from my last 227 right-wing posts that were lacking any real facts.”

          11. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            In other words, you can’t prove me wrong. You do not understand what the post actually says and why what I posted is correct. Try again. Your on your way to becoming a parrotmonkey. Try harder Jimmy, you might understand if you just read the first 3 lines and then you might understand what the rest means. It’s not hard, but please try.

          12. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            I don’t have to prove you wrong — history already has.

            Here’s a bit of your nonsense (in case you’ve forgotten and now want to disown it):

            “The bottom line is that a raise in the minimum wage will not help low
            wage workers and it will hurt those who have worked their way up. This
            will simply make more people poorer, it will in no way help low wage
            workers. It will most likely hurt them, as there will be less jobs and
            more people out of work.” – Gary Miles

            This has never been true. Cite some evidence to back up your claim. Claiming that raising low-wage workers’ income won’t help them but will in fact make them ‘poorer’ is ridiculous. Raising the minimum wage has always had a negligible effect on employment, but it did have a noticeable effect on those who had minimum-wage jobs — a positive one.

          13. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            Oh my, if you notice, which apparently you didn’t, my focus was to raise the minimum wage to 12 dollars. That is a very significant raise. I stand by my post, because it is correct. Since there has never been a raise increase like this, you CAN’T prove me wrong based on history. If you would simply read what is presented and comprehend it efficiently, we would not be having this silly conversation. I pick 12 dollars because it’s kind of in the middle between what the burger flippers want and several other left wing pundits have suggested. If the raise is a small amount, like 50 cents, then it’s clearly obvious that the impact will be far less. LEARN to comprehend what you read better Jimmy, it will save you lots of time.

          14. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Nice try, but now you are just backpedaling. Your 12 dollar figure was just a pie-in-the-sky number you pulled out of the air (polite version). Allow me to quote you:

            “Have you thought about the economic impact of such a decision? I doubt it, so let me explain what will happen if the minimum wage is raised to12 bucks (that’s a good number, don’t you think?).” -Gary Miles

            Nobody was talking about $12 per-hour minimum wages, that’s just a number you came up with on your own. What Obama proposed was $10.10 per hour.

            Further, your claim that I can’t cite evidence on wage increases to $12 per hour applies equally to you, and that was my point. There have been significant increases in the federal minimum wage before, and they never produced the results that you claim.

            My reading is fine, in fact, it’s good enough to catch your many economic foibles. This isn’t the first time I’ve caught you posting economic nonsense, and you backpedaled furiously then too. I’m guessing that you could ride a bicycle better backward than forward.

          15. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            There have been significant increases in the federal minimum wage before, and they never produced the results that you claim.

            Prove it!

          16. James Bagley February 7, 2015


            Your clueless claims only prove what economists have agreed on for years: Minimum wage increases have a negligible impact on the economy or employment. Both tend to follow the current economic trends.

            Thus the 1996-97 minimum wage increases were followed by employment and general economic GAINS, because that was the prevailing economic trend at the time.

          17. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            The National Bureau of Economic Research agrees with me. So please provide something of substance, because so far, you got nothing but false claims,.

          18. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            Founded in 1920, the National Bureau of Economic Research is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works. The NBER is committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research in a scientific manner, and without policy recommendations, among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community.

            NBER History

            Over the years the NBER’s research agenda has encompassed a wide variety of issues that confront our society. Early research focused on the aggregate economy, examining in detail the business cycle and long-term economic growth. Simon Kuznets’ pioneering work on national income accounting, Wesley Mitchell’s influential study of the business cycle, and Milton Friedman’s research on the demand for money and the determinants of consumer spending were among the early studies done at the NBER. A summary of the NBER’s early development can be found at:
            Toward a Firmer Basis of Economic Policy: The Founding of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Solomon Fabricant, 1984

            The NBER TodayThe NBER is the nation’s leading nonprofit economic research organization. Twenty-four Nobel Prize winners in Economics and thirteen past chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers have been researchers at the NBER. The more than 1,300 professors of economics and business now teaching at colleges and universities in North America who are NBER researchers are the leading scholars in their fields. These Bureau associates concentrate on four types of empirical research: developing new statistical measurements, estimating quantitative models of economic behavior, assessing the economic effects of public policies, and projecting the effects of alternative policy proposals. The NBER is supported by research grants from government agencies and private foundations, by investment income, and by contributions from individuals and corporations. Our corporate associates are acknowledged below

          19. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Here is a link to the US Department of Labor concerning ridiculous claims like yours:


            You HAVE heard of this organization, I presume? I don’t have to cut & paste their mission statement, do I?

          20. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            No All I had to do was read the first couple sentences to tell they are just a Left Wing rag like the rest of the crap that is usually linked to. When the about section says they work towards wages that are “FAIR”, it don’t take a rocket scientist to see the political leanings. TRY AGAIN

          21. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Haha! The US Department of Labor is a ‘left wing rag’, eh? That’s a good one!

            You really don’t like it much when your claims are publicly debunked, do you?

          22. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Oh yes it has. You must be living in an alternative universe which is a good place for you. Your strange brand of economics will work well in your setting.

          23. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Go bore somebody else. If I have any trouble falling asleep I’ll count sheep instead.

          24. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            I am certainly glad that you can count. But why would you want to count sheep- that sounds sort of gay. It really
            seems creepy wanting to watch sheep bobbing about. But then again I am a goat roper and ever now and then I catch a little tinkle in the eye of one of the herd and start feeling a bit romantic. Sleep with your boots on its safer that way.

          25. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            If goats are your thing then please go bore the goats instead.

          26. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            Its more fun to bore humorless people like yourself. Its quite remarkable to see how worked up you can get over things you know nothing about. Life is too short for all the aggravation you are carrying around.

          27. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            Do you understand the difference between ‘aggravated’ and ‘bored’?

          28. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            Since you seem to suffer from both afflictions I am sure you can give me an in depth definition. Have you ever thought about a full bowel purge it could do you wonders.

          29. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            I already took care of that task this morning. I remembered to flush, yet here you still are. Perhaps my wiping skills are in need of remediation; I will pay more attention next time.

          30. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            That would be a good idea and a commercial bus station disposal unit would be in order I am a king sized evacuation unit. It is very pleasing to hear you have progressed to wiping it makes you more socially acceptable. Being socially acceptable comes in handy when getting your sins forgiven.

          31. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            I have no doubt that you are indeed a ‘king-sized evacuation unit’. Kindly go apply your evacuation skills elsewhere. Boring people online is an unpardonable sin.

          32. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            You seem to love the attention. I guess you don’t get any at home. Virtue is boring, sinning is fun. Do you ever have any fun? Besides trying to flush me.

          33. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            He actually admires you !!

          34. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            The Irrational Mummy:
            What do I have to do for you to “approve” my postings?
            Agree with your liberal agenda??!!

          35. hicusdicus February 11, 2015

            Have some of your postings disappeared? Mine are turning up missing particularly to EW.

          36. Louis Allen February 11, 2015

            Yep !
            Some have disappeared and some never made it because “TNM is analyzing this post”, …. and THEN disappeared.
            Seems that my stupid and crazy EX-WIFE, Lenore (she calls herself “Eleanore” nowadays !) has some intimate clout with the owners of this CESSPOOL OF LEFTIST/LIBERAL/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST THOUGHT called “The Irrational Mummy” (the “mummy” part is to give tribute to Pelosi !!)
            But I was able to salvage one of these and here it goes:
            “Ellie dear: Your own words: “… you will never ever see a Black or female GOP president in the White House.”

            In your mind, what would be wrong with Dr. Ben Carson in the White House?
            Too black?
            Too ACCOMPLISHED?
            Not a resident of “the plantation”?
            Too small an example of a “rags-to-riches” story?
            Too little of the “victim” mentality?
            Too much reluctance to practice political correctness?
            Too inclined to call a spade a “spade”?
            Too much risk that he could whip Hillary/Warren’s a**?
            None of the above?
            JUST “BECAUSE” ??
            What, Ellie, what??
            Are you now wishing you had not said what you said?
            Tell me dear.
            Enlighten us with your words of wisdom …., please.
            Tell us.

          37. hicusdicus March 1, 2015

            That is the first time I have ever heard clout used to describe camel toe. But I am pretty sure it would work.

          38. Louis Allen March 1, 2015

            LOL !!
            She is PATHETIC !

          39. Independent1 February 7, 2015

            You really live in your own little world of fantasy don’t you. Raising the min wage raises the wages of all jobs because it encourages employers to raise the pay level of all its workers somewhat. And with your convoluted logic, explain to me this:

            In Europe, where the min wage in many areas is $12/hour, why are virtually all the McDonald’s and similar fastfood outlets there more profitable than similar outlets for those companies here in America.

            You know why, because even the employees of those fast food outlets can afford to purchase the more expense, higher profit items, that those fast food places sell. Unlike here in America, where the workers earn barely over the min wage of $7.25/hr and generally have to purchase their food from what was t he dollar menu, or what the outlet lets them eat for free. Which generally ends up to be at a loss.

            And that principle applies to all retailers. Where people earning the min wage can often afford to only shop where they work when they place they’re working allows them to purchase items that have been severely marked down. While in Europe, even clerks in clothing stores can afford to shop where they work and buy items that aren’t just the severely marked down loss leaders.

            And as I mentioned, companies operating in states that have raised the min wage, are actually more profitable than similar outlets in states that have refused to do that. Elisabeth Warren demonstrated at a congressional hearing – that McDonald’s could afford to raise the min wage to $10.10 for its workers, by simply raising the price of one combo meal by 4 cents: from $7.15 to $7.19. The typical McDonald’s sells enough of the combo meal she choose in each of their stores to cover McDonald’s cost of raising the wage of the handful of people they have on shift each day who are earning the min wage – to $10.10.

          40. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            First, we are not Europe. If you like it over there, move there. Secondly, copy and pasting Elizabeth Warren, a Progressive left Wing politician just proves that you are an ignorant parrotmonkey. You are also an economic illiterate and sadly, intellectually bankrupt. Move out of mommies basement and get yourself a proper education. Left wing websites are rotting your brain. If you could comprehend what I posted you could figure out the economic challenge of raising the minimum wage to 12 bucks, which is a very significant raise. I picked 12 bucks because it’s in the middle of what the burger flippers want and what other Left wing whackballs have suggested. An insignificant smaller raise like 50 cents would quite obviously have a far less of a negative impact. LEARN to READ Parrotmonkey.

          41. Gary Miles February 7, 2015


            I do my homework young man, maybe you should just sit back and do some learning. Making a fool of yourself is not a wise choice in life.

          42. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Better go do some more homework, young fella — the US Department of Labor has some interesting responses to claims like yours: http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

          43. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            The dept of labor, presided over by the liberals. Yes that is a good source to quote. You can keep your doctor if you want. What difference does it make? A quote from the ex secretary of state.Its got to be the truth the gov said so.

          44. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            My goodness, are the liberals haunting your every step again? I’ll bet when you run out of toilet paper it’s because of a diabolical liberal conspiracy, right?

          45. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            If I run out of toilet paper I just go outside and scoot across the grass. I learned this from my dogs they are liberals they will dance for a free treat.

          46. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            Perhaps you are mistaking their desperate attempts to escape the clutches of a nut-case for ‘dancing’.

          47. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            They could be desperate but liberals will dance for anybody who offers them free treats.

          48. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            hicus: I almost died of laughter with this one !!!
            Soooo true, liberals WILL dance (will do ANYTHING !!) for a free treat !!

          49. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            All NM is are factoids, screwball opinions and ranting and name calling by folks who don’t know their butt from a hole in the ground. But it reassuring to realize that retards can type.

          50. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Well, I guess you are the best proof of that point. Try coming up with some original thoughts of your own rather than doing online ‘drive-bys’ with nonsensical (and boring) drivel.

          51. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Nobody on NM would recognize and original thought so why bother. Drive by’s are fun and only nonsensical to the remedial readers.I could type slower if it would help you understand.

          52. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            If your posts were any slower they would start sucking the content out of nearby contributors’ posts. Is there something slower than zero of which I’m unaware?

          53. 1standlastword February 7, 2015

            “Drive by’s”…Hicus from the number of your comments you’ve made yourself a home on the NM: 6146 comments that’s residency

          54. joe schmo February 7, 2015

            Welcome to the crowd, Hicus:)

          55. Louis Allen February 7, 2015

            Wow, hicus, Spot on.

          56. 1standlastword February 7, 2015

            Hicus…you sound some what conflicted about the environs here. With a few edits this could be consider complimentary.

        2. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

          Employees who actually help create wealth don’t need to worry about pay raises.

        3. idamag February 7, 2015

          The economy is powered by consumption.

          1. stsintl February 8, 2015

            Agree. People need living wages to create consumption. That’s what Henry Ford did hundred years ago when he doubled the wages of his employees. And, George Westinghouse said “My ambition is to give as many persons as possible an opportunity to earn money by their own effort, and this has been the reason why I have tried to build up corporations which are large employers of labor, and pay living wages, larger than other manufacturers pay, or than the open labor market necessitates.” That’s what created largest middle class in America, envy of the world. The WalMart effect killed the middle class.

        4. angelsinca February 8, 2015

          ” Consumers are willing to pay a “Fair Price” for goods as long corporate tycoons are willing to pay a “Fair Wage”. ”

          How much an employer pays has nothing to do with a consumer’s willingness to buy a product. Unless you are an activist or the product price has to adjust in order to cover the expense of a higher wage. Real world 101.

          1. stsintl February 8, 2015

            Where do you think consumers get the money to buy products? Consumers are the employees. This is real world economics 101.

          2. angelsinca February 8, 2015

            Uh, no. That is only true in an isolated example where the employees buy all of their goods at the Company Store. The minimum wage employees at Apple stores aren’t buying their Samsung products at work because they cost too much. South Korean wages are much more favorable for fair pricing.

          3. stsintl February 8, 2015

            You have a problem. No point trying to explain to you fundamentals of economics.

          4. angelsinca February 8, 2015

            Thanks for the enlightenment. I should probably call Pepperdine to arrange a refund for that business management degree, alongside the accidental 3.9 gpa.

      3. 1standlastword February 7, 2015

        Gary, your argument for the continuation of wage stagnation and inequality as a necessity and harmful for the investor class is anathema to all hardworking Americans. But…you are entitled to those toxic sentiments.

        1. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

          These are not sentiments, these are economic fact. May I suggest that you refute it in an educated manner? I did not post this with any sort of political view, it is simple economics.

          1. 1standlastword February 7, 2015

            An “educated manner” …would you settle for a rational argument?!!!

            If your sterile and simplistic “sentiments” were absolutely true, or even moral for that matter then politicians on both sides of the isle would not be concerned to incorporate the reality of our failing middle and working classes in their seductive campaign rhetoric. The honest ones among them (too few) will admit this dilemma is the results of an American addiction with greed that undergirds and promotes our recent investor economy that brought us the GREAT RECESSION where we saw a massive transfer of public wealth into the hands of the investors you want to defend as friends of business and the American worker.

            You need to think more globally!!

            Heck…not all small business relies on investors. Most business reliant on investors have adopted inversions, off shore tax havens and exploit little brown people the make the inferior junk to sell to American workers who are the only one who can afford to buy that $hit…at least for a little while longer

            Now, I’ve spent enough capital here so therefore you have heard my last-words on this matter.

          2. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            In other words, my theory is correct and can’t be refuted.

          3. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Yes it can be refuted. Raising the minimum wage has never produced the results that you claim. Cite some evidence to the contrary if you can.

          4. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Thank god for small favors. You promise?

          5. 1standlastword February 7, 2015

            Hicus…I promise you nothing…LOL!!

          6. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            Since you are a liberal you should promise me everything. You are getting out of character.

          7. 1standlastword February 9, 2015

            You label me a liberal and insinuate I’m acting like a radical conservative: I’m not that confused.

            I am anti-thesis and humanitarian. I accept nature and science as the ultimate arbiters of human destiny and in light of this all politics is human folly and in times like these we see we have more fools on thrones than at any time I can recall.

            I do believe that the republican party is a party in crisis and a danger to THE WORLD. Left without a counter-balance republicans and corporatists together would hasten the end of ages that is coming anyway

            As for the Democratic party, it hasn’t and can’t change much of anything in our current greed addicted two party system of capitalism so what do we have…a fatally broken two party system!

            How’s that for clarity?

          8. hicusdicus February 9, 2015

            That’s the most clarity I have ever seen on a political blog ever. I don’t believe the Rep are that evil but some are I am sure along with the liberals. The one thing I am sure of is our two party system is beyond broken. A major financial collapse is the only thing that might turn people around If we don’t get invaded or attacked first. Most of the people I hear talking about the political system are just sticking their finger in the dyke when they should be building a new dam. And for gods sake don’t accuse me of gay bashing.

          9. 1standlastword February 9, 2015

            Your honesty and seriousness is well recieved

          10. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Don’t be using the word simple around liberals it gets them hot under the collar.

          11. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Except that it isn’t simple economics. Raising the minimum wage has never hurt the economy.

          12. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            It may not have hurt the economy but it kept a lot of people from getting hired .

          13. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            Is that so? And how do you know this? Please elaborate on just exactly how you know why something didn’t happen.

          14. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            Once again your proving your self to be economically illiterate. When companies are forced to pay higher wages by government edict, the company can do several things to maintain the profit margin that the company has set for itself. One is layoffs, two is price increase of product produced (companies don’t like this, because it reduces their competitiveness), three is to delay or eliminate future hires until stability has returned within it’s market. One or any combination or all three may occur, depending on the financial status of the company.

          15. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            And yet another might occur: The company may just have to deal with slightly smaller profit margins. If they don’t, another economic reality comes into play: Competitors may choose to deal with lower profit margins and gain the higher volume when they take all of the inflexible company’s business away.

            You are an economic charlatan — nothing more.

          16. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            I know all this from reading NM. I know what did not happen the same as you know what did happen. Does that pass your elaboration test.

          17. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            No, but it definitely sent my nonsense meter’s needle up into the red zone. One can prove something that did happen. Proving the absence of an event is a different matter.

          18. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            You need to pay closer attention to your nonsense meter when you post comments. You are going to jam the needle in the red zone.

          19. Independent1 February 7, 2015

            Is that why the 13 states that raised the min wage at the beginning of 2014 had the best job creation?? And is that why even several Red State voters approved min wage increases during the 2014 elections?? History has proven everything you and your RWNJ friends are posting are nothing more than figments of your delusional imaginations.

          20. angelsinca February 8, 2015

            This is not true. California and Nevada did NOT raise the minimum wage, yet had the HIGHEST increased rate of job growth. You KNEW this and continue to lie about it. I am so disappointed, i1. Please check yourself the next time you wig out on a conservative for supposedly lying.

          21. Independent1 February 8, 2015

            Why are you have trouble realizing that the graph you were using to say that CA and NV had the best job creation wasn’t showing job creation stats for the entire 2014 year?? Are you just dense??

            The chart in that article has nothing to do with which states were the best job creating states for the entire 12 mos of 2014. It only shows which states had the biggest change in job creation between the last 3 months of 2013 and the 1st 3 months of 2014. Wake up to reality or go bury your head in the sand somewhere.

          22. angelsinca February 8, 2015

            If you are going to provide a link to support an argument, at least check first that it doesn’t debunk yourself. When you stand up while stepping away, your head will release itself.

          23. Independent1 February 9, 2015

            I’m starting to see why you RWNJs are so easily hoodwinked by the GOP: you don’t have the intelligence to tell the difference between a chart that’s intended to show the change by state in the RATE OF JOB GROWTH and a story that’s about how over the entire year, states that raised their MIN WAGE outperformed those THAT DIDN’T.

            Go fly a kite DUMPKOFF!!!

          24. angelsinca February 9, 2015

            From the article itself, “While this kind of simple exercise can’t establish causality, it does provide evidence against theoretical negative employment effects of minimum-wage increases.”.

            Sorry if the data do not prove your contention that the minimum wage increase causes increased employment. The economy did that, not the wage increase. Pick and choose whatever you want, LWNJ, That’s what you do. Time after time, after time.


          25. Independent1 February 9, 2015

            And there you go being the typical mealy mouthed RWNJ. I never said that raising the min wage “causes” better job creation.

            You and you’re scummy lying RWNJ friends keep spewing the lie that raising the min wage will result in lost jobs which is a blatant lie.

            All I said is that ‘experience’ has shown that to be a lie – that experience, or the history of job creation in 2014, clearly showed that the states which had increased their min wage had overall better job creation (for the entire year) than states that didn’t.

            Again, you’re just a typical mealy mouthed RWNJ who does nothing but lie and distort the truth – and you’ll even distort what people say to do that!!!!!!

          26. angelsinca February 10, 2015

            You were so close to convincing me and others you might have had a good point on this topic. I even went back and re-read the article again. Yet, you choose to defend your position with juvenile name calling that pretty much negated any progress toward better understanding or respect for your position. I’ll catch you later on a different topic when you are more approachable.

          27. Independent1 February 7, 2015

            No, as recent studies show, it was the states in 2014 that raised the min wage that saw the greatest jobs growth. Proving that everything these RWNJs are spewing are fantasies of their own creation!!

        2. idamag February 7, 2015

          His argument is the stale argument that precedes any attempt to pay people what they are worth. When I entered the work field, the minimum wage was 75 cents an hour and when they wanted to raise it to a dollar, you should have heard the pigs squealing.

          1. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

            Yeah and gasoline was .15 cents a gallon, a candy bar was a nickel and the tooth fairy only left a dime.

        3. paulyz February 7, 2015

          Did you ever wonder why our Government, (mainly) Democrats, keeps letting Illegals here when it could easily be stopped mostly? Illegals work cheaper & take our jobs. Focus your blame on low wages where it belongs. Pay rises & falls by supply & demand.

      4. oldtack February 7, 2015

        Sounds like you want to go back to the “good Old” days of the 19th century in the deep south (Alabama,Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina) where the Mills paid their workers in tokens good only at the mill owned Company store. That is where my grandmother and her siblings worked 12 hours a day from 11 years old til death ( my grandmother died at 25 from “lung fever”. They didn’t work fro spending money. They worked to eat and survive as best they could.
        Of course the owners didn’t have to worry about wages they paid none.

        1. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

          Unfortunately, economics don’t really care, as it has no feelings. The reality of running a business is based on profit, period. No profit, no business, no jobs. You folks can claim whatever you desire, economics don’t give a crap. When the cost of running a business goes up, there will be a reaction. Many times, the reaction sucks and people find themselves unemployed. It simply is what it is. It’s not racist, it can’t be, it has but one concern, profit. That is just an economic reality. Sorry you don’t like it. Maybe if you ran a business you’d understand, but you don’t. Life ain’t fair, sorry.

          1. oldtack February 7, 2015

            You just proved my statement Gary.

          2. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

            Oldtac, I have no desire to go backwards. I don’t make economic laws, they are what they are. If I misunderstood your post, I do apologize, it happens sometimes. However, if the minimum wage is raised as significantly as I posted, I feel confident that the results will be as I posted. Now, the severity of the effect obviously is lessoned if the raise is lessoned. A 50 cent an hour raise will not have as great an affect. Seem people don’t comprehend that part of the equation.

          3. joe schmo February 7, 2015

            Backwards?…. LOL, Lord no. Forward with technology by way of automation and robots. Not exactly your ideology is it?

          4. oldtack February 8, 2015

            No, you misread me. I am 100% for technology. If you keep up with it, there is so much in R&D yet to hit the market that is mind boggling beyond belief. I certainly don’t want to regress to “the good old days” been there and done that in my youth. My thoughts in this discussion are the workers people and what to do with them when they are replaced by automation and robots. We can’t “be like Hitler” and euthanize them God Forbid. Some will be absorbed in emerging new technology but not all. We can’t put them on welfare and provide their support for life like many would like and expect us to do and we can’t let them die in the streets. What is the solution?

          5. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            The solution is in mother nature. A global pandemic that re fertilizes the planet with about 4 billion liberals. It could be Gods gift to humanity.

          6. angelsinca February 8, 2015

            “What is the solution?”

            Outlaw cell phone chargers? When people find out you don’t have to create or search for hashtags, we can get back to creating things that do more than giving the appearance of accomplishment. The fertilizer option sounds like it’d be good for the crops.

          7. Independent1 February 7, 2015

            Gary’s mind is generally ‘out to lunch’ so he wouldn’t realize that he proved your statement.

          8. oldtack February 8, 2015

            You have that right Friend.
            Have a good Sunday.

          9. joe schmo February 7, 2015

            …And neither is competition coming from all corners of the world. Nothing is ever fair or equal. Sorry, not possible.

        2. hicusdicus February 7, 2015

          How did you come up with that statement? Your relatives don’t sound like they were very resourceful.

          1. oldtack February 7, 2015

            Go back and read the history of this area in the late 19th century. And please do not slur my people. They were among thousands in the same situation. My Ancestors? They were resourceful and did very well in life AFTER they left that quagmire called the Deep South.
            Are you saying that ALL people that work menial jobs such as fast food, taxi driving, sanitation – any low paying job is just not resourceful. Perhaps you would like to be another Hitler and just just kill all these low life “scum” so you can live a life of luxury.
            I had a good career and through investments and a good retirement my wife and I do not have to worry about anything monetarily in our dotage . But, I am no multimillionaire so with your thought process -in the eyes of those who are Billionaires I am regarded as not too resourceful. Where do you fit in this money driven environment?Are you a Billionaire or are you down in the Millionaire class and considered as not too resourceful.? Now, if you’re not in the Millionaire class or close to it I know you are just dumb and not resourceful in any manner.

            Have a good day friend.

          2. joe schmo February 7, 2015

            You don’t know hicusdicus very well. He is VERY resourceful and very successful. He won’t say it but he is certainly a rags to riches story. Kudos to you ‘hicusdicus.’

          3. oldtack February 8, 2015

            If that be true then I say Kudos to hicusdicus. We should all be resourceful to the best of our abilities. My article was on the human factor. It’s two different things. Resourcefulness and desire to be resourceful when there is no opportunity. That’s why my ancestors migrated to another part of the country where there was opportunity to be resourceful and make the best of their abilities.

          4. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            Now those are the kind of people who don’t whine about the gov. They see what has to be done and do it. The people with this kind of initiative are becoming an endangered species.

          5. oldtack February 8, 2015

            In this regard I agree.

        3. idamag February 7, 2015

          And they were lucky to get a 12-hour day. During Theodore Roosevelt’s time,they were fighting for 16 hour days.

          1. oldtack February 8, 2015

            A 12 hour day sometimes 7 days a week was for the young children. 16 hr days x7 were the norm.

          2. idamag February 8, 2015

            And “Those who don’t study history are…”

          3. oldtack February 8, 2015

            Are bound to repeat it!

        4. joe schmo February 7, 2015

          Why worry about that. Humans will soon be taken over by robots doing their job.

          Machines and Robots Will Take Over the Minimum-Wage Workforce

          Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Moneynews.com/SeanHyman/robot-worker-marketable-skill/2014/06/02/id/574542/#ixzz3R7ltGjfA

      5. jointerjohn February 7, 2015

        No. Investors are not “guaranteed” a return on their investments. And no, not every small business has a profit margin, many operate simply for earned income. Again no, profit is not always achieved through the avoidance of price increases, enhanced efficiency is also a primary tool. Your convoluted assertion that an increase in minimum wage makes poor people poorer is akin to arguing that drinking water produces dehydration.

        1. Gary Miles February 7, 2015

          ALL business’s are in business to achieve profit, period. There are many different types of agreements and arrangements that people agree to when they invest. Sometimes it’s simply buying stocks, but those purchases are FOR PROFIT. I didn’t invent the rules of economics, nor do I always like them. I have been laid off, because business was slow. When OHIO raised their minimum wage, people got laid off, and that wasn’t a real big increase, but it was an economic reality. I’m sorry you don’t like the reality of your ideas and choices, life isn’t fair. If you feel that my economic post is wrong, then keep pushing for the raise, it matters not one wit to me. I’m just trying to help people make smarter decisions, not decisions based on wrongheaded Left/Right wing emotional psychobabble. If the minimum wage is raised, you now know the reaction to that action. Do with it what you will.

          1. itsfun February 7, 2015

            When a business can’t make a profit, it doesn’t stay in business very long. People won’t invest in a losing business. Small business especially can’t afford to pay higher wages.

          2. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            Name a single business that has shut down because of minimum wage increases.

          3. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            Does laying people off count?

          4. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            Is English a second language for you?

          5. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            What did I do now? Be sarcastic over your understanding limits. You are way too serious it could cause you an impacted bowel. I guess that is the liberal way, full of it.

          6. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            If you want to debate an issue, then by all means do so. Sniping at the posts of others is OK as long as it isn’t overdone, IMHO. When all of your posts are nothing but snipes — that’s overdoing it, and it gets boring fast.

          7. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

            I have notice your attention span seems to make you easily get bored. Why don’t you work on this problem? You could watch cartoons. Debate with you? I can get better conversation out of my dogs. They have a sense of humor.

          8. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            Your dogs have no choice — they are a captive audience. I have a choice. Go bore somebody else.

          9. itsfun February 8, 2015

            If you read anything other than the National Memo, you would have read about the independent book store that just announced it closing because of a increase in the minimum wage in their state.

          10. James Bagley February 8, 2015

            Then go ahead and post the link here. If it comes form Breitbart or WND (or some similar hack site), it will get all of the credibility it deserves.

          11. joe schmo February 10, 2015

            Why don’t you people look things up?

            Panera Bread (PNRA) is the latest chain to introduce automated service, announcing in April
            that it plans to bring self-service ordering kiosks as well as a mobile ordering option to all its locations within the next three years. The news follows moves from Chili’s and Applebee’s to place tablets on their tables, allowing diners to order and pay without interacting with human wait staff at all.

            Delivery drivers could be replaced en masse by self-driving cars,which are likely to hit the market within a decade or two, or even drones. In food preparation, there are start-ups offering robots for bartending and gourmet hamburger preparation.
            A food processing company in Spain now uses robots to inspect heads of lettuce on a conveyor belt, throwing out those that don’t meet company
            standards, the Oxford researchers report. Darren Tristano, a food industry expert with the research firm Technomic, said digital technology will “slowly, over time, create efficiency and labor savings”
            for restaurants.

            Article from CNN Money. This makes me extremely happy. Agriculture could have been automated a long long time ago. My hope is that the people will self deport over time……

            McDonalds is next?


            And you thought we were kidding…..

          12. idamag February 10, 2015

            None that I can remember,

          13. James Bagley February 7, 2015

            The reality is that raising the minimum wage has never produced the results you describe. So when you offer your ‘smarter’ decisions, don’t forget to factor in reality. There’s ample historical evidence that directly contradicts your claims.

          14. idamag February 7, 2015

            Absolutely. I have been through many minimum wage raises.

          15. Independent1 February 7, 2015

            Total BS!! EVERY WORD OF IT!!

            Some facts from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR):

            2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum WageWritten by Ben Wolcott Monday, 30 June 2014 14:21The experience of the 13 states that increased their minimum wage on January 1st of this year might provide some guidance for what to expect here in Washington, DC when the city-wide minimum wage increases to $9.50 on July 1.

            At the beginning of 2014, 13 states increased their minimum wage. Of these 13 states, four passed legislation raising their minimum wage (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island). In the other nine, their minimum wage automatically increased in line with inflation at the beginning of the year (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington state).

            As CEPR noted in March and April posts, economists at Goldman Sachs conducted a simple evaluation of the impact of these state minimum-wage increases. GS compared the employment change between December and January in the 13 states where the minimum wage increased with the changes in the remainder of the states. The GS analysis found that the states where the minimum wage went up had faster employment growth than the states where the minimum wage remained at its 2013 level.

            When we updated the GS analysis using additional employment data from the BLS, we saw the same pattern: employment growth was higher in states where the minimum wage went up. While this kind of simple exercise can’t establish causality, it does provide evidence against theoretical negative employment effects of minimum-wage increases.

            In this post, we can now bring these figures up to date with the data from April and May.


          16. joe schmo February 7, 2015

            Hear ya go, Independent1:

            Machines and Robots Will Take Over the Minimum-Wage Workforce

            Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Moneynews.com/SeanHyman/robot-worker-marketable-skill/2014/06/02/id/574542/#ixzz3R7ltGjfA

            Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

            Good luck! LOL

          17. angelsinca February 7, 2015

            Not total BS. Gary’s comments are reasonable and sound economically. Looking at the data, it appears the employment rate increased for nearly ALL states, regardless of minimum wage increase. The top two gainers (CA and NV) had no minimum wage increase. You could also conclude that where the min wage increased, the unemployed were more motivated to work.

          18. Independent1 February 8, 2015

            No. You’re misinterpreting the chart that’s part of the article: the chart is only showing the increase in jobs growth for about a 4-6 month period starting in about October of 2013 and into the 1st quarter of 2014.

            Here’s the summation for the whole year which appears after the chart:

            Of the 13 states that increased their minimum wage in early 2014, all but one (New Jersey) are seeing employment gains. Furthermore, nine of the remaining 12 states are above the median for this period. The average change in employment for the 13 states that increased their minimum wage is +0.99% while the remaining states have an average employment change of +0.68%.

            Note that “the average change in employment for the 13 states that increased the min wage (and that includes the disastrous results from the state of NJ which actually was negative because of some bad moves by Christie) was a +0.99% while all remaining states averaged only a +0.68% increase in employment.

            Overall, the states that raised their min wage did almost 50% better in creating jobs than the states that didn’t raise the min wage (.99/.68 is 1.455 or the 13 states averaged 46% better job growth for the entire year).

          19. angelsinca February 8, 2015

            The ‘almost 50% better’ figure is misleading . The difference in the change of average job growth is only 0.38% (0.99% – 0.68%). The amount of change in CA and NV jobs where there was no minimum wage increase is +2.95% and +2.82%, placing those two way ahead of WA with +2.10%, the highest change for a state with a minimum wage increase.

            If you consider the number of jobs created (instead of the difference in change) in a large population state like CA with its 30 million, there are actually more jobs gained without a wage increase. But there was job growth anyway. As one comment there put it, “Which came first, the wage increase or the job growth?”.

          20. Independent1 February 8, 2015

            You clearly demonstrate that you’re nothing but the typical RWNJ with tunnelvision; and that you can’t even read and interpret a post correctly.

            I told you that chart you were using is only for a 6 month period. They took the average job growth recorded in each state for the last quarter of 2013 and compared it to the growth for the 1st quarter of 2014. So those +2.95 and +2.82 numbers only apply to the change in job growth for the 1st 3 months of 2014. The change for the year IS JUST AS I STATED IT: 45.5% GREATER JOB GROWTH ON AVERAGE IN THE 13 STATES THAT RAISED THE MIN WAGE!!!

          21. angelsinca February 8, 2015

            I should just ignore all posts that open with personal insult. Since you sometimes have useful things to offer, I will respond this time, reluctantly. As you look at data with the hopes that a minimum wage increase actually creates jobs, I look at the same with an open mind and find negligible effect. As a cost analyst in aerospace for 15 years, I am fully aware of the rose colored glasses effect and how data can be massaged to show you what you want to see. I was paid to make management happy by showing them what they wanted to see. My conscience got in the way though. Thanks, but please brush up on the intro.

          22. Matforce February 8, 2015

            Your assertions avoid mention of the benefits to a consumer market, that is the benefactor of a consumer that has ample disposable income (discretionary spending) that isn’t confined to mortgage/rent, electric/heat, groceries, insurance, transportation/gas, child care, clothing/shoes, and other necessities. An upward spiral of demand side economics that clears retail shelves and drives up production (that is if that demand actually increases production in the USA like it did before the “jobs in exchange for higher profit margins” for corporations and Wall Street returns came into vogue).

      6. joe schmo February 7, 2015

        Don’t worry Gary, complete automation is on hand and soon will be delegated to robots instead of humans. The beauty of technology. Then what will the Liberals do? Oh dear, oh dear. Maybe many of the Illegals will then deport……

        1. Gary Miles February 8, 2015

          Not worried at all Joe. It’s the lull of winter, I take time to engage in debates in different places to see how brain dead people have gotten. Sadly, it’s getting worse. I can now understand the term “Zombie Apocalypse”. Thirty years ago, it would have been easy to say that if someone needed help in an emergency, they would likely get, today, I doubt those who cry for fairness would lift a finger to help their neighbor in the worst of times. Too many can’t even understand a simple hypothetical situation to base a reasonable reply about it. Too many here don’t come here for constructive debate, they want to spread their lies, call names, pat each other on the back agreeing with each other on nonsense, or just be a mindless dolt trying to make themselves feel better because they still sleep at mommies house and are middle aged. I’m thankful to be living far away from these whack balls. PEACE!

          1. Louis Allen February 8, 2015

            Gary: “Too many can’t even understand a simple hypothetical situation to base a reasonable reply about it.”
            Sadly, how true !!

          2. joe schmo February 10, 2015

            Well, unfortunately for me I live in the heart of wackoville. California is not for ninnies. Learned a lot about living amongst the aliens. You’re not kidding ‘Zombie Apocalypse,’ are definitely appropriate terms. LOL

    3. paulyz February 7, 2015

      Learn to read between the lines, or just headlines.

      1. 1standlastword February 7, 2015

        I’m going to take your hackneyed comment literally just to say this…the only thing “between the lines” is empty space like that inside your cranial vault! Now go away and play with yourself some more cerebral Paulyz

        1. hicusdicus February 8, 2015

          That was a really lame comment.

          1. 1standlastword February 8, 2015

            See how you’ve influenced me…LOL!!!

          2. Jambi February 8, 2015

            Truth hurts?