TEA PARTIER MAKES SHOCKING OBAMACARE COMPARISON
Bill O'Brien Compares Obamacare To Fugitive Slave Act
The Huffington Post | Ashley Alman | 08/01/2013
DURING AN AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY RALLY ON THURSDAY, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE REP. BILL O'BRIEN (R) COMPARED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TO THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.
"And what is Obamacare?" O'Brien, formerly the state's House Speaker, asked. "It is a law as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 that allowed slave owners to come to New Hampshire and seize African Americans and use the federal courts to take them back to federal… to slave states."
The tea party-backed O'Brien, who is currently exploring a run for Congress, made the remarks at a statue of John Parker Hale, one of the first U.S. senators to take a stand against slavery in the 1800s.
O'Brien continued: "Barack Obama and our allies fooled us long enough to pass a law that is clearly among the worst ever enacted by Congress."
"BILL O'BRIEN'S PAINFUL AND GROSS COMPARISON IS JUST THE LATEST IN A LONG LINE OF MISLEADING ATTACKS AND RHETORIC PROMOTED BY THE SAME SPECIAL INTERESTS WHO OPPOSED HEALTH REFORM IN THE FIRST PLACE," said Zandra Rice Hawkins, executive director to Granite State Progress said in a statement.
HAWKINS SAID THAT AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY AND ITS SUPPORTERS ARE ACTIVELY WORKING TO MAKE HEALTH COVERAGE EXPANSION "AS SCARY AND BURDENSOME AS POSSIBLE."
O'Brien's appearance at the event was part of an ongoing, Koch brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity campaign targeting President Barack Obama's signature health care law. THE ADVOCACY GROUP RECENTLY SPONSORED AN ADVERTISEMENT THAT ASKED MISLEADING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE HEALTH CARE LAW.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
SENATE POISED FOR TALKATHON OVER OBAMA NOMINEES
AP | By ALAN FRAM and LAURIE KELLMAN | 12/11/2013 7:48 pm EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — The SENATE IS POISED FOR AN ALL-NIGHT TALKATHON OVER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S NOMINEES, AS EMBITTERED AND OUTNUMBERED REPUBLICANS PAID BACK MAJORITY DEMOCRATS FOR LIMITING THE GOP'S POWER IN THE CHAMBER.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was holding the Senate in session through the night Wednesday to deal with the nominations. Reid said that unless Republicans give up debate time, the Senate will be in session continuously into Saturday.
There was no immediate sign the GOP would relent after Democrats limited their ability to filibuster Obama's nominees.
Up first is an overnight vote on whether to confirm Cornelia "Nina" Pillard to the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
RUSH LIMBAUGH'S LATEST ATTACK ON WOMEN IS ESPECIALLY GROSS
Posted: 12/09/2013 | Media Matters
Rush Limbaugh dismissed a study about the objectification of women by suggesting on his show Monday that women's breasts should stop looking at him.
Limbaugh sounded off on a Daily Caller piece entitled "Liberals want to stop men from checking out women," which cites a study in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research on how men objectify women with their eyes.
Limbaugh was simply aghast. "[Liberals] just despise basic human nature," the host said.
He had a suggestion for men the next time they check out a woman: "You walk up to the woman and say, 'Will you please ask your breasts to stop staring at my eyes?'"
Classy as always, Rush!
LIMBAUGH ALSO RECENTLY REFERRED TO HIS SEXIST COMMENTS ABOUT GEORGETOWN LAW STUDENT SANDRA FLUKE AS A "MANUFACTURED CONTROVERSY," AND USED A RAPE ANALOGY TO CRITICIZE FILIBUSTER REFORM IN THE SENATE.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
THE BANKRUPTCY AND PRIVATIZATION OF DETROIT IS A TERRIFYING PREVIEW OF WHAT REPUBLICANS WANT TO DO TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY
December 8, 2013 | AlterNet  / By Thom Hartmann
Mitt Romney should be proud of what’s happening in Detroit.
That’s because during his time at Bain Capital, he perfected the type of glorified extortion tactics Rick Snyder and Kevin Orr are using right now rob city workers of their hard-earned pension plans.
When Mitt was running Bain during the 1980s and 1990s, the company made its money by forcing companies into debt and then robbing them blind for every last bit of cash they had.
Bain would take out a loan for, say, a billion dollars. It would then use that billion dollar loan - its leverage - to buy a company. But instead of paying back that billion dollar loan itself, Bain would dump it on the company it just bought. In other words, Bain would make the company it just bought pay for its own acquisition.
And where would that company get the billion dollars to do that? Well, good old Mitt would say that it got the money by eliminating fraud and waste. But in reality that money came from stripping the company of its assets and converting them into cash.
It came from taking employee assets - like pensions and decent paychecks - and converting them into cash to pay for the debt, and even converting future assets - the viability of the company itself - into cash to pay for the debt.
It came from gutting retirement funds and firing workers.
In the end, Bain not only ended up with the company, but also got rich off the fees associated with the entire debt repayment process.
And if the company didn’t survive, well, then so be it, because Bain got to make a tidy profit through their fees even if the company died. All that mattered was to strip profitable companies bare and put the money into Mitt’s pocket.
But back to Detroit. Now that Judge Steven Rhodes has OK’ed the city’s bankruptcy plan, massive cuts to Motor City worker pension plans are all but certain.
THIS IS DESPITE THE FACT THAT, AS A RECENT DEMOS STUDY CONCLUDED, “DETROIT’S BANKRUPTCY WAS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY A SEVERE DECLINE IN REVENUE AND EXACERBATED BY COMPLICATED WALL STREET DEALS THAT PUT ITS ABILITY TO PAY ITS EXPENSES AT GREATER RISK.”
THAT’S RIGHT, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY’S FINANCIAL PROBLEMS PUBLIC WORKERS WILL NOW HAVE TO FOOT A BIG CHUNK OF THE BANKRUPTCY BILL.
JUST AS BAIN CAPITAL TRAPPED COMPANIES WITH MASSIVE DEBT OBLIGATIONS, SO TOO DID WALL STREET TRAP DETROIT WITH ITS RISKY DEBT SCHEMES. And now, just as Bain forced everyday employees to pay for the debt forced on their company, so too is Kevyn Orr, Detroit’s Emergency Manager, making public workers pay for the banksters gambling away Detroit’s finances.
Like one of Bain’s acquisitions , Detroit’s will be sold at auction to pay off debts created by banksters.
BUT IT’S NOT JUST PUBLIC WORKERS WHO WILL SUFFER - THE WHOLE CITY IS ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK. KEVYN ORR WANTS THE CITY’S ART COLLECTION SOLD OFF. THE WATER DEPARTMENT MIGHT BE PUT ON THE MARKET. AND TO TOP IT ALL OFF, RIGHT-WING BILLIONAIRES ARE TRYING TO BUY BELLE ISLE PARK AND TURN IT INTO SOME SORT OF LIBERTARIAN-GAMBLING PARADISE.
THE PRIVATIZATION OF DETROIT IS ABOUT TO BEGIN, AND THERE’S NO WAY THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS IS GOING TO MISS IT.
Mitt Romney grew up in Michigan, so it’s fitting, in a way, that the first attempt to use the Bain strategy on a public institution would be in Detroit.
BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THE FIRE SALE OF DETROIT IS JUST A PREVIEW OF WHAT REPUBLICANS WILL DO WHEN THEY FORCE THEIR PRIVATIZATION FANTASIES ON THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
CONSERVATIVES UNPATRIOTICALLY ROOT FOR OBAMACARE FAILURE
Posted: 12/09/2013 | The Detroit News
The mainstream media has been obsessed with comparing the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) with various failures by the previous administration. But the most popular of these analogies seems to be Hurricane Katrina.
And while there is a litany of problems with this talking point the most disturbing point is how many conservatives are rooting for the failure of the ACA and humbly declaring victory with every setback.
Just imagine if people in the 1990s who thought the government wasn't paying enough attention to terrorist organizations came out after the 9/11 attacks and celebrated the successful attacks because it proved they were right.
Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, there were certainly those that argued against such an action. Conservatives would have howled that using the deaths of American soldiers as an opportunity to say "I told you so" was at very least unpatriotic, if not treasonous.
What if those who had been urging the government to consider additional reinforcement for the levies in New Orleans before Katrina went on television after the levies broke and declared this a victory because it showed they were right?
For a group that was furious that the president supposedly "spiked the ball" on certain occasions, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden, this gloating is embarrassingly hypocritical. Perhaps their hubris would be more palatable if they had a better plan.
Not only do Republicans not have a plan, they are also willfully standing in the way of progress. Much has been made about those whose insurance policies are being canceled due to the ACA; however it should be noted that thanks to provisions in the bill all of these people can get a more robust policy which may or may not cost more money.
The same cannot be said for the nearly 5 million Americans that will not be covered under the ACA's Medicaid expansion thanks to a number of Republican governors who refuse to accept this change for their state.
The main reason for their rejection -- money. This may make state budgets look better in the short run, but in the end it doesn't lower the cost of care, it just shifts the burden from the state to the insured who will pick up the tab for these ER visits.
The reality is that as a country 18 percent of our spending goes towards healthcare -- which is three and a half times as much as we spend on Social Security, and over four times as much as we spend on defense.
We have a crisis in healthcare. Taking a victory lap at preventing less fortunate Americans from having the security of health insurance or celebrating any problems with the ACA as a triumph for America is astoundingly callous.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
TED CRUZ BLASTED BY SUPPORTERS FOR PRAISING NELSON MANDELA
December 6, 2013 | News Behaving Badly,Politics,Top Stories | Alan Colmes
Texas Senator Ted Cruz posted his praise of Nelson Mandela, but his Facebook friends took him to task for it.
Cruz issued a solemn statement to mark Mandela’s passing on Thursday, but HIS DIEHARD FANS RESPONDED WITH VITRIOL, POSTING SLURS DESCRIBING THE SOUTH AFRICAN LEADER AS A “TERRORIST, COMMUNIST, #$%$ AND MURDERER,” in comments on Cruz’s Facebook page.
The outspoken Tea Partier had issued a statement about the former President’s death at age 95, saying the anti-apartheid leader would “live in history as an inspiration for defenders of liberty.”
Sentiment: Strong Buy
SANTORUM: MANDELA BATTLED 'GREAT INJUSTICE,' JUST LIKE REPUBLICANS ARE BATTLING OBAMACARE
The Huffington Post | By Paige Lavender
Posted: 12/06/2013 9:53 am EST
During an appearance on Fox News Thursday night, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) discussed the death of Nelson Mandela, saying the former South African president fought "great injustice" just like Republicans who are battling Obamacare.
"Nelson Mandela stood up against a great injustice and was willing to pay a huge price for that. That's the reason he's mourned today, because of that struggle that he performed," Santorum said. "But you're right, I mean, what he was advocating for was not necessarily the right answer, but he was fighting against some great injustice, and I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people's lives, and Obamacare is front and center in that."
The statement, pointed out by Slate's Dave Weigel in a tweet Friday morning, came after Fox News host Bill O'Reilly claimed Mandela "was a great man, but he was a communist."
"I would never attack Nelson Mandela," O'Reilly said next.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
GOP ABORTION OPPONENT MAKES EMBARRASSING BLUNDER
GOP Abortion Opponent Realizes That His Own Party's Amendment Helped Cover Abortions
RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR | 12/04/13 | HuffPost
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 90 percent of health insurance plans offered to lawmakers and congressional staff cover abortion, an unforeseen consequence of a Republican amendment to President Barack Obama's health law.
The disclosure Wednesday by abortion opponent Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., also highlights an emerging issue nationally: It may be hard for individual consumers to determine whether abortion is a covered benefit in plans offered through the new online insurance markets.
For government insiders, there's another twist: Lawmakers and their staffs now appear to be the only federal employees with access to abortion coverage through their government-supported health insurance plans.
Smith said only nine of the 112 insurance plans offered to members of Congress and their staffs through the Washington, D.C., insurance market exclude abortion as a covered benefit.
"It was incredibly confusing, if not impossible, to find out," said Smith. "That is what's happening in state after state. People cannot find out if plans on the exchange include abortion."
Although the Washington insurance market has been recognized for making information on abortion coverage relatively easy to find for consumers, Smith says he suspects some abortion opponents on Capitol Hill may have unwittingly signed up in plans that do cover the procedure. Lawmakers and staffers have only until Monday to finalize their enrollments, while the rest of the country has until Mar. 31.
Abortion remains a legal medical procedure in most cases, but it's subject to increasing restrictions in conservative-leaning states.
Under Obama's health care law, every state must have at least one plan that does not cover abortion. And states can also bar or restrict abortion coverage by the new plans. At least 23 states have done so. But a majority have not, along with Washington, where lawmakers and staff must shop.
The district's insurance market —DC Health Link — provides information on abortion coverage through its frequently-asked-questions feature. Spokesman Richard Sorian said abortion is not covered in all Aetna plans or the BlueCross BlueShield multistate plan.
But in other states, consumers have to look up the benefits for each plan individually.
"The problem we are coming up against is that customer service representatives don't know what's going on," said Anna Higgins, a health care policy expert with the religious conservative group Family Research Council. "It's not necessarily their fault. The law is very complicated."
Higgins said the district has actually been in the forefront of disclosing abortion information. She says a federal disclosure requirement is needed for the country as a whole. Abortion rights supporters say such concerns are overblown, given the number of states that have barred coverage.
Abortion politics is tricky and convoluted.
A longstanding federal law known as the Hyde amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. A similar law applies to the federal employee health plan.
However, lawmakers and many staffers are no longer in that plan.
That's due to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who opposes the new health care program and abortion. When Obama's law was being debated, he pushed through an amendment that requires lawmakers and their personal staffs to get private coverage through the same markets that uninsured Americans will be using.
And those plans can cover abortion, provided that they do not use federal funds to pay for it. Federal tax credits to help people afford coverage must be kept apart from funds used to pay for elective abortions. The money will come from the portion of premiums directly paid by enrollees.
That compromise was sufficient to secure the votes of Democratic lawmakers opposed to abortion for passage of the health care law.
But many abortion opponents, including Roman Catholic bishops, say the compromise weakened the longstanding federal ban on abortion funding.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Scott Walker Fires Campaign Aide Following Racist Tweets
The Huffington Post | By Ashley Alman
Posted: 12/03/2013 10:50 pm EST | Updated: 12/04/2013 1:59 am EST
The campaign of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) fired deputy finance director Taylor Palmisano on Tuesday after learning that she'd tweeted out bigoted comments about Hispanics in 2011.
Shortly after Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Daniel Bice notified Walker's campaign of the tweets, which made derogatory comments about a housekeeper in a library and fellow patrons on a bus, Palmisano was ousted.
"I will choke that illegal mex cleaning in the library. Stop banging (expletive) chairs around and turn off your Walkman," said one of the tweets, posted on March 9, 2011.
In a statement to the Sentinel, Friends of Scott Walker spokesman Jonathan Wetzel attempted to distance the governor from the aide's comments, saying Palmisano was "immediately removed."
"Both the Governor, and the campaign, condemn these insulting remarks which do not reflect our views in any way," he said.
Palmisano, who has already deleted her Twitter and Facebook accounts, released a statement to the Sentinel expressing her remorse.
"I deeply regret these offensive and irresponsible remarks," she said. "I sincerely apologize, and understand the consequences of making such unacceptable statements."
Palmisano was the aide responsible for sending out the campaign's bizarre solicitation for donations on Black Friday, encouraging supporters to contribute to the campaign, rather than buy toys and electronics.
"[H]elp give your children the gift of a Wisconsin that we can all be proud of," she wrote in the donation email.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
SORRY FOLKS, RICH PEOPLE DON'T ACTUALLY "CREATE JOBS"
Henry Blodget | Business Insider
As America struggles with high unemployment and record inequality, everyone is offering competing solutions to the problem. In this war of words (and classes), ONE THING HAS BEEN REPEATED SO OFTEN THAT MANY PEOPLE NOW REGARD IT AS FACT. "RICH PEOPLE CREATE JOBS." SPECIFICALLY, BY STARTING AND DIRECTING AMERICA'S COMPANIES, RICH ENTREPRENEURS AND INVESTORS CREATE THE JOBS THAT SUSTAIN EVERYONE ELSE. THIS STATEMENT IS USUALLY INVOKED TO JUSTIFY CUTTING TAXES ON ENTREPRENEURS AND INVESTORS. IF ONLY WE REDUCE THOSE TAXES AND REGULATIONS, THE STORY GOES, ENTREPRENEURS AND INVESTORS CAN BE INCENTED TO BUILD MORE COMPANIES AND CREATE MORE JOBS.
THIS ARGUMENT IGNORES THE FACT THAT TAXES ON ENTREPRENEURS AND INVESTORS ARE ALREADY HISTORICALLY LOW, EVEN AFTER THIS YEAR'S MODEST INCREASES. AND IT IGNORES THE ASSERTIONS OF MANY INVESTORS AND ENTREPRENEURS (LIKE ME) THAT THEY WOULD WORK JUST AS HARD TO BUILD COMPANIES EVEN IF TAXES WERE HIGHER. BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS ARGUMENT PERPETUATES A MYTH THAT SOME WELL-OFF AMERICANS USE TO JUSTIFY TODAY'S RECORD INEQUALITY—THE IDEA THAT RICH PEOPLE CREATE JOBS.
Entrepreneurs and investors like me actually don't create the jobs—not sustainable ones, anyway. Yes, we can create jobs temporarily, by starting companies and funding losses for a while. And, yes, we are a necessary part of the economy's job-creation engine. But to suggest that we alone are responsible for the jobs that sustain the other 300 million Americans is the height of self-importance and delusion.
So, if rich people do not create the jobs, what does? A healthy economic ecosystem—one in which most participants (the middle class) have plenty of money to spend. Over the last couple of years, a rich investor and entrepreneur named Nick Hanauer has annoyed all manner of rich investors and entrepreneurs by explaining this in detail. Hanauer was the founder of online advertising company aQuantive, which Microsoft bought for $6.4 billion. What creates a company's jobs, Hanauer explains, is a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company, which starts with the company's customers.
The company's customers buy the company's products. This, in turn, channels money to the company and creates the need for the company to hire employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If the company's customers and potential customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneurs or investors do.
Now, again, entrepreneurs are an important part of the company-creation process. And so are investors, who risk capital in the hope of earning returns. But, ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of the company's customers' ability and willingness to pay for the company's products, not the entrepreneur or the investor capital. Therefore, as Hanauer argues, suggesting that rich entrepreneurs and investors create jobs is like suggesting that squirrels create evolution.
Or, to put it even more simply, it's like saying that a seed creates a tree. The seed does not create the tree. The seed starts the tree. But what actually grows and sustains the tree is the combination of the DNA in the seed and the soil, sunshine, water, atmosphere, nutrients, and other factors that nurture it. Plant a seed in an inhospitable environment, like a desert or Mars, and the seed won't create anything. It will die.
So, then, IF WHAT CREATES THE JOBS IN OUR ECONOMY IS, IN PART, "CUSTOMERS," WHO ARE THESE CUSTOMERS? AND WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE SURE THESE CUSTOMERS HAVE MORE MONEY TO SPEND TO CREATE DEMAND AND, THUS, JOBS? THE CUSTOMERS OF MOST COMPANIES ARE ULTIMATELY AMERICAN'S GIGANTIC MIDDLE CLASS—THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO CURRENTLY TAKE HOME A MUCH SMALLER SHARE OF THE NATIONAL INCOME THAN THEY DID 30 YEARS AGO, BEFORE TAX POLICY AIMED AT HELPING RICH PEOPLE GET RICHER CREATED AN EXTREME OF INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY NOT SEEN SINCE THE 1920S.
AMERICA'S MIDDLE CLASS HAS BEEN PUMMELED, IN PART, BY TAX POLICIES THAT REWARD "THE 1 PERCENT" AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYONE ELSE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN PUMMELED BY GLOBALIZATION AND TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH ARE LARGELY OUTSIDE OF ANY ONE COUNTRY'S CONTROL. The prevailing story that justifies tax cuts for America's entrepreneurs and investors is that the huge pots of gold they take home are supposed to "trickle down" to the middle class and thus benefit everyone. Unfortunately, that's not the way it actually works.
First, AMERICA'S COMPANIES ARE CURRENTLY BEING MANAGED TO SHARE THE LEAST POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF THEIR INCOME WITH THE EMPLOYEES WHO HELP CREATE IT. CORPORATE PROFIT MARGINS ARE AT ALL-TIME HIGHS, WHILE WAGES ARE AT AN ALL-TIME LOW.
Second, AS HANAUER OBSERVES, AMERICA'S RICHEST ENTREPRENEURS, INVESTORS, AND COMPANIES NOW HAVE SO MUCH MONEY THAT THEY CAN'T POSSIBLY SPEND IT ALL. SO INSTEAD OF GETTING PUMPED BACK INTO THE ECONOMY, THUS CREATING REVENUE AND WAGES, THIS CASH JUST REMAINS IN INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS. HANAUER EXPLAINS WHY. HANAUER TAKES HOME MORE THAN $10 MILLION A YEAR OF INCOME. ON THIS INCOME, HE SAYS, HE PAYS AN 11 PERCENT TAX RATE. (PRESUMABLY, MOST OF THE INCOME IS DIVIDENDS AND LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS, WHICH CARRY A TAX RATE OF ABOUT 20 PERCENT. AND THEN HE PROBABLY HAS SOME TAX SHELTERS THAT KNOCK THE RATE DOWN THE REST OF THE WAY).
WITH THE MORE THAN $9 MILLION A YEAR HANAUER KEEPS, HE BUYS LOTS OF STUFF. BUT, IMPORTANTLY, HE DOESN'T BUY AS MUCH STUFF AS WOULD BE BOUGHT IF HIS $9 MILLION WERE INSTEAD EARNED BY 9,000 AMERICANS EACH TAKING HOME AN EXTRA $1,000 A YEAR. WHY NOT? BECAUSE, DESPITE HANAUER'S IMPRESSIVE LIFESTYLE—HIS FAMILY OWNS A PLANE—MOST OF THE $9 MILLION JUST GOES STRAIGHT INTO THE BANK (WHERE IT EITHER SITS AND EARNS INTEREST OR GETS INVESTED IN COMPANIES THAT ULTIMATELY NEED STRONG DEMAND TO SELL PRODUCTS AND CREATE JOBS). FOR EXAMPLE, HANAUER POINTS OUT THAT HIS FAMILY OWNS ONLY THREE CARS, NOT THE 3,000 CARS THAT MIGHT BE BOUGHT IF HIS $9 MILLION WERE SPREAD OUT OVER A FEW THOUSAND FAMILIES.
If that $9 million had gone to 9,000 families instead of Hanauer, it would almost certainly have been pumped right back into the economy via consumption (i.e., demand). And, in so doing, it would have created more jobs. Hanauer estimates that, if most American families were taking home the same share of the national income that they were taking home 30 years ago, every family would have another $10,000 of disposable income to spend. That, Hanauer points out, would have a huge impact on demand—and thereby, job creation.
So, if nothing else, it's time we stopped perpetuating the fiction that "rich people create jobs." Rich people don't create jobs. Our economy creates jobs. We're all in this together. And until we understand that, our economy is going to go nowhere.
Sentiment: Strong Buy