Never let the facts get in the way of the liberal agenda

It is not about running a free and secure country. It is not about providing infrastructure and public services.

It is about creating a nation founded on fairness and egalitarianism. Everyone is going to be equal even if that means equally poor.

Obama said as much in the 2008 debate.

“Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness,” he stressed. “We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.”

In fact, he seem to dismiss as irrelevant the fact that his “fair” taxes might generate less revenue. That wasn’t the point fairness was.

Wal-Mart workers demand higher pay. (AP photo)

This ideological spin and the damn the outcome attitudes was skewered on the two facing opinion pages of Investor’s Business Daily today.

Tom Sowell noted that the current Democratic mantra is that “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share.” He argues that the soak the rich appeal is nothing but an emotional political appeal with no basis whatsoever in facts, history or economics.

“When the state of Maryland raised its tax rate on people with incomes of a million dollars a year or more, the number of such people living in Maryland fell from nearly 8,000 to fewer than 6,000,” Sowell writes. “Although it had been projected that the tax revenue collected from such people in Maryland would rise by $106 million, instead these revenues fell by $257 million.

“There was a similar reaction in Oregon and in Britain. Rich people do not simply stand still to be sheared like sheep. They can either send their money somewhere else, or they themselves can leave.”

Then there was the lede editorial on the opposite page that relates what happened when Wal-Mart bowed to political pressure and raises the minimum wages it pays its employees.

Wal-Mart  raised its base wage to $9 an hour in April and plans to increase to $10 an hour in February 2016. This past week the company said it expects a drop of 6 to 13 percent in earnings due to higher costs.

Everyone praised the wage hike, but did not seem to think much about the 1,000 workers the company laid off at its headquarters or the 2,500 workers who lost jobs when five stores closed due to plumbing problems.

After the announcement of the earnings projection, Wal-Mart’s stock price fell 10 percent in one day — a $21 billion loss. A lack of fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders?

How will a government enforced hike in the minimum work out any differently?

Then there is the war on carbon mentioned in another editorial that points out how the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change said “we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic-development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

They don’t want to save the planet they want to transform the way people live. They want people to live in high-density rabbit warrens without private cars, scratching out of menial living in menial jobs.

Still another editorial shows how the ObamaCare projections are coming up short of original pie-in-the-sky projections.

ObamaCare enrollment will be about half what the Congressional Budget Office projected.

“This terrible forecast comes in the wake of the massive rate increases that insurers across the country requested for 2016, some of which were as high as 50% and many of which state regulators are approving, despite administration promises that they’d be knocked down,” IBD editorialists observe. What happened to that $2,500-a-year savings?

Eight ObamaCare exchanges, including Nevada’s, are going belly up with more to come.


Reality bites liberal dreams.




35 comments on “Never let the facts get in the way of the liberal agenda

  1. Rincon says:

    Unfortunately, this medium will not allow me to insert a graph, but here’s the caption under the graph in a Wikipedia article: “Top tax rates on long-term capital gains and real economic growth (measured as the percentage change in real GDP) from 1950 to 2011. There is no apparent relationship (correlation = .12) between low capital gains taxes and high economic growth or vice versa.[18]”

    Another Conservative myth exposed.

  2. Rincon says:

    You keep claiming that low taxes on the rich create more growth. Even if you were right (you’re not. See above), who cares? Growth for the middle class has been ZERO for 50 years! I know, I know. Gee whiz, think how bad it would have been if we hadn’t been coddling the rich all of these years.

  3. nyp says:

    This must explain why there are so many more millionaires in Mississippi than in California.

    BTW — there is no “ObamaCare exchange” that is “going belly up.”

  4. Rincon says:

    “Still another editorial shows how the ObamaCare projections are coming up short of original pie-in-the-sky projections.” Conveniently left out is that the growth of medical costs has slowed dramatically under Obamacare while many millions more people are insured today. In addition, those who are insured are now more adequately insured. Insurance policies with ridiculously low limits of coverage have been eliminated.

  5. nyp says:

    Oh – and the bit about the millionaires moving out of Maryland after a new tax was adopted in 2008? Totally bogus. The drop in the number of “millionaires” filing tax returns in Maryland coincided with the financial crash and the onset of the great recession. Fewer people filed tax returns as millioniares in Maryland because the crash resulted in there being fewer millionaires in Maryland.

  6. nyp says:

    “a study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonprofit research group in Washington, found that nearly all the decline in millionaires was the result of a drop in incomes largely attributable to the stock market plunge and recession, and not to migration — “down and not out,” as the study put it.

    “In 2009, just 364 people in the millionaire bracket moved from Maryland or died (the data didn’t distinguish between the two) — about the same percentage who disappeared in 2007, before any tax increase. And in 2009, more than 1,500 taxpayers entered the millionaire rolls, either because they earned more or moved to Maryland that year. That data “directly contravenes the notion that changes in tax policy were discouraging the affluent from working hard and earning substantial sums of money, or driving them out of the state altogether,” the study concluded.”

  7. Rincon says:

    The minimum wage in Australia is $17.29/hour. The median wealth is$219,500 US dollars. The median wealth in the U.S. is $44,911, not even in the top 25.

    Yet another Conservative myth exposed.

  8. Barbara says:

    Also from Australia:

    “The Abbott government is seeking advice about how it can cut spending, charge more for government services and shrink the size of the federal bureaucracy by handing responsibilities to the states and charities, in a sweeping brief to its new commission of audit”

    You also might want to research the immigration and citizenship policies of Australia vs the US.

    “Those who are insured are more adequately insured” – Obamacare has been a disaster and the full costs are not even fully implemented, People are not signing up because (just like me) the increases in premiums and extremely high deductibles don’t make sense. And for those who are insured, many do not seek medical treatment because they cannot afford the high deductibles. I guess you could make the case that men having to pay for maternity care, or someone in their 50s having to pay for juvenile care, or those who don’t use drugs having to pay for drug addition is being “more adequately insured.” Yep – that’s being more adequately covered.

  9. nyp says:

    Barbara: I pay for both maternity care and juvenile care and drug treatment through my health insurance, and i assure you I have absolutely no need for any of those medical services. So do most American men in their 50s. That is because, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, they get their health insurance through their employers, and employer-sponsored plans don’t discriminate between men and women, young and old. Never had. Yet I don’t think Thomas Mitchell, when his health insurance was covered through his newspaper job, thought that he was being cheated because the young woman down the hall had her ob/gyn care covered under the same insurance plan.

    And you know what, Barbara, the young women who work in my office pay insurance premiums that cover my treatment if I develop prostate cancer. Do you have a problem with that? What about the really super-fit young guy I work with. Do you think it is wrong that his premiums cover breast cancer care? In general, the insurance paid for by younger single men effectively subsidizes the care of pregnant women and of older women and men. I don’t have a problem with that. Why do you?

  10. nyp says:

    “The sharp plunge in the number of Americans lacking health coverage has continued, reaching a seven-year low, as Obamacare exchanges and Medicaid enroll more people. In the second quarter of this year, 11.4 percent of adults lacked some kind of health insurance, a half-percentage point drop from the prior quarter, according to the tracking survey released Friday by the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. The uninsured rate has fallen nearly 6 percentage points since late 2013, right before much of the Affordable Care Act took effect. And the largest gains in coverage came from individual insurance plans, such as Obamacare exchange-sold plans as well as in Medicaid, the government-run program for the poor, which has expanded eligibility for more adults in many states under the Affordable Care Act. The percent of adults under age 65 covered by job-based insurance remained stable, at 43.4 percent, around the same rate it has been since late 2013.”
    Yes, indeed – what a disaster.

  11. Looks like you whacked the right hornet’s nest with that big stick Mr. Mitchell…(and that title is spot on, how appropriate!)

  12. Steve says:

    The Nevada exchange called Nevada Health Link is belly up as it only refers people to Nevada Health Link is nothing more than a portal page for a portal page!

    Nevada Health COOP is in no way, shape or form providin,g nor did it ever provide, for “more adequately insured” people. Because they don’t pay their providers, and refuse to remove providers who did not renew the contract for lack of payment. In addition Nevada Health Link is going belly up due directly to the fat cat union leadership who were paid double that supposed 20% allowed for administrative costs and salaries.

  13. Nyp says:

    I am very impressed that Harry Reid just endorsed Paul Ryan for Speaker.

  14. Steve says:

  15. Rincon says:

    You seem to have drifted by my point, Barbara. Conservatives claim that a high minimum wage will ruin the economy. It obviously hasn’t for Australia. This is the Conservative myth to which I referred. You pointed out their government spending problems without comparing them to our own. The Australian national debt is about 95% of GDP while ours is 106%. Yes, Australia has budget problems, but they are less than ours and the average citizen is worth FOUR TIMES as much as ours. Hardly a country destroyed by a minimum wage, even though theirs is more than double what ours is. Four times Barbara. Face it. “Socialist” Australia is doing better than we are in a number of ways, partly because our leaders, especially the conservative ones, refuse to examine what works and what does not. Bumper sticker theories don’t cut it.

  16. Steve says:

    October 20, 2015 at 6:33 pm I posted “….. In addition Nevada Health Link is ….”

    That should read “Nevada Health COOP”

  17. Barbara says:

    According to comments from Australians on comparing their wages to ours:

    The numbers you cite do not include wages for 16 and 17 year olds. Minimum wage for 16 year olds in Australia is what around $8, which if converted would be less than our federal minimum here.

    We don’t break numbers at the same ages. but in the US, about 3% of workers 25 and older earn minimum, where 21% of those 25 and younger do. which means the vast majority of our workers that actually earn minimum are young workers that the Australian number used ignores.

    If you look at average wages total. In Australia the average weekly cash earnings is $1182, which would convert to $767 US dollars. Where in the US, the average weekly cash earning is $858.

  18. Rincon says:

    Is your average the mean or median? There’s a big difference. And just in case you missed my capital letters, let me just reiterate: Australians are worth FOUR TIMES as much as us on average (median). You’re nibbling at the edges, but not addressing the thrust of the issue. You’ve pointed out that the minimum wage of perhaps 5% of the Australian work force is a whole 3 or 4% less than ours. Is that really worth commenting on? It also looks like I neglected to provide you with my source:

  19. Steve says:

    Barbara brings up a good point. Every time a tired minimum wage has been proposed it has been shot down by liberals as unfair.
    Since Australia is such a good example for the worlds leading economy to follow….why not enact just such a minimum wage based on age?

  20. Steve says:

    ” tired ” should have been “tiered”

  21. Guess Who? says:

    wow. Same old drivel from petey and rinny. “Hey, boys and girls, ain’t socialism just grand??” and “ain’t our guy, Prez Zero just the cat’s meow?”
    Keep fiddling, fellas. The Donald is gonna set things aright. Unless Pinocchio gets us blown up before 2017.

  22. Guess Who? says:

    Or these government idiots bankrupt us!

  23. nyp says:

    Athos, I just knew that you were a Trump supporter.

  24. Barbara says:

    It is worth commenting that the article your referenced did not use the same criteria for every country and was therefore not credible.

    Immigration policies do influence greatly wages. Why do you think big business is supportive of immigration? They want the cheap labor. So – do you want your open borders or do you want higher wages? You won’t get both.

  25. nyp says:

    Why do you believe in the free flow of good across borders, and the free flow of capital across borders, but not the free flow of labor?

  26. With the never ending welfare state, it is not a “free” flow.

  27. Patrick says:

    The rich get richer, the poor (and everyone else) get poorer, and the richest convince some, that we live in a welfare state.


  28. Barbara says:

    Why do we need a “free flow” of labor when we don’t have enough jobs for Americans? What is the benefit to our economy and citizens? And please, don’t tell me immigrants are only doing jobs American’s refuse to do.

  29. Rincon says:

    It’s fine to control the Mexican border. We limit most other countries on how many of their citizens we will accept. Mexico should be no different. An important side benefit is that we would be able to deport criminals without having them come back across the border.

    The Credit Suisse report mentioned in the article appears to be consistent and trusted. Can you give me a little more detail as to why you say it doesn’t use the same criteria for each country?

  30. nyp says:

    Interesting how the fundamental principles of free market economics

    Businesses are able to pay a lower wage to immigrants. Some of the savings are passed along to customers. Some stay with the business and are plowed back into more productive uses. But it is nuts to claim to be a believer in free markets while throwing up protectionist walls (literally) with respect to the most important component of most economic enterprises.

  31. nyp says:

    Thomas Mitchell recognizes his contradiction. He tries to get around it by claiming that immigration results in a net deadweight loss because the total gain in economic efficiency is more than offset by welfare payments — even though we don’t really have welfare any more and, even if we did, illegals aren’t entitled to it, and, in any event, they pay substanial payroll taxes. His argument is a canard, and has been debunked in the economic literature many times.

  32. nyp says:

    I meant to say “Interesting how the fundamental principles of free market economics get thrown out the window whenever the subject of immigration comes up.”

  33. Guess Who? says:

    what you are saying, petey, is not fundamental principles of free market economics. It’s national suicide to allow any and all immigrants to invade our country and live off welfare.

    There is a reason behind having borders, language and culture. But then again, your side wants to destroy America’s language and culture, don’t you?

    I believe the cretin said “fundamentally transform America”.

    loathsome creature, isn’t he?

  34. Winston Smith says:

    So much Marxism, so little time…

    The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.
    Minimum wage laws are patently contrary to natural law, and are a form of theft by proxy.
    When you don’t secure your borders, you have no borders, when you have no borders, you have no nation.
    Forcing people to purchase a product or service is tyrannical.
    Ryan is a RINO, Harry supporting him is no surprise.

    “And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.” – Thomas Jefferson, July 12, 1816 letter to Samuel Kercheval

  35. Rincon says:

    “Forcing people to purchase a product or service is tyrannical.” You mean like doxycycline, which “…rose more than 8,280 percent…from $20 per 100-pill bottle to $1,849? Come to think of it though, people do have a choice. They can either pay the man or suffer and/or die. I had some pet owners who had to make that decision. Lost a few dogs. I know, I know. If government has you over a barrel, it’s tyranny; if private enterprise does the same, “those ol’ boys earned every dime.” Ah, I see the difference. If government taxes us, the money usually goes in some form to large numbers of people. If private enterprise dings us, most of it often goes to just one person. You must really like that one person.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s