On Peyton Manning Kissing Papa John After The Superbowl, Then Saying Several Times He Was Going To Drink A Lot of Budweiser

Peyton cheapened his personal brand for products during what was likely his last shining moment. That is, of course, only until his Hall of Fame induction ensues, and Peyton... whips out a Sham Wow to extoll its virtues as he shines his bust ~ What Peyton Manning Lost After Winning Super Bowl 50 by Stephen Rosa, 2/9/2016.

First of all, let me note that I did not learn of this by actually watching the Superbowl. I have zero interest in football, or any other televised sport. I can not imagine anything on TV more boring which some people consider "entertainment".

No, I skipped this event entirely, and am confounded that (according to what I've heard) the ratings/viewership set records. As for the Peyton/Pappa love affair, Peyton isn't the guy who cheated by deflating balls, nor is he the guy who went to prison for animal cruelty (and then was rehired by another football team). And I just recently saw a rerun of the time he appeared on SNL (and did a decent job).

My point is that he seems to be someone that people like. So I guess I couldn't say anything bad about him, except for his association with the Papa John jerk. I've seen the commercials and wondered why Manning would want to be associated with a company founded by such a dick. And, remember, Peyton isn't just shilling for Papa's crappy pizza (so I've heard), he also appears alongside Papa in these commercials.

...the political firestorm - when [Papa John] Schnatter warned that Obama's health care changes would raise pizza prices and could cost workers their jobs. Most famously, Comedy Central's Steven Colbert, responding to Schnatter's claim that the insurance law could add as much as 14 cents to the cost of a pizza, said: "That's three times the value of a Papa John's pizza". ...pundits and late-night comedians have mocked and vilified him for saying the health care overhaul might add 14 cents to the cost of each pizza - and that some franchisees might cut workers' hours to avoid paying insurance costs. ... Though conservatives cheered Schnatter for telling it like it is, Trout, the former consultant, said it was a horrible public-relations error. "Why upset half your market?" Trout asked. "Why would you even go there?" ... Unlike former Godfather's CEO and Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, Schnatter says he has no desire "right now" to run for office, though he adds, "You never want to say never". Schnatter is a registered Republican but says he grew up in a staunch Democratic Southern Indiana family.He said he supported Romney — he and his wife gave $120,800 to Romney and the Republican National Committee last year - because of his support for balancing the budget. (Papa John makes no apology for wealth, Obamacare remarks by The Louisville KY Courier-Journal. NYT 1/14/2013).

On the other hand the article says Papa John added that it was "good news [that] 100% of the population is going to get health insurance". Apparently he's "cool with that [because] "we've always wanted 100% of our employees on health care". Yeah, I don't quite buy that, given the fact that he originally said "we're not supportive of Obamacare".

If he REALLY wanted "100% of our employees on health care", he could have spoke about how good a deal the ACA is for him at 14 cents per pizza. At the very least he could have kept his mouth shut instead of fear mongering over 14 cents (and avoided the bad press). Sounds to me like he is/was against the ACA and - after the negative publicity over the remarks - backtracked. If he does get into politics (and hopefully he does not) we'll probably see his true (Republican) colors.

As for Manning, a link within the quoted story says "Peyton Manning to own 21 Papa John's locations". And the Denver Post reports that "Peyton Manning rolling in the dough with Papa John's profits".

Which explains the smooch. Republican love being based on money. Not that I know whether or not Manning is a Republican. I wouldn't be surprised if he was, however. As for the Budweiser plug, the Washington Post (The real story of Peyton Manning's weird love for Budweiser, Papa John's and Gatorade) notes that the quarterback (?) "owns a stake of two of the mega-brewer's distributors in his native state of Louisiana".

So, no, he wasn't paid by Bud for his endorsement, but he did benefit financially. Was this Manning's way of circumventing the fact that "the National Football League bans players from officially endorsing alcohol brands"? Can he not be paid for an endorsement or not endorse period? Is this something the NFL at least issue him a warning over?

The WP notes that "companies paid an average of $5 million for 30 seconds of super-saturated airtime during Super Bowl 50", yet with Manning's mention Bud got free airtime which some marketing firm says amounted to 3 million dollars in "in brand recognition value". Given the fact that I really don't give a crap about anything Superbowl related, I am not seriously outraged... but I do see this as another example of the rich getting richer. Because the wealthier one becomes the easier it is to make money (I'm going to drink beer = 3 million $).

And Mr. 47 percent Romney was a terrible candidate that exemplified the Right's contempt for the poor. That Papa John supported him (with a fundraiser at his mega mansion) is just another reason for me to not like the guy. Or Manning for his association with him.

Image: A gif of Peyton smooching his money honey Papa. btw, WHY was Papa allowed on the field?

SWTD #322

Free Cash Giveaway... You Could Win Ten Thousand USD...

When you're counting on a killing; Always count me in; Talk to me into losin' just as long as I can win. I want the easy; Easy money... I want the good times; Oh, I never had... I want the good life; I want it bad... You say I fool myself; But better me than someone else -- Lyrics from the Billy Joel tune "Easy Money" from the 8/8/1983 album An Innocent Man.

Does anyone read, or even glance at this blog anymore? Surely traffic, which was quite low to begin with, is down due to the fact that I have not posted anything new for 23 days? This blog has NOT been abandoned or closed -- for the record -- although writing for a blog that receives zero replies isn't that much fun.

So, how to generate some interest and, more importantly, replies? Run a contest in which some serious cash prizes are up for grabs! Ten Thousand US dollars will be awarded to the first reply received within one hour of this commentary being posted. You read that right - a cool 10K simply for replying to this commentary by letting me know you want to win - if you reply within one hour of this commentary being posted.

According to Blogger this post went up at 10:41am on 4/27/2014. Therefore, the first reply received before 11:42am will win Ten Thousand dollars! There are a few caveots, however. The comment MUST be posted by someone with a Blogger account, the account profile must be visible (no hidden profiles), and the profile must contain an email address. The comment must also also consist of at least 12 words strung together into a coherent sentence (or sentences)... and contain zero punctuation or spelling errors.

The first comment received within the hour wins the prize... it's that simple! All you have to do is meet the requirements as laid out in the paragraph above and I'll send you your prize money by Paypal to the email address of your choosing (after contacting you via the email address in your profile). After I contact you just let me know where you'd like me to send the money... I'll even cover the Paypal fee!

This is assuming, of course, that there is a reply that meets the deadline. It is possible, of course, that nobody will reply and that the Ten Thousand Dollar cash prize will go unclaimed. It might also be the case the multiple people reply within the hour. If that happens the second person to reply will receive a $5000 prize, the third person to reply will receive a $2500 prize and the forth person to reply will receive a $1250 prize.

But that isn't all... there are yet more prizes and more chances to win! If there are more than four replies within the hour EVERY SINGLE person replying after that wins $500! And, after the hour deadline has passed there are still opportunities to win! The first 10 replies that are submitted within 2 to 6 hours automatically win $500! The second 10 replies (assuming there are that many) win $250. And anyone who replies within that timeframe wins $100! Furthermore, anyone who replies within the first 12 hours wins $50 (up to 20 winners).

If 20 people reply within 6+ to 12 hours of me posting this commentary every single person posting after that wins $25 (up to 1000 winners). Anyone posting after that - for up to 24 hours after this commentary is posted - wins $10 (up to 10,000 winners). After that I have to cut off the cash prizes. I only have a finite amount of money to give away, and the cash I might be giving away here could (potentially) end up being an extremely high amount.

Entrants are limited to ONE prize per person, even if multiple blogger accounts are used. Given the fact that Paypal will tell me WHO I'm sending the money to when I enter your email address - I'll know you entered more than once if your name comes up again when I enter the email address the money is to be sent to. So, no cheating.

This is all assuming that anyone replies. Certainly this commentary could sit here for 24 hours and receive no replies at all. If that happens no cash (zero dollars) will be awarded. If that happens, however, you might still have a chance to win, because I plan on running the contest a second time!

The second contest will be run sometime before the end of 2014 (although I am NOT going to say when) regardless of whether or not anyone wins the first contest. Except that the next time there will only be two winners - the first two people who reply within the hour will receive $10,000 and $5,000 (respectively) cash prizes. Anyone who replies after that will win bupkis. I will also be adding one additional caveat to this second contest.

In addition to having a Blogger account with a visible profile that contains your email address, the winner must have submitted a comment (and had that comment published) to at least 50 percent of my blog posts proceeding the blog post announcing the second contest. The whole purpose of giving away the cash, after all, is to generate traffic and comments for this blog.

OK, so that about wraps it up in regards to the requirements for winning the cash, I believe. Good luck to everyone. Hopefully I'll be announcing some WINNERS this time tomorrow! That said, if there are no winners under the rules as laid out above I have decided to add a consolation prize.

In the event that there are no winners at all (which would mean that this commentary goes 24 hours without a single person submitting a reply), then ANY comment submitted after that qualifies to win the consolation prize! The consolation prize will be awarded to the best comment (in my opinion) explaining why they think there were no winners. The consolation prize is a "congratulations" from me.

IMPORTANT! There will be no money awarded AT ALL if nobody replies within 24 hours. The consolation prize of a "congratulations" will still be up for grabs however... for one week after the contest ends. Please note that I'm looking for the best comment regarding why YOU think there were no winners (if there are no winners). Although I previously said I'm looking for the "best" answer, I'm also looking for a right answer. If all I get are wrong answers (or no answers at all), then nobody will win the consolation prize.

Although that is assuming that the consolation prize is up for grabs -- which it only will be if no cash is awarded. Surely the result of this contest could be that YOU win TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS! And, even if you aren't the first person to reply, you've still got a shot at winning one of the lesser prizes... so enter early and enter often (Note: entering often will increase your chances of winning A prize. Each individual person is only eligible to win ONCE).

Also, remember that, regardless of whether or not any cash prizes are awarded this time out, a SECOND contest will be held sometime before the end of 2014 (most likely in November or December). So, even if you don't win this time, you could still win BIG by reading and replying to the blog posts written by the proprietor of this blog. Good luck to all. Winners will be announced in the comment thread here after all winners (if any) have been contacted by email and have received their CASH prizes.

Note: I reserve the right to cancel the second contest if there are less than 5 bloggers who qualify... which means there has to be at least five people who have commented on at least 50 percent of my posts. No sense in holding the contest if there is nobody (or very few people) who qualify. Also please note that there will be no notification if the contest is cancelled.

 swtd-247 

Regarding The Rationale On Why Higher Education Should Be Free

...higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class. Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going ~ Robert Reich, describing why taxing the rich is good for the economy as quoted in his 4/18/2012 article with the same title. Robert Reich (dob 1/27/1963) an American political economist, professor, author, and political commentator. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997.

I recently heard a rationale via Progressive Talker Thom Hartmann's radio program for getting rid of the for-profit higher education system we have in the US. This rational reminded me of a discussion that took place on the blog of a "Moderate" turned Libertarian from awhile back. And, after hearing Mr. Hartmann's rational, I must say that it looks like I was right, but not entirely for the reasons I thought I was.

The discussion and then the rationale from Mr. Hartmann as follows...

Dervish Sanders: I think college education (and beyond) should be free. It's an investment because people with higher levels of education get higher paying jobs and pay more in taxes over their lifetimes. (7/3/2011 AT 4:48pm). Libertarian Blogger: Oh, free college education now! Do you have ANY idea how expensive that would be? And do you even care? We'll pay for it by taxing the rich, right? (7/3/2011 AT 9:00pm).

Thom Hartmann: In my new book, The Crash of 2016, I point out that one of a number a possible triggers for the next major stock market crash is a widespread default on student loan debt. That's a time bomb, but, what's really interesting is that it would cost the federal government about 125 billion dollars a year to provide everyone in the country with basically a free college education. We spend about 121 billion dollars a year administering, overseeing, checking for fraud and subsidizing our loan program. I think we should have a jubilee... forgive all student debt and then start providing people with free college education, it's our intellectual infrastructure. (The Thom Hartmann Program, 8/23/2013, 27:47-28:43 of the first hour of the THP podcast).

When I made my comment on Mr. LB's blog I was making the same argument as former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich (as quoted at the top of my post)... and that was without knowing how much it would cost. And Mr. LB is right when he asked "do you even care". I did not because I know that such investments return more than what they cost (as I pointed out). But why the hell are we spending only slightly less (4 billion, according to Mr. Hartmann) so banksters can make money? This is more corporate welfare that we don't need. Also, clearly Mr. LB didn't care (or know) how much the cost would be, or how paying to send qualified individuals to college is an investment (and that is how we should look at it).

Yes, more people would likely go to college if it were free (and all you needed to do was qualify), so the amount would likely rise from 125 billion... but, again, it is an INVESTMENT. And, this criticism is from an individual who constantly criticizes and insults American workers who have "chimpanzee jobs" (he wants to offshore them) and says "we have a shortage of skilled workers", but then slams the idea of "we the people" via our government making an investment to solve the problem!

Sounds to me like this dude simply hates the government and irrationally places his faith in the "free market" to solve our problems... but the only problem the "free market" has any interest in solving is accruing more profit to itself. That is the only goal of the plutocrats, what's best for the nation be damned. IMO, either the people who subscribe to this nonsense (the free market as a solution to all our problems) are either fools who allow their idolizing of the wealthy to blind them to reality (such a fool can be recognized by the things they say such as "I love billionaires"), or have some financial incentive to spread their "free market" lies (they work for a billionaire funded institution).

Proof of this irrational hatred is a ridiculous insistence that no matter what the government attempts to do, it gets the exact opposite result. For example, if it attempts to tackle the poverty problem (LBJ and the Great Society), it makes poverty worse... and if it invests in our intellectual infrastructure... wanna guess what happens?...

Libertarian Blogger: I would also submit that a huge reason for the skyrocketing costs of higher education is the fact that the government continuously subsidizes it. (11/14/2013 AT 9:16pm).

In explaining his BS statement Mr. LB says "when you subsidize something, you increase demand. When you increase demand, you increase the price"... and then makes his case by informing his readers that "nearly 40% of the kids who take these subsidies never even graduate". Obviously (in his mind) these 40 percent never should have attempted college to begin with.

While it may be the case that some of these students who dropped out shouldn't have gone that route, but the way to weed out these people should not be to take away government subsidized government loans. Mr. LB thinks it's just the poorer kids who start college but don't finish it? Clearly he believes the only reason anyone would quit is because they never should have gone to college to begin with (they realized they weren't cut out for college, I guess). But neither of these suppositions are necessarily true.

Notice how all the assumptions that Mr. LB makes lead to one conclusion? That conclusion being that who goes to college should be based on ability to pay. He also approves of this kind of discrimination in the health care insurance arena, insisting that Single-Payer would result in rationing. But we have rationing NOW. Again, based on ability to pay. Me, I think the problem of people starting college and not finishing is likely more often than not money related (the student can't afford to continue). But, for those who drop out because they decide they can't hack it... perhaps we can blame the admissions officers who took their money instead of counseling them to consider (for example) trade school?

Whatever the case may be I agree with Mr. Hartmann, in that paying for the college or trade school education of qualified individuals is an investment in our intellectual infrastructure. Higher learning isn't a commodity we should be looking to keep the price down on by deciding who should be able to attend based on ability to pay (or ability to get some kind of scholarship, of which there are only so many to go around). There are other ways to lower the cost of a college or trade school degree.

Higher education should be free because, in the end the taxpayer would come out ahead... those who attend and graduate end up making more over their lifetimes and therefore pay more in taxes. We make our money back, in other words. Not only due to the higher educated person paying more in taxes, but also because people with higher incomes have more money to spend into the economy, thereby stimulating economic growth that benefits everyone.

Video Description: Obama unveils plan to lower college costs, 8/22/2013 (2:08).

SWTD #219, wDel #42.

Finance Pundits Shill For Wall Steet Bankster Plutocrats Re JPM Settlement

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt (1/30/1882 to 4/12/1945) 32nd President of the United States (1933–1945), served for 12 years and four terms until his death in 1945, the only president ever to do so.

No prosecution of the Banksters that brought down our economy (under the bush administration) by the Obama Administration is one of the main criticisms that Liberals such as myself have regarding the current president (that, plus their abuse of the 4th amendment and the drone attacks that are creating more terrorists than they kill)... now, recently a settlement against JP Morgan Chase for 13 billion dollars was reached by the Justice Department for JPM's role in the crisis that brought our country to the brink.

The Justice Department says that JP Morgan Chase knowingly mislead investors by selling them securities that were backed by very risky mortgages, and JPM agreed to pay 13 billion in fines and compensation, even though most of these mortgages were acquired when JPM purchased Bear Stearns and WaMu (purchases coordinated by our government)... in order to save them and prevent a complete collapse of the banking system. Given that they were "helping us out", some Conservative pundits are now complaining about a "shake down" and alleging that JPM is being "robbed at gunpoint".

However, as pointed out by Jon Stewart on the 10/23/2013 airing of The Daily Show, that is the way things work in our system... if one company is purchased by another company the purchasing company assumes responsibility for any malfeasance that the company they are purchasing may have committed. In fact, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM) told investors that "any liability related to the assets themselves will come with us" and then he set aside 28 billion dollars for "litigation expenses".

So, what explains the Daily Show clips of various Conservative pundits mischaracterizing the settlement as follows? ... host of CNBC's The Kudlow Report Larry Kudlow called it a "shakedown" and an "arbitrary and political hosing", Andrew Napolitano of Fox Nooz said it is a "sophisticated shakedown", Fox Business Network "senior correspondent" Charlie Gasparino claimed "the Obama administration is at war with American business", "Money Honey" Maria Bartiromo characterized the settlement as a "witch hunt"; and CNBC Mad Money host Jim Cramer speculated that "the Justice Department feels like it needs some scalps" and that "this was a jihad against JP Morgan Chase".

These pundits know better. They know the truth (that JPM is economically responsible for the malfeasance of the companies they purchased) but they LIE. This is proven with another clip Jon Stewart plays of the Mad Money's Jim Cramer describing the JPM deal to buy Bear Stearn and WaMu back when it occurred...

Jim Cramer: There is no word in the English language that captures the ruthless brilliance of Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, accomplished this weekend. Dimon masterminded a deal that is amazing for JP Morgan. It makes me want to say... BUY, BUY, BUY! Dimon totally outfoxed the FED. [snip] There is no denying it was a steal. I'd even call it theft in the best sense of the word, or maybe a shakedown, if the legal department would let me. It's practically criminal, and I mean that as a positive. (3/18/2008 broadcast of CNBC's Mad Money hosted by Jim Cramer).

Are these people nothing but shills for the plutocrats, or what? And, as Mr. Stewart points out, a portion of the settlement is tax deductible. 13 billion may seem like a lot of money, but it should be a hell of a lot more (even Dimon thought so), and some of these fraudsters should be going to jail (but absolutely nobody is)! The Obama Administration hasn't collected any scalps, and for that I say shame on them (although I'm sure a McCain or Romney administration would have done the same or less). What this proves is that when you're rich and powerful the law treats you a lot different than it would an ordinary schmo.

Also, that Jim Cramer is an idiot. Remember, that this is the guy who said Bear Stearns was "a solid stock a few days before the investment bank closed its door" and advised his viewers (if they were investors) that they should not move their money from Bear because that would be "silly". But the fact is "the collapse and takeover of Bear Stearns wiped out billions of dollars in shareholder value in a matter of days [and that] large mutual funds... saw the value of their Bear Stearns holdings plummet" (source: NPR).

See Also: Jon Stewart to financial TV reporters: f*ck all y'all by BruinKid, Daily Kos 10/24/2013.

SWTD #215

Laffering At Historically Inaccurate Suggestion That Raising Taxes Caused The Great Depression

Art Laffer's claim that low state tax rates are the key to economic growth. What should you think about that claim? That's easy: it's junk economics ~ Paul Krugman (dob 2/28/1953) an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.

What caused the Great Depression? Recently I read an historically inaccurate assertion that it was a tax increase under President Hoover that is to blame; argument as follows...

Libertarian Blogger: The Keynes Curve? ...taxation may be so high as to defeat it's object, and that, given the sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget [Quote from] John Maynard Keynes. Gee, I wonder if he said this before or after Hoover raised taxes 152% and plunged a recovering U.S. economy into a depression. (10/12/2013 AT 9:41am).

Uh, no. The Libertarian blogger I quote above is referring to something that didn't happen. The tax increase under Hoover happened (although I'm not sure where this 152% comes from), but this increase was NOT what caused the Great Depression. The Great Depression was caused by a previous lowering of taxes. Apparently Mr. LB has never heard of the roaring twenties? That was the bubble created by taxes that were too low. It was the bursting of that bubble that caused the great depression, NOT any tax raising by Hoover, as pointed out by the nation's top Progressive Talker...

Thom Hartmann: ...the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from 73 to 25 percent) led directly to the Roaring Twenties' real estate and stock market bubbles, a temporary boom, and then the crash and Republican Great Depression that started in 1929. (Excerpt from the book Rebooting the American Dream, pub. 2011).

According to Mr. Hartmann the way to prevent bubbles and busts is to keep the top marginal tax rate at 50 percent or higher. History shows us that when Republican administrations (or Dems acting like Republicans) come in with an agenda of cutting taxes, those tax cuts invariably lead to bubbles, like when the bush administration rammed through a tax cut that favored the wealthy via reconciliation in 2003. Regarding that tax cut, Harlan Green of Popular Economics says...

Harlan Green: The Bush tax cuts are the most current example; in fact they helped to cause the Great Recession. For much of the excess profits were spent on market speculation - especially in subprime loans and payday lending to the poorest among us - that caused the housing bubble. (Article: What Happened to the Bush Tax Cuts? Huff Post Business, 06/04/2012).

(Note: Harlan Green has a degree in Economics from UC Berkeley and is the editor and publisher of PopularEconomics.com).

As for Mr. LB's quote from Keynes and his suggestion that he would agree with the Laffer Curve... [1] I'm sure there would be a disagreement between the two regarding what constituted how high taxes would have to be to qualify as "so high", and [2] Laffer and Keynes were both wrong. The Laffer Curve has been debunked.

The Middle Class Economist says "Laffer got it exactly backward, with tax revenue initially falling as tax rates increase, then rising after a further increase in rates". The quoted blog post further notes that Sweden in the 1970s had a top marginal rate of over 100 percent, and their tax revenues went up, not down.

The lesson to be learned from this is that it is tax cuts that lead to bubbles that causes recessions, NOT tax increases. In fact it is a marginal tax rate over 50 percent that stabilizes the economy and prevents bubbles and busts from occurring (or causes them to be less severe if they do occur). That there are some who still argue otherwise makes it clear that no matter how many times we bubble and bust we may never learn. Why? Because the wealthy and their stooges will continually argue the exact opposite of the truth.

The reason being that the wealthy always make out like bandits while the rest of us suffer. A 9/11/2013 LA Times article notes...

Connie Stewart of the LA Times: The Great Recession hit the top 1% harder than other income groups, but the wealthy recovered quicker too. From 2009 to 2012, as the U.S. economy improved, incomes of the top 1% grew more than 31%, while the incomes of the 99% grew 0.4% - less than half a percentage point. (9/11/2013).

Time to adopt the budget of the Progressive caucus that eliminates the deficit and Raises a $31 billion surplus in ten years. Enough of this failed trickle down economic BS (of which the Laffer Curve nonsense is a component).

SWTD #210, wDel #37.

The Truth About the Minimum Wage

There are people who would like to get rid of minimum wage. But we have to have it, because if we didn't some people would not get paid money. They would work all week for two loaves of bread and some Spam ~ Chris Rock (dob 2/7/1965) an American comedian, actor, screenwriter, television producer, film producer, and director.

The following from a self described "Moderate" regarding President Obama's call for an increase in the minimum wage...

Willis Hart: The minimum wage hurts low-skilled workers and freezes them out of entry level opportunities. A young kid (and that's who generally make minimum wage; youngsters, retired folks, second-wager earners - and even they're only 3-5% of the work force - virtually ZERO bread-winners make the minimum wage and you really have to wonder about the wisdom of a person making minimum wage having kids) who I might be willing to give a chance at $5 an hour but not at $9 an hour (the idiotic suggestion by Obama) - that's the person who ends up getting hurt by the meddling of government. (2/18/2013 AT 2:55pm).

In response I say "baloney". Everything Mr. Hart asserts is completely false. They're Conservative talking points (from a "Moderate") designed to justify the payment of substandard wages (so the wealthy can put that money in their pocket). In my opinion this wage slavery is a form of theft - the most pervasive one that exists in the world.

What follows is an excerpt from the 2/16/2013 broadcast of MSNBC's Up With Chris Hayes, which supports my position (edited for brevity and clarity)...

Chris Hayes: One of the biggest surprises in President Obama's State of the Union address this week was his call for an increase in the federal minimum wage, up to $9 an hour from it's current level of $7.25. The president also called for indexing the minimum wage to inflation to ensure it rises in line with the cost of living.

[Video Excerpt] President Obama, from his SOTU address: 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 an hour (Democrats applaud. Biden stands and applauds while Boner remains seated).

*Edit* (to cut down on the long applause, I presume). This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank. Rent or eviction. Scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. [End Obama SOTU excerpt]

Chris Hayes: Republicans and business groups immediately began lining up against increasing the minimum wage. Here's House Speaker John Boehner the next day...

[Video Excerpt] John Boner, lying about the minimum wage: When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it. ...what happens when you take away the first couple of rungs on the economic ladder? You make it harder for people to get on the ladder. [End video clip of Boner lying so wealthy employers can continue stealing from workers]

Chris Hayes: John Boehner was channeling what conventional wisdom and economics 101 textbooks have told us for decades - that increasing the cost of employment causes reductions in employment. But, as it turns out that isn't the case. There's a growing body of strong empirical evidence suggesting that increases in the minimum wage - within a certain range - have no negative effect on employment. In fact, minimum wage increases may actually boost worker efficiency and add new demand to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of low wage workers.

The common GOP trope about those low wage workers is that many of them are teenagers, part-time, or summer jobs. But, in fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute are over 20 years old. Nearly half of those who would benefit from a minimum wage increase are full time workers, and over 54 percent have a combined family income of less than 40 thousand dollars a year.

Joining me now [is] Arindrajit Dube, assistant professor of economics, UMASS Amherst, who has done seminal research on the employment effects of minimum wage increases [and] Lew Prince, owner of Vintage Vinyl, a small business in St. Louis. He met with President Obama at the White House in November as part of a group of small business owners.

Great to have you here. ... if the government mandated that businesses sell a loaf of bread for $5, what we would see is less bread being sold. Because it was more expensive households would consume less of it. This [theory] was applied many years to the minimum wage... then empirical work started being done... Arin, can you walk us through what the research says about what the effect of the minimum wage is?

Arindrajit Dube: Starting in the early 90s, we started seeing a lot of variation [in the minimum wage] across states because the federal minimum wage was stagnant for so long... [this allowed researchers] to study the effects of the [differing] minimum wages. ...starting in the early 90s a set of studies looked at these variations and asked what happens when the minimum wage rises?

The famous one, of course, is by David Card and Alan Krueger [the 1992 study showed "that raising the minimum wage did not necessarily cost jobs"].

Chris Hayes: [Your research] where you have this massive database, 16 years of data... you correlate that - controlling for other factors - with employment, and you find?

Arindrajit Dube: No evidence of job loss in minimum wage jobs in the last 20 years. Whereas there is no reduction in jobs, we find, actually, a strong reduction in turnover.

Chris Hayes: Lew, does that jibe with your experience as a small business owner?

Lew Prince: Absolutely. One of the reason that I never paid a minimum wage is because it is very expensive to find and train good people. By paying more I can retain them. I can demand more of them, and it turns out they demand more of themselves.

Chris Hayes: This is known in economics as the efficiency wage. If you pay a wage above the market-clearing rate, you can actually induce more productivity. You can induce better work in the workers.

My Commentary: You can induce better work from workers by paying them a higher wage than the bare-minimum because people like it when their work is appreciated. Workers who know their work is appreciated will try harder for their employers. This is contrary to what Conservatives believe, which is a wage is only "fair" if it is as low a wage as the employer can possibly pay. That low wage is what the "market" determines... or so says the Conservative. They CLAIM that if the wage is to low that workers will go elsewhere.

What the Conservative IGNORES is the fact that the norm is for there to be an oversupply of workers relative to jobs. So, what happens when the supply of something is in excess of what is needed? The price is driven down! A lot of people looking for work doesn't make the value of their work less! It just makes it easier for employers to screw workers by offering substandard wages.

It's a take it or starve situation. Some people WOULD work for bread and Spam, which is fine by Conservatives (as it means the wealthy business owners can put more money in their pockets), and ensures them (they think) lower-priced goods and services (they always wildly exaggerate how much prices would go up with a higher minimum wage).

SWTD #122, wDel #14.

Republican Rigging Benefits Wealthy, Hurts Everyone Else

The fact that Romney may be viewed as wealthy doesn't necessarily pose problems for his candidacy. The challenge for Romney lies more in the fact that large majorities say if he is elected president, his policies would likely benefit the wealthy ~ Kim Parker, associate director of Pew Social & Demographic Trends. (Quote excerpted from the article, "Americans Say Rich Are Greedy, Dishonest, Don't Pay Enough In Taxes: Pew Report" by Hope Yen of the AP, 8/27/2012).

The following is an excerpt from the 9/2/2012 broadcast of MSNBC's Weekends With Alex Witt, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Host Alex Witt and guest Carmen Wong Ulrich discuss a new Pew poll that finds 75 percent of Americans believe the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Alex Witt: Now a new study that paints a fascinating picture of what Americans really think about rich people. Carmen Wong Ulrich is a personal finance expert and the president of Alta Wealth Management, so she's making people rich with that company.

As we get to this survey, it's from the Pew Research Center, it says people see those who are wealthy as more intelligent, more hard working, yet also greedy and less honest. Where does this come from?

Carmen: Well, here's the thing. If you break it along party lines... Democrats are much more likely to say that people who are rich are basically more greedy and less honest. Republicans are more likely to say they're intelligent and hard working. So it really cuts across party lines.

But a third to 50 percent of Americans said it doesn't matter if you're wealthy. That doesn't make you more intelligent or less likely to be honest. It doesn't matter at all. So it's a big number that said it doesn't matter.

Alex Witt: OK, let's get to taxes. This one shows, that when it comes to paying them, 58 percent said [the] rich pay too little, 26 percent said they pay their fair share, and just 8 percent say they pay too much. Anything here surprise you?

Carmen: No... Again, this split along party lines. 78 percent of Democrats say the wealthy do not pay enough in taxes. Only 33 percent of Republicans said the same thing.

Alex Witt: On the campaign trail wealth is certainly one of the big issues. What's the takeaway from what the study tells us... do you think this tells us more about how people view the rich...

Carmen: What it really showed is there is a belief that there is a huge income gap between the wealthy and the poor. 65 percent of Americans say that gap exists. The study asked, "do you believe the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"? Over 75 percent of Americans agreed. If you're a Democrat it's 92 percent, while if you're a Republican it's still over 50 percent. So, no matter what party they're in, people are saying America is changing and the rich are getting richer.

My Commentary: "Perception is reality", is one of the lines (I didn't quote) that Carmen used in commenting on this poll. I don't know if that means she does not believe the rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, but I believe it is true. I know it isn't only a "perception", but that the facts show this is the case. I also agree with the people who responded to the poll who said the wealthy aren't necessarily more intelligent (50 percent) or harder working (34 percent).

But, if the wealthy aren't necessarily more intelligent or harder working then why are they getting richer while the rest of us are getting poorer? Certainly, being wealthy is a huge advantage, as making money after you already have money is a lot easier, but I strongly believe the reason is (in huge part) because our economic system is rigged to favor the wealthy.

This is an assertion that I have been ridiculed for on a Conservative blog I used to comment on. One commenter even claimed that this assertion was one of the reasons I was viewed as a "laughingstock" by the other people who frequent that blog. According to these people, those who complain of a rigged system (like the Occupy Movement) are simply jealous, lazy and greedy individuals who are looking for government handouts.

However, as Liberal talk show radio host Thom Hartmann correctly points out (in a 10/26/2006 article), "what's normal in a free and unfettered economy is the rapid evolution of a small but fabulously wealthy ownership class, and a large but poor working class". Historical evidence shows us that (under normal conditions[1]) only governmental economic and social policy can sustain a large and growing middle class.

Pew also found that "63 percent of Americans say the GOP favors the rich over the middle class and poor"[2]. I think the results of this poll make it clear that most people realize governmental policy supports the middle class, and that the reason it is currently in decline is due to a rigging of our economic system by the GOP. Here's hoping that translates into a win for Barack Obama in November.

Footnotes
[1] The other method by which a middle class can arise is by, "a sudden change in the relationship between population and resources. After the Black Death wiped out more than a third of the population in 14th century Europe, the increased demand for labor drove up the price of labor to the point when a middle class emerged in some places. Many historians identify this as one of the factors that brought about the Renaissance". (Excerpt from the 10/26/2006 Thom Hartmann article, "There's Nothing Normal About A Middle Class").
[2] From the AP article, "Americans Say Rich Are Greedy, Dishonest, Don't Pay Enough In Taxes: Pew Report" by Hope Yen, 8/27/2012.

SWTD #119