Obama: Fox, Lion, or Emperor?

Posted in the Lugoff Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 12 of12
Cindy Simpson

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

"The White House may craftily be laying the groundwork for a massive and thoroughly unconstitutional seizure of power from Congress," warned veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler of the upcoming debt ceiling battle.

Considering both the slyness and boldness of Obama's latest power plays, Koffler's observation is reminiscent of a quote attributed to Emperor Napoleon: "I am sometimes a fox and sometimes a lion. The whole secret of government lies in knowing when to be the one or the other."

Besides playing both fox and lion as he skirts the Constitution or arrogantly walks right over it, Obama has also been busy whipping up the populace with his "Thou shalt have fairness" rhetoric. But we wonder if the outcome of the folks affected by his manipulations and exhortations is not what motivates him -- rather it is Napoleon's self-proclaimed title that Obama covets: Emperor.

Apparently a crown has been, if not on Obama's head, at least on his mind during his childhood. According to a former Punahou classmate of Obama's from Hawaii, Obama told friends he was a prince of Indonesia, Kenyan royalty, and that he would be a ruler himself someday. As Daniel Greenfield observed, it is interesting to note that Obama, as a child, saw himself as "a foreigner with delusions of grandeur."

There's even an etching, "KING OBAMA," in a concrete patch on the school grounds. The notably pro-Obama website, "Obama's Neighborhood," captioned the picture with the assertion that Obama was likely the artist, but instructs the reader to "disregard the 'King' scrawling above 'OBAMA.'

All amusing and interesting anecdotes -- but it's not difficult to envision a grown-up Obama as caesar, reclining in a royal box overlooking an arena, giving an executive-order thumb up or down as the crowd roars in approval. A caesar who reaps then redistributes the wealth of the people in billion-dollar bread and circuses, and, as Harvard Professor Mary Ann Glendon once described as a "modern form" of both, promotes a distracting "array of new sexual freedoms to compensate for the loss of the most basic civil right of all -- the right of self-government." A caesar who disarms the people in the guise of protecting them. And the majority of the population in this "neo-feudal landscape" loves Obama for it, and chants "hail" alongside a fawning media.

The Old Testament describes the time when the Israelites demanded a king to replace the judges that God appointed, even though Samuel warned the people that a king would only enslave them. Senator Rand Paul recently said, "I'm against having a king. I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over, and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, that's someone who wants to act like a king or monarch."

Presidents are sworn in and kings are crowned, but both ceremonies utilize religious symbolism. George Neumayr observed that "most revolutionaries" find the "appropriation" useful. "Even Napoleon invited the clergy to his coronation, though he made sure to give them poor seating, as they passively watched the leader crown himself."

History books are replete with accounts of tyrannies led by men who first played the y fox, roared as the lion, and then crowned themselves king. America may soon find itself the subject of a similar chapter. Glendon again: "the United States will not be the first republic to slip by small degrees into the form of government that, alas, has been more common than any other in human history: tyranny by a minority."

Those terms once favorably portrayed America's heroic founders in their opposition to a monarchy. Now they describe citizens who oppose today's government -- "dangerous" because they simply dare to recognize that Big Government has grown into Big Brother. Tyrants and their cohorts consider citizens a threat because these "bitter clingers" know how to track a fox, are brave enough to confront a lion, and refuse to bow to an earthly king.
Shredd

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 23, 2013
 
Gg
Oleg Atbashian

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

In an email to supporters, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina writes, "Issues like immigration, climate change, and gun violence will be debated over these next four years, and President Obama is ready to take them on -- but he needs us by his side. Our goal is to help him get things done, but also to help change how things get done in Washington in the first place."

Thus, in addition to being a tradition in presidential elections, emotional manipulation is now also being geared to become an official replacement for a traditional legislative process. Marx would have described this as a great qualitative leap forward.

Messina further describes OFA as "an advantage that no previous president has enjoyed and one that has the potential to reshape our politics for years to come."

Judging by past performance, the vague "reshaping of our politics" here translates into a very concrete subjugation of the legislative and judicial branches to the executive dictate and the elimination of the constitutional principle of checks and balances.

If this plan works, Obama and his Czars will be simply telling Congress and the courts what to do, as his Department of Agitation and Propaganda will discredit and demonize all non-compliant legislators and judges with coordinated "hate weeks" in the media and staged street protests, all the while feeding illusions of a major historic battle between good and evil to the misinformed public, who will eagerly play the part of a crowd with pitchforks and torches, especially if motivated with promises of more government handouts.

Any surviving opposition will thus be pressured and intimidated into submission, one by one, until the last resisting judge, congressman, or any other troublemaker is either removed from office or gives up the fight and succumbs to the Orwellian alternative reality, letting Obama fundamentally transform America as advertised. Thereafter, we may as well live in a Lunar colony -- so small will be our chance to uproot the new ruling Party who will be setting the terms, framing the debate, writing the narrative, and otherwise stage-managing the bamboozled, easily manipulated subjects of the new "people's republic."

We may well be witnessing a pivotal moment in creating a system, against which a future free-market revolution will be fought. Let's hope it won't be merely a plot device in a libertarian sci-fi novel, because if this revolution doesn't happen in real life, manuscripts of such nature may soon become inadmissible for publication.

John Griffing

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Why is it that with all the talk of preventing gun violence with unconstitutional gun control directives, the president and his odious band of weapons dealers have not been called to account for their illegal arms shipments south of the border, or their giving of arms to al Qaeda resulting in the effective murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Libya?

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. But this is an all too familiar pattern for Obama. The fox has taken charge of the henhouse.

President Obama sent weapons, untraced and untracked, to drug cartels in Mexico. American citizens, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, have been killed by just these kinds of criminals, with just these kinds of weapons.

And before the pathologically anti-Bush zealots begin to sing in unison that this act was no different than a similar program during the Bush years, it should be noted that President Bush's program, called Operation Wide Receiver was designed to track gun shipments so as to readily identify the biggest enclaves of cartel activity. Obama simply gifted Mexican cartels with weapons, in much the same way that he recently gifted Egypt, led by the virulently anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, with 20 new sophisticated F-16 fighter jets.

There are known, documented Hezbollah outposts in Mexico. It is entirely possible that Islamic terrorists camping south of the border have weapons courtesy of the Obama Administration. Iranian dictator Amadinejad -- who may now possess nuclear warheads -- has boasted that he has armies of Iranian Hezbollah agents stationed in Mexico waiting for the order to flood across the border, a process which, thanks to our president, is now easier than ever.

And now President Obama claims the moral ground to lecture Americans -- clinging to God and guns -- about gun violence? Something is wrong with this picture.

Our president is arming our enemies while he threatens to disarm his own citizens.

Throughout history, tyrants have used manufactured crises to rationalize the confiscation of citizens' lawful firearms, eliminating citizens' ability to defend themselves against the tyranny of their own governments. Obama is just the latest in a long line.

Those who oppose gun control and dare to question the efficacy of making it harder to acquire and own defensive weapons are portrayed as the lunatic fringe.

What is the reality? One of the provisions of Obama's proposed gun control measures is to appropriate federal money to collect data on gun-related violence. What few seem to realize is that the Department of Justice already does this and has been doing it for years. From National Crime Victimization Survey figures, it is known that guns are used 3 to 5 times more in self-defense by licensed gun owners than in the commission of violent crimes.

It is also known that criminals do not walk into gun stores or attend gun expositions and submit to background checks, obtain licenses, and expose themselves to criminal investigations. Criminals are criminals because they have an innate disdain for the law. Why would they voluntarily submit to background checks?

If President Obama really is the Harvard genius we've been led to believe, we can deduce that he knows that tougher background checks and licensing requirements will do nothing to reduce criminal use of guns in the commission of violent crimes.

The question then becomes, why would Obama want to make it harder for citizens to defend themselves? Perhaps Obama is afraid that his actions might prompt a violent response from the citizenry, or he may want to identify people who are likely to oppose his radical policy moves, assuming a correlation with gun ownership. Or Obama may simply want a greater degree of control over individuals -- irrespective of the reason. Whatever his stated rationale, we know his motives are neither noble nor well-intentioned.
John Griffing

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Why is it that with all the talk of preventing gun violence with unconstitutional gun control directives, the president and his odious band of weapons dealers have not been called to account for their illegal arms shipments south of the border, or their giving of arms to al Qaeda resulting in the effective murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Libya?

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. But this is an all too familiar pattern for Obama. The fox has taken charge of the henhouse.

President Obama sent weapons, untraced and untracked, to drug cartels in Mexico. American citizens, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, have been killed by just these kinds of criminals, with just these kinds of weapons.

And before the pathologically anti-Bush zealots begin to sing in unison that this act was no different than a similar program during the Bush years, it should be noted that President Bush's program, called Operation Wide Receiver was designed to track gun shipments so as to readily identify the biggest enclaves of cartel activity. Obama simply gifted Mexican cartels with weapons, in much the same way that he recently gifted Egypt, led by the virulently anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, with 20 new sophisticated F-16 fighter jets.

There are known, documented Hezbollah outposts in Mexico. It is entirely possible that Islamic terrorists camping south of the border have weapons courtesy of the Obama Administration. Iranian dictator Amadinejad -- who may now possess nuclear warheads -- has boasted that he has armies of Iranian Hezbollah agents stationed in Mexico waiting for the order to flood across the border, a process which, thanks to our president, is now easier than ever.

And now President Obama claims the moral ground to lecture Americans -- clinging to God and guns -- about gun violence? Something is wrong with this picture.

Our president is arming our enemies while he threatens to disarm his own citizens.

Throughout history, tyrants have used manufactured crises to rationalize the confiscation of citizens' lawful firearms, eliminating citizens' ability to defend themselves against the tyranny of their own governments. Obama is just the latest in a long line.

Perhaps it's stating the obvious, but if President Obama takes weapons from law abiding citizens, then only criminals and Obama will have weapons.

Those who oppose gun control and dare to question the efficacy of making it harder to acquire and own defensive weapons are portrayed as the lunatic fringe.

What is the reality? One of the provisions of Obama's proposed gun control measures is to appropriate federal money to collect data on gun-related violence. What few seem to realize is that the Department of Justice already does this and has been doing it for years. From National Crime Victimization Survey figures, it is known that guns are used 3 to 5 times more in self-defense by licensed gun owners than in the commission of violent crimes.

It is also known that criminals do not walk into gun stores or attend gun expositions and submit to background checks, obtain licenses, and expose themselves to criminal investigations. Criminals are criminals because they have an innate disdain for the law. Why would they voluntarily submit to background checks?
The question then becomes, why would Obama want to make it harder for citizens to defend themselves? Perhaps Obama is afraid that his actions might prompt a violent response from the citizenry, or he may want to identify people who are likely to oppose his radical policy moves, assuming a correlation with gun ownership. Or Obama may simply want a greater degree of control over individuals -- irrespective of the reason. Whatever his stated rationale, we know his motives are neither noble nor well-intentioned.

And in any case, the reasons for support of gun control are irrelevant. Years ago, when Congressman Sonny Bono was asked about his views on illegal immigration, he famously replied, "It's illegal."
John Griffing

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Why is it that with all the talk of preventing gun violence with unconstitutional gun control directives, the president and his odious band of weapons dealers have not been called to account for their illegal arms shipments south of the border, or their giving of arms to al Qaeda resulting in the effective murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Libya?
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. But this is an all too familiar pattern for Obama. The fox has taken charge of the henhouse.
President Obama sent weapons, untraced and untracked, to drug cartels in Mexico. American citizens, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, have been killed by just these kinds of criminals, with just these kinds of weapons.
And before the pathologically anti-Bush zealots begin to sing in unison that this act was no different than a similar program during the Bush years, it should be noted that President Bush's program, called Operation Wide Receiver was designed to track gun shipments so as to readily identify the biggest enclaves of cartel activity. Obama simply gifted Mexican cartels with weapons, in much the same way that he recently gifted Egypt, led by the virulently anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, with 20 new sophisticated F-16 fighter jets.
There are known, documented Hezbollah outposts in Mexico. It is entirely possible that Islamic terrorists camping south of the border have weapons courtesy of the Obama Administration. Iranian dictator Amadinejad -- who may now possess nuclear warheads -- has boasted that he has armies of Iranian Hezbollah agents stationed in Mexico waiting for the order to flood across the border, a process which, thanks to our president, is now easier than ever.
And now President Obama claims the moral ground to lecture Americans -- clinging to God and guns -- about gun violence? Something is wrong with this picture.
Our president is arming our enemies while he threatens to disarm his own citizens.
Throughout history, tyrants have used manufactured crises to rationalize the confiscation of citizens' lawful firearms, eliminating citizens' ability to defend themselves against the tyranny of their own governments. Obama is just the latest in a long line.
Perhaps it's stating the obvious, but if President Obama takes weapons from law abiding citizens, then only criminals -- and Obama -- will have weapons.
Those who oppose gun control and dare to question the efficacy of making it harder to acquire and own defensive weapons are portrayed as the lunatic fringe.
What is the reality? One of the provisions of Obama's proposed gun control measures is to appropriate federal money to collect data on gun-related violence. What few seem to realize is that the Department of Justice already does this and has been doing it for years. From National Crime Victimization Survey figures, it is known that guns are used 3 to 5 times more in self-defense by licensed gun owners than in the commission of violent crimes.
It is also known that criminals do not walk into gun stores or attend gun expositions and submit to background checks, obtain licenses, and expose themselves to criminal investigations. Criminals are criminals because they have an innate disdain for the law. Why would they voluntarily submit to background checks?
Or Obama may simply want a greater degree of control over individuals -- irrespective of the reason. Whatever his stated rationale, we know his motives are neither noble nor well-intentioned.
And in any case, the reasons for support of gun control are irrelevant. Years ago, when Congressman Sonny Bono was asked about his views on illegal immigration, he famously replied, "It's illegal."
So it is with any form of gun control, and the Supreme Court has said repeatedly, including in two recent decisions, that bans or restrictions on an individual right to acquire and possess guns is unconstitutional and illegal.
John Griffing

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

But since when does constitutionality matter to President Obama? He has demonstrated a penchant for policy-making via executive fiat. In a recent interview I conducted, Congressman Ted Poe described Obama's philosophy this way:

"The President has gone further than the Constitution allows him to on executive power. He does it because he can get away with it; his executive orders for example. An executive order first came about when a President would look at a piece of legislation... and the executive order would further explain that legislation. Executive orders have gone from that to a position where now an executive order is nothing more than a law. The President is not clarifying law or trying to explain it so it can be administered; he just writes an edict from the White House, sends it out to the fruited plain,'Thou shalt do this.' To me, those executive orders are a violation of the Constitution, and he continues to do it."

This is borne out in President Obama's near-weekly "executive actions." If Obama is willing to press his agenda without the constitutional functions of Congress, what else might he do now that he knows Congress will do little or nothing to stand in his way? This is the essence of what normal Americans with firearms are actually debating. Take away the statistical arguments that usually start with "guns kill," and end with, "If you take away guns from law-abiding citizens, only the criminals will have guns" -- all valid lines of argument-and the real issue is more basic.

The core of the gun control debate is that Americans need guns not only to protect themselves from criminals. Americans need guns to protect themselves from an out-of-control government bent on enslaving the citizenry. America exists because a group of men realized that personal freedom and a system that guarded it were only possible where people are armed. Accountability is the foundation of the American experiment, not only the accountability of the ballot box, but the knowledge that, when pushed too far, Americans can defend themselves.

This may sound messy, but human history often is. Fortunately, the knowledge that Americans can respond with force, if pressed, often makes the U.S. one of the most stable and peaceful places to live.

Has anyone ever invaded Switzerland? Contrary to popular belief, the Swiss are the most armed society on the face of the Earth, because the law requires them to be. Every Swiss male must serve in the military for a fixed period of time, and the law requires marksmanship training of all male and female citizens. All Swiss citizens are required to possess guns. Does anyone ever hear of Swiss gang murders or drug cartels? The most the Swiss ever have to worry about are bank accounts, and what gadgets should be added next to the Swiss Army knife.

President Obama is transparent in his desire to do away with the protections of the Second Amendment. And he is transparent in his hypocritical manipulation of events like the Newtown shootings to achieve his goals. But he's not doing this to protect America. If reducing gun violence were truly his aim, he would not be arming America's enemies.

Our president's latest attempt to rob Americans of their constitutional rights should be resisted by every citizen, not just those who own firearms. President Obama is emboldened every time we fail to resist his power grabs. Obama has his executive orders. We have the Constitution. This is a fight from which we can't back down.
Nina

Albany, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 15, 2013
 
He is not a team player.
Warren Beaty

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 16, 2013
 
We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day's work with honest wages. But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we've put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That's wrong. That's why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, nineteen states have chosen to bump theirs even higher.
Tonight, let's declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families.
Obama called for raising the minimum wage to $9.00 per hour, and to index the minimum wage to inflation. Sounds great! In ObamaWorld, in a static economy where the economy will not react to a minimum wage increase, what Obama proposes would be fine. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), we don't live in a static economy; rather, we live in a dynamic economy that will react to a minimum wage increase. So, with that bit of economic reality that seems to be lost on Obama's economic advisers (perhaps it's not lost -- it's the only they can sell their ideas to low-information voters), let's examine what will occur if the minimum wage is increased:
Jobs will be lost. 10.6 percent minimum wage increase in 2009 resulted in the loss of 600,000 teen jobs in six months, even with a 4 percent economic expansion. A 10 percent minimum wage increase resulted in a 4.6 percent to 9.0 percent drop in teen employment in small businesses, and a 4.8 percent to 8.8 percent drop in hours worked by teens in the retail sector. The same study showed an increase in unemployment of 2.7 percent to 4.3 percent, and 5 percent for low-skilled employees most affected by minimum wage increases. So, the job-destroying effects of a minimum wage increase falls particularly hard on low-skilled workers. Why focus upon teen employment? Because teens comprise the bulk of minimum wage earners. And most minimum wage earner do not work full-time.
The economy will suffer (even more, if it can). This video (at the 1:15 through 1:31 point) says that increasing the minimum wage will slow the economy because manufacturers have less to reinvest. There is a condition where raising the minimum wage -- a monopsonistic situation --(1:41 point) can benefit the economy. But monopsonism refers to the situation in which there is only one buyer, hardly the case in the U.S. labor market (although the federal government is trying to achieve that situation). So we are left with a minimum wage increase harming the economy.
It's rather ironic that Obama chose to cite poverty of a full-time worker. That is because only about 38 percent of those earning minimum wage work full-time. That percentage was true in 2005. Can anyone cite a source that suggests a substantial percentage change since then? So, using 2005 percentages, 53 percent of those earning [minimum wage] or less per hour are between the ages of 16 and 24. Those earning the minimum wage, ages 16 to 24 years, had an average family income of over $64,200 (2005 dollars), while those over 24 had an average family income of over $33,600. Further proof that a minimum wage increase will not help the group Obama cites. Also, consider that even in 2005 dollars, average family income of minimum wage earners far exceeds the amount Obama cites,$14,500.
And, as William Dunkelberg says, "About 60 percent of the officially poor don't work, so the only thing raising the minimum wage does for them is to make it harder for them to get a job if they ever decide they want one." Dunkelberg continues, "It is estimated that less than 15 percent of the total increase in wages resulting from an increase in the minimum will go to people below the poverty line and less than a third of those receiving the minimum wage are families below the poverty line."
Warren Beaty

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 16, 2013
 
"Don't work" means that they don't work full-time. Did Obama somehow miss this little fact?

Of those making minimum wage, 16.9 percent of those aged 16 to 24 lived at or below the poverty threshold, while 22.8 percent that were 25 or older lived in similar circumstances. Of those making minimum wage, 64.7 percent of those aged 16 to 24 had a household income above 200 percent of the poverty threshold, while 44.8 percent that were 25 or older lived in similar circumstances. These percentages are particularly damning to Obama.

Further, again using 2005 percentages, the largest percentage of minimum wage earners have "less than a high school" education. This fact is not some deep, dark secret. The last time I checked, public schooling included high school. And public schooling did/does not directly cost (except for "cool" clothes) those being educated. Dropping out of school is a conscious choice. Yet we consumers are expected to pay higher prices to support what is a bad decision. Some economists suggest that increasing the minimum wages may actually encourage some students to drop out of high school. About half of the 3.8 million workers who make at or below the minimum wage are under 25, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see table 1).

But wait, you say. Those "evil" business owners should raise wages but not prices. They have, after all, large quantities of money stashed away. This is just the "other side" of the same coin. Business owners are somehow expected to support a bad decision. Besides, how do you think those "evil" business owners got all that money? Have you ever heard of education? There are very few business owners with the last name "Kennedy."

As University of California economics professor David Neumark says, "There is no research supporting the claim that minimum wages reduce the proportion of families living in poverty."

And, as Paul Kersey of the Heritage Foundation wrote in 2004:

Well, I have good news and bad news for you. The bad news is that increasing the minimum wage will do little to improve conditions for the working poor. This is because relatively few of the recipients of such an increase are living in poverty. The good news is that the working poor do not necessarily need government help. Research shows that the 'dead-end job' is largely a myth.

This is not to say that the working poor do not have a hard road ahead of them, but for those who persevere it is a road that leads out of poverty. We should not block off that path by making low-wage jobs more scarce, which is a likely result of an increase in the minimum wage.

As Rea S. Hederman, Jr. and James Sherk wrote in 2006:

Many support raising the minimum wage because they want to help low-income Americans get ahead. But while some minimum wage-earners do live below the Poverty line, these workers are far from representative. Only one in five minimum wage-earners lives in a family that earns less than the Poverty line. Three-fifths work part-time, and a majority are under 25 years old. Minimum wage-earners' average family income is almost $50,000 per year [2005 dollars].... It is not surprising, then, that studies show that higher minimum wages do not reduce Poverty rates.

Minimum wage workers under 25 are typically not their family's sole breadwinner. Rather, they live in middle-class households that do not rely on their earnings. For the most part, they have not finished their schooling and are working part-time jobs. These workers represent the largest group that would directly benefit from a higher minimum wage.
Warren Beaty

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 16, 2013
 
As David Neumark said in 2009:

Minimum wages, like most public policies, confront us with trade-offs. An employed, low-skilled worker who keeps his job earns a slightly higher wage. But a worker who loses his job, or a labor-market entrant or unemployed worker who cannot find a new job, pays a much higher cost. Given present economic conditions, the imperative should be to create and enhance job opportunities.

If "a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage" does receive a minimum wage raise to $9.00 per hour, the family will still live below the poverty line. Assuming the minimum wage earner works 52 weeks per year (no vacation), 40 hours per week (becoming quite rare due to ObamaCare), he/she will earn $18,720 per year (do the math). Yet, Health and Human Services says that a family of four is below its 2012 poverty threshold of $23,050. To rise above that threshold, a minimum wage of $11.10 would be required. So, why did Obama not call for the minimum wage to be raised to that amount? But why stop at $11.10 per hour? While we're at it, let's raise the minimum wage to $22.20 per hour so poverty is eradicated. I'm suuuuuuuuuuuuuure prices won't rise as a result.

Are you reading (and understanding) this, all you Obama supporters? Or have y'all been taught how to suspend economic reality? Please, unlike Obama, be specific as y'all try to refute empirical evidence. Don't just provide some "feelgood" rhetoric.

Bottom line: increasing the minimum wage kills jobs, hurts the economy, and doesn't lift people out of poverty. There is only one way out of poverty: get educated and work!

But that's just my opinion.
dunadd

Greensboro, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 8, 2013
 
Obama: Fox, lion, or Emperor. none of the above. he's flat out socialist. Some say he is communist. he's not smart enough to be a Fox, not brave enough to be a lion and not so dumb as to try and set himself up as emperor.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 12 of12
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Lugoff Discussions

Search the Lugoff Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
HIV-Positive Woman Gets 10 Years For Having Sex... (Oct '07) 7 hr lol 66
Interracial Dating 11 hr Rick 3
SC SC state senator refers to candidate as 'raghead' (Jun '10) 13 hr Bonnie Wheeler 1,120
Allow the Mosque or Not at Ground Zero (Aug '10) Sat Justice 5,656
Lexington Poker Ring: Where "The Tape" Came From (Aug '12) Sat lovekute 60
http://www.friv2ol.com Jul 11 Friv 2 2
four kbr contractors brutally murder (Oct '08) Jul 11 Ron Wilson 47
•••
•••
•••
•••

Lugoff Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Lugoff People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Lugoff News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Lugoff
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••