Can a Liberal explain this to me

10 States are getting ready to raise the minimum wage.  And I expect that the federal government will be addressing the minimum wage increase soon, because it has not gone up since 2009.

This is what I am wondering about…..

Liberals tout that raising the minimum wage will stimulate the economy by putting more money in the consumers pocket.    But yet they want to raise taxes on the "Rich" and take that money out of the economy??

Well I did the math….

There are about 5 Million Millionaires in the US.  There are about 4 Million Minimum Wage Earners in the US.

Lets say for easy math that the Minimum wage increase is a .50 average per person(I think this will be a high estimate).  

So.....             52 Weeks
                x    40 Hrs
                =  2080 hrs per year
                x    .50 per hr increase
                =  $1,040.00 per person in their pocket per year
                x      4 Million Workers
                =  $4,160,000,000.00  BILLION DOLLARS

 So that is roughly just over 4 Billion Dollars per year to spur the economy.  (But remember, there are only 10 states raising the minimum wage, and I am using ALL minimum wage earners in the US in my calculations, so this number is extremely high.  It is probably closer to $1 Billion Dollars.)

Now lets look at the Millionaires.  If we go over the "Fiscal Cliff" (that Obama and the Liberals want to happen), the "Rich" are going to pay about an average of $48,500.00 more per millionaire, per year.  So, 5 million Millionaires being taxed an additional $48.5 K, that comes out to be about……. $242,500,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLARS.

4.16 Billion in the pockets of the people 
242.5 Billion in the pocket of the government 

I guess this is where Liberal Logic sets in....Liberals think that putting 4 BILLION in the pockets of the people will stimulate the economy, but don't think that taking 242.5 BILLION out of peoples pockets is money that could stimulate the economy, and they don't think that it will hurt the economy either.  

Wouldn't it be better to have the 242.5 BILLION in the economy to help stimulate it.  

And another thing, when you raise the minimum wage, the government is forcing small businesses to increase their overhead, which in turn will cause the small business to either, increase the cost of there product or lay off workers.  So if the cost of products goes up, then that 4 Billion dollars in peoples pockets from increasing the minimum wage won't be able to buy as much as before.

I believe that Minimum wage laws are bad for the economy (see my earlier post on minimum wage).  

http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2012/09/minimum-wagebad-for-economy-and-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fmfseo+%28WAKE+UP+AMERICA%29

And I think it is a stupid idea to give the Fed Government $242.5 BILLION more dollars when they haven't shown they know how to manage money.  Anybody that spends over 20 - 25% more than they take in doesn't need any more money.

So, I ask, will any of you liberals please explain this logic to me…….

My Response to "Mystery Unraveled"

My Response to "Mystery Unraveled"

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/11/08/mystery-unraveled-how-a-white-moderate-churchgoing-middle-class-middle-aged-woman-could-vote-for-obama/

I don't see where the mystery has been unraveled.  She's a moderate that believes that taking the life of  babies is OK, big government, and gay marriage is OK.  No mystery here.....

The true mystery is how a Christian could vote for Obama.  A man who thinks that taking the life of a baby, as late as the 3rd trimester, is OK?  How a Christian supports the idea of gay marriage, when the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin?  And before you jump up and down, God said "love the sinner, not the SIN".  I have no problem with a person who feels they are gay, but it is still a sin and we are not to condone it.  Just like all sin, we are not to condone them either.  And before you jump again, yes we all sin, but true Christians tries not to sin.  And too often we fall short, but we make a attempt to not sin.

As for her 5 reasons "moderates broke for Obama", they don't surprise me, after all she's a moderate.....

But here they are....

1).  I don't "know" if Obama is a Muslim or a Christian, but he does have socialist tendencies. (The Birth Certificate and that sort of thing was put out there by the democrats to distract the people) 

The problem here is that the dictionary definition of “socialist” sets an almost impossibly high bar for any leader. Even Vladimir Lenin himself couldn’t meet that standard. Actually, Lenin tried to implement pure socialism when he first came to power, but when his policies caused the Russian economy to collapse all around him, in 1921 he abandoned literal socialism and replaced it with a pragmatic, expedient reform program called the “New Economic Policy.” Under NEP, Lenin permitted various privatizations while seeking state domination of the “commanding heights” of the economy. President Obama has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over such “commanding heights” of our economy as energy, health care, finance, and education, with smaller forays into food, transportation and undoubtedly some areas I am overlooking.
Besides mimicking some of Lenin’s policy strategies, Obama also has adopted Karl Marx’s strategies for gradually socializing an economy. Before I spell out the Marxian nature of many of Obama’s policies, let me emphasize that I am not calling Obama a “Marxist-Leninist, period.” “Marxist-Leninist” connotes the brutal totalitarian police state of the late, unlamented Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is no comparison between Barack Obama’s statism and the genocidal, gulag-riddled regime of the Soviet Communists. That being said, Obama’s economic program is taken directly, if not deliberately, from the Marxist-Leninist playbook, and on that basis one may say that Obama tends toward Marxist-Leninist economics.
Besides adopting the Leninist strategy of seeking greater control over the commanding heights of the economy, if one reviews Marx’s 10-point platform for how to socialize a country’s economy in stages (“The Communist Manifesto,” chapter two), one finds that Team Obama and his congressional progressive allies have taken actions to further the goals laid out in all 10 of the planks in the Marx platform. 

Here are some examples, with Marx’s wording being revised for simplicity’s sake:

A).   State control of real property. Team Obama repeatedly has thwarted the development of domestic energy supplies by asserting government ownership and asserting arbitrary regulatory control over massive acreage.

Here is a link about how much land the government owns......

http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2011/11/who-owns-usa.html


B).   Progressive income taxes. Obama has an Ahab-like obsession with raising taxes on “the rich” even though the top 1 percent of earners already pay 39 percent of the total income tax.

C).   Abolition of inheritance. Obama favors re-institution of estate taxes.

D).   Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. Team Obama has declared war on offshore tax havens; has sought legal jurisdiction to tax the offshore income of multi-national corporations as well as foreign citizens and banks that have any investments in America (causing Switzerland’s oldest bank to recommend that its clients avoid all American investments);

E).   Centralization of the country’s financial system in the hands of the state. Dodd-Frank was a huge step in this direction.

F).   State control of means of communication and transportation. Team Obama has attempted to cow conservative media outlets like Fox News into submission through denunciation and has suggested reviving the so-called “fairness doctrine” and imposing heavier licensing fees on station owners. In the area of transportation, Obama insinuated government into the auto industry, has favored the high-speed rail boondoggle, and wishes he could compel us all to convert to “green transportation.”

G).   Increase state control over means of production. Through his green energy subsidies, his failed cap-and-trade scheme, now via EPA regulation, Obama has sought state control over the industry on which most other industries depend—energy.
 
H).    Establishment of workers’ armies. Obama has ramped up the number of Americans working for Uncle Sam by securing a large expansion of AmeriCorps and winning passage of his Serve America Act. He also has done everything he could to strengthen labor unions.

I).    Control over where people live. Team Obama doesn’t go quite this far, but one of the clear implications of cap-and-trade is that government could start to limit human mobility by controlling how far they can travel by capping energy consumption. In Brian Sussman’s book, “Eco-Tyranny,” you can read an executive order that Obama signed on October 5, 2009 that would “divide the country into sectors where all humans would be herded into urban hubs” while most of the land would be “returned to a natural state upon which humans would only be allowed to tread lightly.” (Marx wanted more equal distribution of the human population between town and country, whereas Obama favors urban concentration, but both want to control where people live.)

J).   Free education. Obama has sought a federal government monopoly on student loans for higher education, and in his 2012 State of the Union Address, he called for additional funds for new federal education programs.

Clearly Barack Obama’s policies have a distinctly Marxian flavor to them. Does that mean we are destined for socialism? Certainly not yet. But Marx knew that his 10 strategies would move a society toward socialism. The great free-market economist Ludwig von Mises agreed with Marx that government interventions breed further interventions and tend inexorably toward socialism. (See his class essay, “Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism.”)

There is another vital point to understand about Marxist-Leninist economics: The greatest damage is done to the middle class. With his customary bloodthirsty malevolence, Lenin said, “The way to crush the bourgeoisie [middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

You may suppose that Obama isn’t implementing that aspect of Marxist-Leninist economics, but you would be mistaken. It’s true that income tax rates haven’t risen under Obama and inflation has only surfaced in a few areas (e.g., food and energy) but what you need to understand is that government borrowing is a tax hike on future taxpayers. Obama’s unprecedented deficit spending has been subsidized by the Federal Reserve, whose balance sheet has swelled as they have bought more and more federal debt (more than 60 percent of the total last year). Whenever the Fed’s zero interest rate policy ends, some combination of massive tax hikes and/or raging inflation will ensue, devastating the middle class.

Already, Obama’s economic policies have hurt the middle class. They have enervated the job market, raised food and energy bills, and been accompanied by falling incomes and net worth. If these are the results of Obama’s partial steps in a Marxist-Leninist direction, imagine the damage that would be wrought by a fuller implementation of such an agenda.

I repeat that we should not recklessly call Obama a “Marxist-Leninist.” Although it’s too long and cumbersome a label for a generation addicted to sound bites and simplistic labels, a fair description of Obama and his economic goals is to say that he is “an interventionist, corporatist, statist, Big Government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor.”

2).  Obama's economic RECORD, has us with a 16T debt that will take well over 100 years to pay off.  This link will explain it in a nut shell....

http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2012/09/tax-richthat-will-pay-off-debt.html

She mentions, just like the democrat talking points tell her to do, that "we've tried that before".   

Yes we did, and it works.  But what too many people don't know is that we tried what Obama and the liberals want before and America almost didn't happen.  The Pilgrims tried it when they first arrive here and they almost starved to death.  It didn't take long for people to see that  sharing the wealth with people that didn't want to work doesn't work.  So they abandoned the system.   

Here is the account in a nut shell.....

William Bradford, the colony’s governor its first 30 years, wrote of the agreement between the Pilgrim passengers and the financial “Adventurers” in his book Of Plymouth Plantation. He noted that the seven-year contract signed July 1, 1620, before leaving Plymouth England, stipulated that the Pilgrims were to pool, for common benefit, “all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons…” It further noted “that at the end of the seven years, the capital and profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided betwixt the Adventurers and Planters…” During this time the colonists were to “have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock and goods of the said colony.” It doesn’t get more socialistic than this because the government divvied out the goods and loafers received the same as those who worked.

The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. About half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….” In other words, socialism made strong men lazy. In another book written by the same author, History of Plymouth Plantation, Bradford spoke of another problem because of the government created famine—thievery. Even in this Christian community, “much was stolen both by night and day….”

After two years of such, with the survival of the colony at stake, they contemplated upon “how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery.” They opted to abandon the incentive killing socialist contract in favor of the free market. And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end…”

The effects were almost immediate. A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor… could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” In other words, the free market is a much greater stimulus than governmental force. The Pilgrims now wished to work because they got to keep the benefits of their labor. “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God…. Any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” 

Like I said, we've tried Obama and the Liberals way.......

3).  Obama-care.  We won't have it for long.  By 2020 or so, we will have total Government health-care.  Mainly because the insurance companies will be out of business.  I believe this because of the pre-existing conditions clause.  Imagine yourself having a restaurant and the government came in and said that you had to feed anybody that comes in and says they are hungry.  How long would you stay in business.....

4).  Do the math.  X amount of people will use X amount of energy.  Whether it comes from the US or the middle east, doesn't matter.  But if we use our resources, we can drive down the cost of energy and improve our economy and at the same time work on other forms of energy.  But the EPA is out of control, it was put into place to help business, but now it is usually a hindrance to business...

5).  Here she has fallen for the class warfare lie.  

Here are links to the "Fair Share" lie.......

http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2011/09/fair-share.html

 http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2011/10/obama-on-misleading-america-on-taxes-to.html

OBAMA'S UN SPEECH HOSTIL TO CHRISTIANITY

Obama appeared to be against Christians practicing Christianity during his UN speech.  In his UN speech he said,

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied…"

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."  In other words, you cannot say anything bad about the prophet. 

It is a Christian belief that Mohammed is not a prophet.  So this belief would be slander.  Jesus came and died for the sins of mankind.  On the third day He rose again, which made clear that Satan had been conquered.  Jesus made it possible for man to return to God.  This was the task that Jesus came to do.  This is why, when He hung on the cross, He said: "It is finished".   All the work of the prophets and Jesus was accomplished there on the cross.  Man had the ability to approach God again as Adam and Eve did before they sinned.  Six hundred years later, Muhammad comes to tell that everything's actually different.  This makes it impossible for Christians to acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet.

So if you believe that Christ is the only way to salvation.  Believing that is slandering Mohammed.  That’s just a fact.  If you don’t believe me, you go into parts of the Middle East and proclaim Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and see what happens.

Then Obama continues,

"Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated…"  

Earlier he says we are to "not slander the prophet of Islam", but here he only says "…when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated…"  Not Christ himself.

So what he said was you can't slander the prophet, and you should condemn the hate when somebody desecrates the image of Jesus…

But wait, doesn't Obama's government fund the National endowment for the Arts, that funded the "Christ in piss" display. 

Wouldn't this be desecration??

MSNBC is at it AGAIN.....

 MSNBC is at it AGAIN.....

Anybody that believes anything these people say is a fool.  How can you trust them to give you anything that could possibly be true.  In the first link to the clip, you will see an EDITED video of a campaign stop by Romney on Sept. 26th.  The commentators try to make Romney look like he is jealous and wants to make sure his name is before Ryan's.  They even caption the video with the name "Ryan" to make you think that the crowd is shouting "Ryan".  But if you listen to the video, the crowd is shouting Romney and Romney stops them to add Ryan's name.  When it was pointed out that they were severely edited, MSNBC has still not retracted it....

Here is the first clip that was on the 26th....

This clip includes a cell phone view at the 3:48 mark in which you can hear the crowd chanting Romney..

Here is another example of an edited clip they did a few months ago......this is what MSNBC put on the air.....

This is the actual clip unedited.....

This network is an embarrassment to journalism.

Where are the true journalist in America.....

When will the real journalist stand up and defend their craft from these Lapdogs.....

People need to SHARE this with all there friends before they go to vote so they can find out what is really going on in this country for themselves and stop listening to these Liberal Lapdogs for Obama.....

WAKE UP AMERICA

GREED IN AMERICA???????????

All you hear from the lapdog media and the liberals is, "the Greedy Rich" and the "Greedy Corporations".   But why aren't you hearing from another "Greedy" entity.   COLLEGES……

All you hear about from the Liberals and the media is, how the republicans don't care about the interest rates students have to pay.  But you do hear how the liberals will save the day and keep the rates low…..

Well all that is fine and dandy, but back to my point of the "Greedy Colleges".

OK, the typical Harvard education is somewhere in the neighborhood of $175,000.00.  Now if Obama hadn't saved the day, here is what this education would have cost you if you had a loan for 10 years:

    Amount                                                                                    amount paid back over 10 years

$175,000.00       @           (projected rate      6.8%)        =                       $241,682.00

Now this would be the cost because Obama saved the day….

$175,000.00       @           (Obama rate          3.4%)         =                      $206,678.00

So, with Obama keeping the rates down, he saved each student,              $35,004.00

Well, that's great!   But what does this have to do with "Greedy Colleges"?

…This, since Obama became president, college tuition has gone up 25%....

That means that the cost of that $175,000.00 tuition, if you remove the 25% increase, would be $140,000.00….

Lets look at what would happen with this tuition cost at the 6.8% interest rate.

$140,000.00    @       6.8%                 =                        $193,335.00 over 10 years…..

That would save students  $13, 343.00 more than what Obama can do by keeping the interest rate down and about $48,000.00 from the high rate and the 25% increase in tuition.

My question is, why are these Greedy Colleges continuing to raise tuition?….Don't they know that education is the most important thing to our youth?…..Why are they putting profits above the education of our children?….

My goodness, how dare they raise their costs to be able to pay the bills….

......OBAMA FLAT OUT LIED.....BUT WHERE IS THE MEDIA....

    Obama flat out lied, but where is the media.....oh, they're still talking about Romney and the 47% video.....



Speaking at a Latino town hall-style meeting, sponsored by Uni-vision, Obama flat out lied about "Fast & Furious"

Obama said that Fast & Furious was started under the Bush administration--BOLD FACE LIE--.

Bush had a similar program called "Wide Receiver", which was active from 2005 to 2007.  "Fast & Furious" was started by the Obama administration in late 2009 and ended in 2011 after the Border Agent was murdered.

So where is the Lapdog Media.......anybody that listens to anything the Lapdog media says is practicing in "Willful Ignorance".  "Willful Ignorance" differs from the standard definition of “ignorance“ — which just means that one is unaware of something — in that willfully ignorant people are fully aware of facts, resources and sources, but refuse to acknowledge them.

 Why and how can people look at these types of facts and not think something is amiss.  Why and how can people believe anything that Obama says when time after time, Obama flat out lies, not just twists the facts or take something out of context, but FLAT OUT LIES! 

WAKE UP AMERICA

.......THIS IS OBAMA'S ECONOMIC RECORD.....

                                                                                   Inauguration day                           Today                                            Change

Unemployed Americans	12.05 Million	12.54 Million	UP    495,000
Unemployment Rate	7.8%	8.1%	UP    3.8%
Long-Term Unemployment	2.7 Million	5 Million	UP    87%
Middle Class Income	$54,962.00	$51,000.00	DOWN   $3,960.00
Gas Prices	$1.85	$3.86	UP    107%
Home Values	$169,700.00	$151,600.00	DOWN    11%
Worker Health Insurance Costs	$3,354.00	$4,129.00	UP   23%
College Tuition	$6,591.00	$8,244.00	UP    25%
Americans in Poverty	33.8 Million	40.2 Million	UP    6.4 Million
Food Stamp recipients	32 Million	47 Million	UP   46%
Consumer Price Index	211.1	230.4	UP    9.1%
Federal Debt	$10.6 Trillion	$16 Trillion	UP     51%
Debt Per person	$34,731.00	$51,037.00	UP    $16,306.00
U.S. Global Competitiveness	1st	7th	DOWN   6 Places

….Oh yeah,  Mr. President , we're better off than we were 4 years ago...Right..

IS THERE A WRONG TIME TO DO THE RIGHT THING??

Is there a wrong time to do the right thing?

I believe there are a few.  If you believe that the current administration is bad for America, but won't vote for Romney because you support Ron Paul, and you are going to vote for Gary Johnson.  This would be one of those times.

Ron Paul and/or Gary Johnson maybe better for America than Romney, but the facts are Ron Paul didn't get the Republican nomination and Gary Johnson isn't even polling close.  So a vote for either of the 2 of these gentlemen, is just like a vote for Obama (which you believe is bad for America).

The time to do the right thing is during the next primary season.  We need to find the Ron Paul's and the Gary Johnson's that can replace the sitting politicians in Washington, (like McCain, Hatch, Boehner, Graham, others and even Romney).  But it needs to be done in the primaries, not the general elections.  Any progressive democrat would be worse than a "Rino". 

I am not a big supporter of Romney, but I know if I were to vote for the man that I think would do the best job, Obama would win instead, and that will be bad.

So this is one of those times that.....

.....................Doing the right thing at this time, could be the wrong thing to do..........

TAX THE RICH...THAT WILL PAY OFF THE DEBT.....

TAX THE RICH...THAT WILL PAY OFF THE DEBT.....

How long would it take to pay off 16 Trillion Dollars....

If we froze spending exactly where it is now, we would never pay it off, because we are spending over  1 Trillion more than we take in.  We currently spend 3.5 Trillion but only take in about 2.4 Trillion.  

OK, let's say we cut 1 Trillion in spending, we still would never pay off the debt.....

Alright, let's cut spending by 1 trillion and tax everybody making over 250K at 100%...Now we are getting somewhere, let's see,....

Current Revenue              2.4 Trillion              

Take 100% of 250K       1.2 Trillion

                                       3.6 Trillion in total revenue

Revenue                           3.6 Trillion

New spending after cuts   2.5 Trillion

                                        1.1 Trillion SURPLUS.....well all right now we're getting rid of the nasty debt!  Now it would only take about 16 years.

Ughhh...wait a minute.....if we took all the money from people that make over 250K this year, they would lose their houses, their cars, their businesses (which would cause people that earn less than 250K to lose their jobs)....so where would we get the 1.2 trillion from next year??? 

So now we are back to never paying off the debt....

OK.....let's do what Obama and the liberals want to do, get rid of all the (so called) Bush tax cuts. 

That would increase the Revenue by about  96 Billion a year.  That means  the revenue would be about 2.496 Trillion, from 2.4 Trillion.  But we are still spending 3.5 Trillion.  This will never pay off the debt either.   

Well, let's also cut 1 trillion in spending....Uhmmm, that will never pay off the debt either......

Wait a minute, so implementing the Obama tax increase and cutting spending by 1 trillion won't pay off the debt either????

Well Obama says he will increase revenue from everybody with his programs.  Well he hasn't done it yet.  Now he did have about 200 Billion increase in revenue in the last year or so, but spending outpaced that increase in revenue.  So what make me think he can do it in the next  4 years.

Here is the problem.....IT'S A SPENDING PROBLEM. THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS WAY TO MUCH MONEY....

That's what got us in this mess, and there is no easy way out especially if we are using Obama and these progressive ideas.

Realistically,  I will never see the debt paid off....My Kids will never see the debt paid off...My grandkids will never see the debt paid off.....

To pay it off in 100 years, you will need the US government to take in about 1.6 Billion dollars more than it spends, every year for 100 years.  In the last 72 years we have only had a surplus 14 times.  And of those 14 years, only 10 of those were more than 1.6 Billion.  And current projections for the next  5 years are DEFICITS of around 650 Billion EACH year.

Why do we keep putting these progressives in office....I believe it is their intent to take America down, and they are succeeding.  (Did you notice that Americas Credit Rating was lowered for the 2nd time in history...BOTH while Obama was President)  And if Obama and others that are like-minded get reelected, America will be finished.  Because they want to keep doing the same things that they have been doing the last 4 years.

Below is a chart of the government spending vs revenue since the 50's.  Notice the last 3 years....

 

 

WAKE UP AMERICA!