Fiscal responsibility versus knee-jerk "climate warming" policies --- that should be the debate.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said on Thursday that anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change should not head the EPA.   And, so,  the Dems have another complaint versus Trump.  

Understand that the Globalist Progressive Party has already admitted partial defeat when they changed the name of the environmental menace previously known as "global warming" to the more non-descript "climate change."  I mean,  who can argue against climate change?  Except for the fact that,  with their change,  "climate change" is now code for . . . . 

Wednesday's Theme (Economic news): Affects of the minimum wage projections on the middle class: it DECREASES wages for the vast majority of all (more than the poor)

Editor's notes:  According to the CBO conclusions (below),  will see the 10.10 minimum wage increase and benefit 1.3 million folks currently earning minimum wage incomes (3% x 45 million).  At the same time,  another half million will be harmed,  dropped from current job projections,  according to the CBO.  

Of the total 19 billion dollars in additional income (2 + 5 + 12 = 19 billion - see below), 2 billion will come from the wage increases and 17 billion will be taken from those making 72,000 and more, proving, of course,  my claim that Obama has targeted the working middle class in his rush to income/wealth redistribution and not [just] the One Percenters [if at all].  

From the CBO  (all parties listed below are middle class.  at the top,  you have those who earn $72,000 a years BEFORE THEIR 40% OVERALL TAX BURDEN,  and $12,000 per year (individual "poverty" level.  No one in the middle class are "rich,"  but most are treated as rich,  if their income actually more than $50,000 per year* ~ blog editor).  

Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.

Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law).

Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $12 billion in additional real income. 

About $2 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.

Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

______________________

*  My "$50,000" number comes from the fact that those individuals earning $50,000 or more per year,  are not eligible for any ObamaCare subsidies  -  meaning,  of course,  that they have been targeted by this Administration for wealth redistribution.  

The case for the forced redistribution of wealth is made in this video. Still think Obama is not a socialist? He reasoning is the very foundation for post-modern socialism

Understand that,  at the center of socialism,  is the altruism  expressed by Hussein Obama in this video statement.  Obama believes that society owes itself the wealth accumulated by its more prosperous and creative members.  His reasoning is flawed in that it takes the generic truth,  “no man is a island,”  and uses it to increase welfare roles (wealth) to individuals who did not personally participate in the ways described in Obama’s remarks.  “Society helped”  rather than  “this, this and that individual(s) helped accumulate the wealth in question.”  The fact is this:  those specific individuals who aided in the accumulation of [specific] riches,  were all reimbursed (i.e. “paid”) for their efforts,  whether,  the teacher who taught the entrepreneur,  the crew who built the highways he used to transport his goods,  the employees who were hired AND PAID for their efforts and,  on and on.   

From the Washington Times 

President Barack Obama addressed supporters in Roanoke, Virginia on Saturday afternoon and took a shot at the business community. President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

     If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

     The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

            

Obama at the chalk board at Columbia,  demonstrating the self-centered
motivations of the corporate/capitalist world.  "Relationships built on
self interest(s)"  is the subject being outlined.  Such adds to my claim that
Obama is a committed socialist and has been for years.

So far, its the Socialist DemWits 3, the American People 14 with the second quarter soon to begin.

How to Keep Your Seat 101: Don't mention that you're a Democrat — With voters in an anti-incumbent mood and a national headwind against their party, some freshman Democrats are touting themselves as unaffiliated outsiders — and it may help them win reelection. . . .

Editor's notes: few political pundits appreciate the political victory achieved over the past 21 months. Who won? Conservative, pro-American Constitutionalists. When did the battle take place? Well, it is not over but the battle began, in earnest, with the inauguration of Mr. Obama. And, the odds for victory could not have been more one sided, in the favor of Obama.

We are fully aware of the successes of this Marxist/African Socialist administration. The so-called "Stimulus," was the first order of business for Obama; Payback for his unions and the beginnings of his redistributive agenda. During the election season, the major unions in the Northeast gave Obama 5 states in the election and hundreds of millions of dollars. Even Wall Street was in the mix, donating 20 million to the Dems during the same period they gave 13 million dollars to the GOP.

Then there was ObamaCare. Another success for Novice - one that would prove fatal to his remaining agenda. The battle for health care would take a full year to culminate. It sucked the life-spirit out of the soul of the Marxist regime and, may be the single most damaging influence in the midterms for the Democrat/Socialist Party. 60% of the voting population continues to oppose the bill as written and no Democrat running in a conservative district is touting the bill's passage.

In August, the Dems passed a financial reform bill (often called "FinReg") that put corporations under the control of the Feds to a degree never seen before.

With all this in mind, you might ask, how is it that we make the claim for victory?

Here is our answer:

Until Scott Brown's swearing in on Feb 4 of 2010, the Dems had super-majorities in both houses of Congress. That meant, of course, that the GOP could have literally "stayed home" and nothing would have changed in terms of a power display on Capitol Hill, also known as capital Hill. For a full year, the Republicans were absolutely powerless to stop anything the Dems thought to do -- if united in the effort. Then came "reality."

A list of failures that lends itself to the moniker -- DemWits,

They, the Dems, could have passed immigration reform that gave amnesty to 13 million illegals, but they didn't.

They, the Dems, could have passed reform to Don't Ask, Don't Tell - a Clinton rule, but they didn't.

They, the Dems, could have begun the ratification process for a nuclear free treaty with Russian, but they didn't.

They, the Dems, could have passed the very controversial "Cap and Trade" legislation, a redistributive strategy for the transfer of American wealth to the third world nations, but they didn't.

They, the Dems, could have closed GITMO, as promised hundreds of times during the '08 campaign, but they didn't.

They, the Dems, could have passed "card check," allowing unions to take over industry without a secret ballot vote, but they didn't.

They, the Dems, could have put KSM (the master mind of 9/11) on civil trial, using the trial to embarrass and condemn the Bush administration, but they didn't.

They, the Dems, could have passed "net neutrality," the first step in the dismantling of conservative talk radio, but they didn't.

They, the Dems, could have saved ACRON and officially partnered with SEIU in an effort to convert the nation to the color "purple," the official color of the Marxist lead Service Employees International Union - as Obama promisesd that union, but they didn't.

They, the Dems, could have gotten out of Iraq by the end of 2010 as promised during the '08 campaign, but they didn't.

They, the Dems, could have gotten rid of Washington's strong lobbyist coalition as promised hundreds of times in the '08 campaign, but they didn't.

They, the Dems, could have gotten rid of earmarks in the legislative process as Obama promised over and over, but they didn't.

The, the Dems, could have gone through the budget, line by line as promised, in an effort to reduce spending, but they didn't. . . heck, they didn't even write a budget for this fiscal year !!!

They, the Dems, could have institutionalized legislative transparency, giving "the people" a voice in the congressional process, but they didn't.

Understand that the Democrat/Obama strategy was to have the Stimulus, Health care reform and Cap and Trade in place by the middle of July, 2009 !! They knew the nation would be angry, but if their plan had worked, these three legislative efforts would have been nearly "forgotten" by the midterm elections, a year and three months down the road. Instead, the wheels came off Cap and Trade with only the House voting on and passing this legislation; the health care reform bill was not signed into law until March 20 -- nine months past its due date. And, none of the 14 issues listed above made it into law.

How does a Party with a super-majority in both houses and "their" president in power, not accomplish all of the above ?

Pressure from "the people" of this great nation !! Over the past 21 months, we witnessed the defeat of a political dynasty by a people with no formal representation. The GOP had been neutered in the presidential election as this nation faced the end of free market principles and Constitutional rule.

No nation on earth could have won a victory for its founding principles as did the American people over the course of the 21 month Democrat legislative campaign from hell.

The battle is not over until these people go else where to live .