True. There is a very serious problem with income-inequality and wage stagnation (including that of minimum wage).

Did you just agree with me!???

"HOLY TESTICLE TUESDAY!!!"
-Ace Ventura

:D

That was worth waiting for.. :D

The Dems are actually processing the realization that "working hard" ain't enough -- the decks are stacked. The Repubs are in total denial. They simply blame people for being on the wrong side of the deck.

I disagree that "working hard ain't enough"...

When someone complains that the "deck is stacked!!" what they are really saying is, "Life ain't fair! waaa waaaa pity me! Give me a hand out!!!"

The problem with the way things are is that the Democrat Party has made it way WAY to easy for people just to quit and let the State take care of them...

That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it...

Unless there are facts that prove me wrong, of course.. :D

Michale

Mea culpa. It should show up now.

LizM [28] -

Thank you for politely not putting that as "when Chris wakes up and realizes the filters are going gonzo again -- which sometimes takes a couple of days..."

:-)

-CW

True. There is a very serious problem with income-inequality and wage stagnation (including that of minimum wage). The Dems have not fully come to grip with these -- but they are beginning to. The Repubs, otoh, utterly, utterly refuse to acknowledge the existence of wage stagnation or income-inequality OR the reasons for them. The policies repubs offer will do nothing to resolve either. The policies Hillary and Bernie and other Dems offer will begin to address them.

In point of fact, what's happening in our economy requires fundamental changes in outlook, priorities and policies. Comfortable conventional wisdoms have to be jettisoned. New approaches have to be tried and evaluated. I posted an article link yesterday about how the Obama team has successfully reduced homelessness among Veterans in the last 7 years. They did that (they do not claim to have finished the job), in part, by deciding that the conventional wisdom of making someone prove they are responsible before giving them housing was ineffective. They gave the Vets housing and from that place of stability the Vets are able to deal with their other problems. Similarly it is ineffective to demand a large portion of your population work full-time but not be able to meet expenses. That puts people in boxes they do not have the power to get out of. Working people don't set the rates they have to pay to rent or purchase shelter, to have utilities, to have transportation and insurance, to get education. They have no control over those things. So to underpay people and expect them to somehow both manage to get by AND be happy about it AND not begin various forms of rebellion or collapse is both ineffective and verging on sadistic. But as long as people in power operate from the fallacy that "all you have to do is work hard" nothing useful will be done.

The Dems are actually processing the realization that "working hard" ain't enough -- the decks are stacked. The Repubs are in total denial. They simply blame people for being on the wrong side of the deck.

The only difference... the ONLY difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats pay LIP SERVICE to changing things..

They blatantly LIE and say, "Oh, we'll make things better!!!"

And in the last 7 years, the rich have gotten richer and the poor and middle class have gotten poorer..

I would think ya'all would learn your lesson, but noooooo... You still flock to Democrats even though they have scrooed ya'all over each and every time...

Doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result...

The very definition of insanity...

Michale

I actually read Carson's two books and they're decent. Ok, I'd never read them again. But they were slightly better than Ayn Rand. He tells a version of the American dream story where he's made it.

Unfortunately, Carson doesn't seem to get that we have less opportunity in America now than we ever have precisely because all the wealth is going to a few at the very top.

He also says some really peculiar things. Saturday Night Live picked up on this recently with a Young Ben Carson skit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA_5b1-Ax8I

-David

Apparently, the prediction markets are racist.. :D heh

Michale

By making EVERYTHING racism, when REAL cases of racism crop up, it makes it that much harder to be taken seriously..

Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by a "white hispanic". (Still cracks me up, that!! :D) The Left Wingery went batshit crazy, screaming RACISM!!!

There was no racism..

Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer. The Left Wingery went hysterical nuts and screamed RACISM!!! to the high heavens..

There was no racism...

You seeing the pattern???

If the Left Wingery screams RACISM about every little thing, every "micro-aggression" then people are going to tune out the accusation...

It's come to the point now where calling someone a racist is nearly the same as calling someone a dummy..

"YER A RACIST!!"
"heheh yea, that's funny.. Wanna go get a beer??"
"Sure... Sounds good"

That's what the Left Wingery has wrought...

Michale

The message from the Left was, and IS, perfectly clear..

If you don't support Obama, you are a racist... End of story..

Therefore, the ONLY logical conclusion is that, if one doesn't support Ben Carson, then they are a racist..

Of course, that makes me DOUBLE Racist cuz I don't support Obama OR Carson.. Lucky me.. :D

Michale

A New Phase in Anti-Obama Attacks
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/opinion/sunday/a-new-phase-in-anti-obama-attacks.html?_r=0

It's this exact kind of moronic behavior that I was talking about in my comment above..

If you don't toe Obama's line, if you don't agree with Obama on EVERYTHING, then you are a racist...

So, I just have to ask..

Does that mean if the Left Wingery doesn't toe Ben Carson's line, if the Left Wingery doesn't agree with Carson on EVERYTHING.....

Does that make the Left Wingery racist??

Based on the Left Wingery's definition of what constitutes "racism" it most certainly would...

Feel free to point out the flaw in my logic... :D Because I don't think there is any...

One would have to deny reality to create any flaws in the logic..

Michale

Michale

I am not talking about those types of comments and I honestly believe you know that..

I am talking about being accused of racism for opposing Obama's POLICIES.

Nor has anyone yet accused him of being, or consistently insist that Carson is, either a "socialist" or secretly a "Muslim" or not a "natural born" American, etc. even though there has never been any proof that any those things are factually true.

Accusations that have NOTHING to do with Obama's race... But the Left Wingery lumped that all in with racism..

If someone on the Right calls Obama a moron, the Left Wingery accused them of racism..

The fact that Obama *IS* a moron doesn't matter one whit to said hysterical Left Wingery..

Where is the irrationality in opposition to Carson like there has been in the irrationality in opposition to Obama and why? Could it be because just maybe Obama has a "D" after his name and not an "R" ???

What does that have to do with the faux-accusations of racism that permeated from the Left Wingery??

Michale

"Annoying, iddn't it?? To have logical and rational reasons for your comments and then have some moronic yahoo chalk it all up to racism!!

Welcome to the last 8 years of the lives of the MILLIONS of Americans who oppose Obama...."

Except Michale, I have yet to see anyone opposed to Carson being widely publicized using the term "monkey" etc. in reference to him, while in both blog comments, publications, and photographed signs at tea party rallies, etc. I have seen such terms and worse being used in reference to Obama and his family. Nor has anyone yet accused him of being, or consistently insist that Carson is, either a "socialist" or secretly a "Muslim" or not a "natural born" American, etc. even though there has never been any proof that any those things are factually true. Where is the irrationality in opposition to Carson like there has been in the irrationality in opposition to Obama and why? Could it be because just maybe Obama has a "D" after his name and not an "R" ???

In the Iowa poll, Carson has slipped to 19% behind Trump on 30% and Cruz on 21%. He is also at 19% in the South Carolina poll though holding second place there behind Trump's 35%. Those results are comparable with the four post-debate polls cited by CW.

However, in the New Hampshire poll, Carson's decline is much sharper: a mere 10% (level with Cruz) behind Rubio on 13% and Trump on 32%. Only time will tell if this result is indicative of a permanent downward trend for Carson.

But Obama can't DO that because Obama has decreed that "ASSAD MUST GO"...

So Obama's ego is on the line... And Obama's ego is the paramount consideration in ANY decision made...

What's REALLY funny, what's really got Obama's knickers in such a twist is that Assad will actually be in office when it's OBAMA who is forced out of office..

Ya just GOTZ ta love the irony... :D

Michale

Yea, but would you let your daughter work in the White House with Bill Clinton there??

Regardless, Hillary had 600 3am calls from Benghazi and she let the calls go to the machine.

She has proven, PROVEN beyond any doubt, that she is not capable of leading a country at war...

Michale

Annoying, iddn't it?? To have logical and rational reasons for your comments and then have some moronic yahoo chalk it all up to racism!!

Welcome to the last 8 years of the lives of the MILLIONS of Americans who oppose Obama....

Michale

Can we please not discuss the Trump or Carson foreign policy stances. It gives me a headache.

Heh.

Seriously, though ...

I just listened to Secretary Clinton's address at the Council on Foreign Relations and the very informative Q&A with Fareed Zakaria and council members. It was quite fascinating.

Clinton's speech at the CFR on national security and the Islamic State represents, as she indicated, an intensification of most of the elements of the current strategy to defeat ISIS but also, I think, a substantial change in emphasis and, frankly, more focused leadership.

It is a speech, however, that could have (and should have) been delivered in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Which makes me wonder about two things - why is this the first move to occur toward putting together a grand alliance and comprehensive political and military strategy in the more than 14 years since September 11th and why should we expect it to be successful today and over the long run?

One of the more salient points made by Clinton with regard to the situation in Syria is instructive. She said that the US and its coalition partners must prioritize enemies. The military focus must be on ISIS and NOT on the Assad regime. Only a political accommodation will solve the problem of a transition away from Assad which can only take form after ISIS has been soundly defeated. I completely agree.

Here is a link to Clinton's speech and transcript:
http://www.cfr.org/radicalization-and-extremism/hillary-clinton-national-security-islamic-state/p37266

But I hope Carson is fading because he really does seem to be an outright loon. He combines incuriosity with arrogance and allows his fantasy-life to bleed into real life. His most clear quality seems to be avarice -- he's found himself some niches that bring him dough and he works them skillfully. I think he's very clear-minded about that.

Does this mean that Trump's foreign policy prescriptions are more coherent?

I don't think so.

In fact, don't be surprised if it's Trump/Carson in 2016.

Especially if foreign policy dominates most of the rest of the campaign.

Huh?

Good God!

I can't imagine why.