Hillary Clinton and Income Inequality

HillaryIt looks like we won’t be hearing much about income inequality from Hillary Clinton when she runs for president. And that’s too bad.

Sure, it would be fun to hear Hillary drone on and on the way liberal Democrats do about how unfair it is that the rich have so much and the poor don’t. Fun because this is a woman who reportedly hauls in $200,000 for a one-hour speech and who, along with her husband, is worth at least $100,000,000. If you got dizzy looking at all the zeroes, the number is one …hundred … million!

But the real reason it’s too bad we probably won’t get a serious debate between Mrs. Clinton and her Republican opponent on income inequality is because we desperately need it. And the inconvenient fact – a fact liberals don’t want to acknowledge – is we shouldn’t be targeting rich people for scorn; they’re not the problem. Poor people are.

Two scholars from the University of Arkansas –Robert Maranto and Michael Crouch – have looked into why there’s so much income inequality in America, and what they found, I suspect, won’t please liberals like Hillary Clinton.

Recently they wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that begins with this:

“Suppose a scientific conference on cancer prevention never addressed smoking, on the grounds that in a free society you can’t change private behavior, and anyway, maybe the statistical relationships between smoking and cancer are really caused by some other third variable. Wouldn’t some suspect that the scientists who raised these claims were driven by something—ideology, tobacco money – other than science?

“Yet in the current discussion about increased inequality, few researchers, fewer reporters, and no one in the executive branch of government directly addresses what seems to be the strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of singe-parent families during the past half century.”

Turns out that the old-fashioned two-parent family is an idea whose time has come and gone. In 1960, the scholars tell us, more than 76 percent of African-Americans and nearly 97 percent of whites were born to married couples.

Today, only about 30 percent of black children are born to married couples and 70 percent for whites.

And here’s why it matters: Kids who grow up in single parent families have a lot more problems than kids who don’t. They are more likely to be abused, more likely to have behavioral problems, more likely to have problems concentrating in school – more problems in general.

And we don’t need Milton Friedman to tell us that they’re not going to make as much money when they grow up. Based on research they’ve culled, Moranto and Crouch report that more than 20 percent of children in single-parent families live in poverty long-term, compared with 2 percent of those raised in two-parent families.

It would be nice if Hillary tries to pass along the same old crummy liberal analysis that we’ve heard over and over again – about how we need to hike taxes on the rich so we can help the poor and all that. It would be even nicer to hear a conservative respond, saying “Mrs. Clinton, that’s what’s wrong with liberals like you: you just don’t know what you’re talking about most of the time” – before telling a hard to swallow truth: The reason we have income inequality is because too many poor people are dysfunctional; too many young girls are having babies who grow up behind the proverbial 8 ball.

And where’s the so-called mainstream media in all of this? Shouldn’t they be telling us the truth about income inequality? Moranto and Crouch write that despite all the facts, despite all the scientific studies, “Mainstream news outlets tended to ignore the … message about family structure, focusing instead on variables with far less statistical impact, such as residential segregation.” Why?  Because journalism is a business populated mainly by liberals who share the same values as liberals outside the media, especially liberals in politics — and journalists would rather walk barefoot on broken glass than side with social conservatives.

Then there’s the race factor.  The Arkansas scholars write that, “family breakup has hit minorities communities the hardest. So even bringing up the issue risks being charged with racism.”

And who needs that?

The bad news is there’s no easy solution. The good news is change can happen. “The change must come from long-term societal transformation on the subject,” the op-ed concludes, “led by political, educational and entertainment elites, similar to the decades-long movements against racism, sexism – and smoking.”

I don’t think Hillary Clinton – elite as she may be — is up for that task. Taking on dysfunctional behavior is not something liberals like to do, unless, of course, it’s conservatives who are being targeted.

But if Hillary won’t try to make something out of income inequality, let her opponent bring it up. Let the Republican candidate show some guts by telling the truth about it. I get the impression that America is in the mood for a politician who isn’t afraid; one who isn’t constantly taking polls to find out what to say; one  who talks about personal responsibility and makes no apologies for it.  And if along the way that politician is called a racist, so what?  I get the impression the American people are tired of that kind of nonsense too.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • economics9698

    The reason for most income inequality is the Federal Reserve printing money that is not backed by gold or silver that moves from the federal open market committee (FOMC) to Wall Street to the top 0.01% bank accounts.

    The destruction of the family unit by the federal government was created by offering single mothers 4x the benefits that a marriage to a poor man could offer. This policy benefited the growth of government by turning out criminals which of course means more police, judges, jailers, probation officers, and more power for, you guessed it, government.

    Goldberg is a propaganda spokesperson.

    Get rid of the Fed, return to real money backed by gold, full reserve banking, income inequality returns to normal levels in 5 years or less.

  • semmy

    One dream of mine I know will never come true would be for the nation to rise up and put an end to the name-calling. I’m tired of someone speaking his or her mind (usually the truth) and immediately being labeled a hater, bigot, racist homophobe. I’m just tired of it. Is there any doubt that if Hillary runs for POTUS the “War on Women” is going to take center stage? God help anyone who dares speak against her.

  • http://www.booksbyoliver.com/ PennState93

    Hillary and the rest of the elites have no concept of what being “broke” truly means. Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck so Hillary is just another politician who LIES.

  • http://oldfox.info/ Terry “OldFox” Seale

    There needs to be a discussion of how the Minimum Wage, as instructed by Sowell and Williams, makes unskilled and high school drop outs unemployable. One of the sole opportunities for unskilled black teens is entrepreneurship. If they are not qualified for employment with the military or professional athletics. Any teen with normal impulses and ambitions will be recruited by or begin his own criminal enterprise.

    People who have never had an “over-the-table” job are never counted as unemployed yet liberal (union driven) policies make it illegal for any of them to seek work at below the minimum wage. Absurd.

  • John Colburn

    This just came to my attention and needs to be part of the discussion on income equality http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/13/3448679/goldman-sachs-income-inequality/

  • TJ Goforth

    Hillary Clinton (a.k.a. The Hildebeast) is a witch of the first order whose time has come and gone. That anyone would want her to be President says more about
    them and their profoundly skewed judgement than anything else.

  • http://theromancatholicvote.com/ catholicvoter

    I took a class on the history of the black church and I was the only white person in that class. The focus was mostly on slavery and how blacks still have it rough today. I brought up the large percentage of black children growing up in single family homes, telling the class that whites who grow up with a single parent have similar problems as blacks. Unfortunately, most of my classmates were bent on believing it is racism, not single-parenting, that keeps a fairly high percentage of blacks in poverty. I guess people believe what makes them feel better, regardless of the facts and that’s a shame. The truth is the truth. How can we respond appropriately to problems while ignoring the truth?

    • scott autry

      Sadly, this is what higher education has become: Balkanizing the society based on the oppressors and the oppressed and training the next generation of activists. Of course, only one world view is promoted. Critical thinking —- meaning in part contemplating alternative views as viable —- is attacked, not taught.

  • wally12

    WOW! Only in the United States can a person who is flat broke end up with $100,000, 000 in such a short span of time. If Hillary and Bill can do it, then she should become president on the condition that she reveals how she made that $100,000,000. After all all liberals want everyone of us to become as wealthy as they are right? We that kind of success we will be out of the recession in nothing flat instead of in the doldrums like now with Obama.

    • Chris Matthewson

      Most people in this country are “wealthier” than the Clintons, by virtue of the aphorism “Time is Money.”

      Would you rather be in your mid-60s with $100 million or in your mid twenties, thirties or forties with what you have?

  • retiredxlr8r


  • Jake Huff

    Well said, Bernie. I remember an ad campaign that featured the voice of Tom Seleck, saying, “Anyone can be a father. It takes a man to be a Dad.” I believe that the point was that any male can “father” a child. It takes a real “man” to stick around and BE a DAD to that child. It still takes a Mom and a Dad to raise healthy, happy children. That assumes, of course, that the parents are not completely dysfunctional. But the liberals don’t want to face that issue. They want us to be “tolerant” of everyone and every situation. Tolerance implies a moral high ground which the liberals do not posses. Their morality is yesterday’s IMMORALITY. Our nation is circling the toilet because we have lost our moral compass in the name of TOLERANCE. We have accepted so much that is wrong and corrupt that we no longer know where we stand as a nation. A return to faith and obedience to the commandments of GOD is the only remedy that will save our nation. I know there are many who will read this who will “poo-poo” the idea, but they are those who would not have gotten on the ark to be saved from the flood, so there’s no convincing them that they are mistaken. The truth is generally shunned by those who don’t recognize it anyway.

  • Lc Goodfellow

    The thing that has me worried about this Gov’t is the unknown number of Demies as ‘ Public Servants ‘ in our U.S. Government.
    You can’t call them ‘ Civil Servants ‘ not after 2013 and all the ‘ FiFth’s ‘ taken. That’s far from being ‘ Civil ‘
    – F&F, IRS, NSA, AP, the Census Bureau, the Benghazi Lies ?
    There’s enough here for a century of Presidents.

    Ain’t this American ignorance awful,

    • D Parri

      I agree with your point, but isn’t part of the travesty being perpetuated upon the American people found in the fact that we’ve paid those people to take the position of civil servants, they were responsible for providing their service as civil servants, and their failure to meet that commitment as civil servants does not change the position or the responsibilities of that position.

      Just sayin’….

  • FloridaJim

    If the posted new worth is $100,000,000 for Bill and $25,000,000 for Hillary I would bet there are other numbers which are not shown. They make money ghost writing books where the buyers look upon buying the book as a gift to the author’s. Has anyone ever read Hillary’s “It Takes A Village” a tome on Marxism? Bill and George w Bush were the headliners helping Haiti a few years ago and the entire debacle became a nightmare of corruption with little money escaping the corrupt Haitian administrators. Here is a book highlighting the Clinton’s and they are not highly thought of by anyone other than Progressive fawns:

    “The Final Days-The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White
    House” By Barbara Olsen. It discloses how the Clinton’s stole the White House furniture as they left to become a carpet-bagging New York Senator, why this isn’t brought up now as Hillary tells more is beyond me, Mrs. Olsen covers many items kept under wraps by the lamestream media.
    Search for a comparison of how the employees working with The Bushes feel about them vs the employees working with the Clinton’s feel about them it is not a pretty comparison.

    • soundnfury

      Shhh… If it becomes public knowledge that Bill’s net worth is $100 mil & Hillary’s is $25 mil, you’ll have women’s groups & MSNBC complaining about income inequality between men & women.

  • beebthere

    Don’t know if you noticed but everyone has lost to Obama.

  • metheoldsarge

    If she gets the nomination, the Democrats will do what they always do. They will put aside their differences and fully support her. This hasn’t happened in the Republican party since Reagan.

    • EddieD_Boston

      She lost to Obama. How much of a sure bet is she really? Looney liberals aren’t rational.

    • scott autry

      I would not bet on her winning the nomination – unless the Dems decide after 8 years in the executive office they are going to lose, like the Republicans did after Bush.

      Look how hard the media worked to get the publicly unknown Obama the nomination despite the relative popularity of Pres. Clinton and the chance to put the first woman in the White House.

      Why did they do it? Because Clinton, despite his popularity, was not their man. He tried at first, but when he got slapped down by voters after his first two years, he dove to the center, betraying the trust the Left (including the media) had in him.

      The media destroyed Hillary and promoted Obama so hard because Obama’s hidden past showed he was truly one of them, and they believed they could not trust Hillary would not turn out just like her husband: A person who cared more about popularity and each new election than socio-political ideals the Left supports…

      • Lc Goodfellow

        — Hillary C. is not only unworthy of any public office
        — Why didn’t Reid want her to run ? The BOOK “Game Change” liberal ‘Time’ magazine writers.

        Go check out “RED BONE” you might make some money, Hillary did !
        “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
        She’s certainly the type of individual that our Founders attempted to prohibit from ascendancy to the presidency.

        What does “I take full responsibility” really mean when the words come out of the mouth of a politician?

        Funny replies wanted:

  • hotpprs

    It’s so apparant that Dems are not going to stand behind Hillary as the 2016 nominee. Look at all the internet “news” stories that are over dramatized to make her look bad. These are all the same type of partisan headlines hooks that are usually reserved for Republicans. The previous poster was correct. Don’t waste time worrying about her, spend the energy finding the best GOP candidate.

  • JMax

    I think you are missing the point about income inequality. There has always been a large gap between the poorest people and the wealthiest people. What is happening today is a rapidly rising disparity between the critical middle class and the wealthiest. Middle class income/wealth remains stagnant while the top 1% sees huge leaps in income. Are you blaming the middle class for the “bad choices” they are making?

    The president should be speaking often and loud about personal responsibility, marriage, family responsibility, hard work, and education. Oh yeah, he does. Constantly. If he proposed some kind of law that would solve any of these issues, anything, do you think the Republicans would get on board?

    • Tim Ned

      I agree. The disparity between what Lebron James makes and the middle class is outrageous. So what law do you recommend the president pass to compensate this situation.

      Much of Obama’s talking points is the disparity between the wealthy and the poor so the point is spot on.

    • Integrity

      I do blame the middle class if they voted for Obama a second time. Not sure whether the Republicans would get on board or not, but he could start with proposing some laws that might actually help, stop campaigning and show some leadership. He has had almost six years in office and I have yet to see him take personal responsibility for anything. The President should be telling the truth. Oh yeah, he doesn’t. QED

      • JMax

        What jobs bills did the Republicans propose?

        • Charlie

          Jobs bills? Jobs bills??? Is that what government is there for? I’m not sure people who think like this will ever get it.

          • JMax

            Then you’re not blaming Obama for the slow recovery in jobs, right?

          • Tim Ned

            The nearly $900 Billion stimulus was supposed to solve all our problems.

          • JMax

            No, it was meant to stop the bleeding, which it did. And it was under $800 Billion, much of which was tax cuts.

          • Tim Ned

            Democrats stated that one third was tax cuts. Actually only about $100 Billion as the majority went as credits to those who don’t pay taxes per the Washington Post. It was pushed through to create jobs and reduce unemployment immediately, which it didn’t do thus came the criticism when the unemployment went over 8 percent and stayed there.

          • JMax


            The Stimulus was signed into law within a month of Obama’s inauguration. Check that out on the graph.

            The unemployment rate is below 8%.

          • Tim Ned
          • JMax

            “Five years later, it is clear to all fair-minded economists that the
            stimulus did work, and that it did enormous good for the economy and for
            tens of millions of people.”


          • Integrity

            Funny that you would chose a source that has their lips attached so securely to Obama’s gluteus maximus that it would take a nuclear powered jack hammer to separate them. I get it. “Fair minded” people love Obama and everything he does. Life isn’t fair. You can find sources that say it worked; I can find sources that say it did not. Proves nothing. Did Obama use all of this money wisely? Hell no. By the way, has anyone considered that we “borrowed” this money and accounted for that impact? We should apologize to our children who will have to pay that off while they are also saddled with their, collectively, 1.2 trillion student loan debt as well. I see another opportunity to purchase some votes with borrowed money. I see the liberals being on board with this since, for the most part, the 1.2 trillion has enhanced their bank accounts. Should we borrow more money and make people who were unable to go to college pay for it as well? No. Debt grows exponentially! When will either party ever figure that out? To quote Instapundint, “What can’t go on forever, won’t.” QED

          • JMax

            You can think what you want about the NY Times. They have been critical of the president and had their lips glued to Bush’s ass in the build up to the Iraq war.

            “Proves nothing.” Including that it didn’t work.

            Anyone can argue on and on about how wisely the money was used. The economy was in free fall. The stimulus stopped the free fall.

            Of course we borrowed the money. That’s what you do in a recession. That’s what Bush did when he passed stimulus bills during his term.

            “We should apologize to our children who will have to pay that off while they are also saddled with their, collectively, 1.2 trillion student loan debt as well.”

            They’ll be paying for Bush’s tax cuts, Reagan’s borrowing, and Bush’s Middle East wars for decades.

            How does the $1.2 T in student loans enhance liberals bank accounts?

            “Debt grows exponentially.” No it doesn’t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#After_World_War_II

          • Integrity

            Fair minded people would say that it was wasted. The other is debatable. Both stimulus bills should not have been done. Bush was wrong too. Just because laws have bipartisan support does not make them wise or just. Yes, both parties have spent like drunken sailors. Is your solution that we keep spending because the Republicans did it?


            Take a break from Google, cutting, and pasting and think for yourself. The answer is there if you want to see it.

            Debt grows exponentially, that is a fact. Take a math class. You might even be pleased to know this occurred before Obama came into office. He has only made the matter worse. At this point, what difference does it make which party did the most spending? We are about to implode.



          • JMax

            “Both stimulus bills should not have been done.”

            Many if not most economists will disagree with you on this. Many said the Stimulus should have been bigger, but it was the best Obama could get passed. In a recession, you have a lack of demand for goods and services. You need something to get back the demand and that something is cash in people’s pockets as soon as possible. That’s what a stimulus is for. As you must surely see from the graphs I have linked to the staggering job losses reversed course in the month after the Stimulus was passed. There is no way it can be said to have failed.

            No, I don’t “justify” one with the other. I justify both because it is a common tool to get money into the hands of people who need it the most and will spend it immediately and get dollars flowing back into the economy. My solution is to spend what’s necessary to stoke the economy and invest in infrastructure and education to create jobs which will grow the economy and reduce and eventually end the deficit.

            “Debt grows exponentially, that is a fact.”

            It is definitely NOT a fact. Take a math class. Exponentially means growing at an increasingly rapid rate, by a factor of X. Debt grows in direct relation to the deficit. In three years of the Clinton administration there was a surplus. That means the debt shrank, also that debt wasn’t growing exponentially. Under Obama the deficit has shrunk every year since 2009, meaning that the debt was not growing exponentially. Shrinking deficits by definition mean the debt is growing more slowly year by year.

            We are not about to implode. The debt to GDP ratio in 2012 was one-sixth lower than at the end of WWII. We didn’t implode then. We built great university systems, the interstate highway system, sent men into space, and through the GI Bill allowed returning soldiers to build houses and educate themselves and their children. With that, debt decreased from 122% of GDP to 33% of GDP during the Carter administration. Since then it has been rising and is now 101% of GDP. Infrastructure, education.

          • Ryan Nichols

            What’s the real unemployment numbers? What if they added all the illegals? Doesn’t Obama want them to be democrats errrr I mean citizens? If they’re here and Obama isn’t going to make them leave, then they should be added to his unemployment.

          • JMax

            Making them leave would create an economic catastrophe, and everybody including the GOP knows that. They came here to work.

            Obama favors the Senate’s comprehensive Immigration Reform bill which makes previously undocumented immigrants ELIGIBLE to apply for citizenship after 13 years.

            Obama has deported undocumented immigrants at a higher rate than the previous administration. He IS making them leave.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Obama has deported undocumented immigrants at a higher rate than the previous administration. He IS making them leave.<<

            Are you applying the same counting standard to both administrations?


            This smacks of including people forced off their insurance with the previously uninsured to pad Obamacare signup numbers.

            If Obama's policies were truly effective & successful, there's be no need to misrepresent them.

          • JMax

            It was part of the policy that people in the individual market would continue into the new individual market that is the Obamacare exchanges. This was never a secret and was included in the goals.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>It was part of the policy that people in the individual market would continue into the new individual market that is the Obamacare exchanges.<<

            Sure, after years of repeatedly decrying the injustice of tens of millions of people without insurance, Obama celebrated the forced signups of several million people who didn't want to, didn't need to, and he had promised wouldn't have to. Another nice try, though.

            To your credit, at least you didn't try spinning the deportation lie.

          • Jeff Webb

            Not ONLY Obama. Liberal governors, legislators, bureaucrats, etc. who like to increase regulations, taxes, and/or minimum wage are also to blame.

          • Integrity

            and some stupid Republican politicians as well. QED

          • Charlie

            No! We’re blaming Bush, right?
            A gazillion “jobs bills” didn’t bring this country out of depression. A war did. (Also Bush’s fault.)
            A study of basic economics can be had for free at your local library. Maybe start there.
            Oh, and one more question for you Mr. Max. Obama says the job situation is fine and you say it’s a slow recovery. Since we know neither is true, maybe you two could put your heads together and pick which story you’re going to use and then stick with it?

          • JMax


            I don’t know when the president said the job situation was fine, but he has said and continues to say that the recovery is slower than everyone would like. I see no disparity between the president and myself.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I also think it’s cute that simply referring to something as a “jobs bill” is supposed to mean that it’s going to help the employment situation in this country. lol.

        • Lc Goodfellow

          Go ask the the Senator, the one the mob nicknamed
          ” Softface ” for a good deal.

        • Jeff Webb

          Several bills opposed and/or blocked by people who call others obstructionist:

          For a couple of these bills, saying they’ll produce jobs is an awful stretch–at best they’d be a highly indirect cause.

        • Integrity

          Relevance? None. Congratulations, you belong to the group that will defend Obama no matter what he does or fails to do. Obama reminds me of Gomer Pyle, “Surprise, surprise, surprise!” Have you been paying attention to current events? By the way, two years of Lerner’s email messages were lost. Care to wonder why? QED

        • Ryan Nichols

          Republicans have passed bills in the house intended to help the economy and job growth. Most of which are not even brought to a vote in the Senate. After all, the left can’t have the right fixing any problems. That goes against everything the democrat party stands for. The left only cares to continue the us vs. them narrative. The left only cares to attack the right and find fault in any legislation the right purposes. The left refuses to negotiate to find common ground to benefit everyone. Because they are perfectly fine with nothing getting done, because they will just run to the microphones to point fingers. Because on the left especially, it’s not about working together to make America stronger. No it’s about gaining more control, creating more government, and discrediting people. In my opinion, the Democrat leadership is a perfect example of what’s wrong in Washington. Harry Reid? ? Are you kidding me.. That man is not a problem solver.

          • JMax

            Democrats have passed bills in the Senate intended to help the economy
            and job growth. Most of which are not even brought to a vote in the House . After all, the GOP can’t have the moderate in the White House fixing any problems.
            That goes against everything the Republican party stands for as they noted on January 20, 2009. The right
            only cares to continue the us vs. them narrative. The right only cares
            to attack the president and find fault in any legislation he purposes even if it was once their idea. The right refuses to negotiate to find common ground to
            benefit everyone even if it means closing down the government. Because they are perfectly fine with crashing the economy to keep the president from any semblance of success, because they will just run to the microphones to point fingers.
            Because on the right especially, it’s not about working together to make
            America stronger. No it’s about gaining more control, claiming that government can’t do anything for the people and then setting out to prove it. In my opinion, the Republic leadership is a perfect example of what’s wrong in Washington. John Boehner? Are you kidding me.. That man won’t bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor that he knows would pass with bipartisan support because he’s scared s**tless of the extreme right wing of his party. He is not a problem solver.

          • Ryan Nichols

            Lol Now I know you’re insane. Obama is hands down the worst President of the modern era. Not only the most incompetent, but the most dishonest. Unlike yourself, I’m not blinded by my “slobbering love affair” with a President or party. I lean conservative sure. But I don’t blindly follow and protect. I think Boehner should be voted out. But not because of some immigration bill. You don’t understand that bill obviously and why it’s not going anywhere if you think it’s Boehner holding it up.

            You seem to worship your progressive leaders. You are incapable of seeing any fault in their legislation. It’s apparent by your msnbc Rachel Maddow talking points.

            This I heard about it on the news President doesn’t even respect the immigration laws currently on the books. The ones he swore to uphold. He’s been deceptive and plain dishonest so much the right doesn’t trust him. Nor does the majority of American people.

            Oh and to compare Boehner to dishonest Reid? The man who misused campaign funds? Called American citizens terrorists? Called his opponents hostage takers? And you draw a comparison? Pathetic

          • JMax

            “Obama is hands down the worst President of the modern era.”


            I understand the bill perfectly well. The Senate passed in with a bipartisan 68-32 vote. Clearly it was a compromise by people who believe that the perfect should not be the enemy of good. You know, legislating.

            The majority of Americans and the majority of the House support comprehensive immigration reform, but Boehner won’t bring it to the floor because a majority of GOP in the House don’t support it.

            “You seem to worship your progressive leaders. You are incapable of seeing any fault in their legislation.”

            See above about perfect being the enemy of good.

            “It’s apparent by your msnbc Rachel Maddow talking points.”

            I don’t follow Rachel Maddow.

            “This I heard about it on the news President doesn’t even respect the immigration laws currently on the books.”

            The President is prioritizing in order to deploy limited resources and do what’s best and fair for the future of American economy.

            Whatever the majority of Americans feel about Obama, they think far, far less of the GOP.

            Boehner passed out contributions from tobacco lobbyists on the floor of the House just prior to a vote on tobacco subsidies.

            Jarad and Amanda Miller are not terrorists? Ted Cruz and buddies did not take the US economy hostage during the fiscal cliff “negotiations”. Harry Reid has nothing on Boehner. But I believe we were talking about legislative tactics, not personal hygiene.

          • Integrity

            I gotta give it to you JMAX, you are very passionate when you defend the indefensible. Have you watched the news lately? Both parties need to be reigned in, but you continue to deflect and defend this current administration no matter what it does. Are you trying to emulate Baghdad Bob? If so, congratulations. QED

          • JMax

            I watch and read the news constantly. That’s why I can write what I write. I defend this administration, not because I think it’s perfect, but because it’s better than the alternative.

          • Tim Ned

            “The majority of Americans and the majority of the House support comprehensive immigration reform, but Boehner won’t bring it to the floor because a majority of GOP in the House don’t support it.”

            True, so make a deal! Don’t cry to the masses as your party does daily. By the way, it’s not working anymore.

          • JMax

            They already made a deal. It’s called the Senate Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, passed 68-32.

          • Ryan Nichols

            You say you understand but then your explanation says otherwise. Yes the worst presidency in the modern era. Beats Clinton and his infidelities by a mile. But as a hard line liberal you don’t bat an eye at that. The man who is voted to be our leader. To be the face of our nation, our representative to the world. Cheats on his wife in the white house. And then lies to the world about it. Ruins the life of the other woman, and gets reelected. Lol But yes, Obama is more untrustworthy, by far.

          • JMax

            You’re showing your partisan ignorance. Clinton was re-elected well before the Lewinsky scandal broke.

            I’m quite confident that Obama will measure up very well against his predecessor.

          • Tim Ned

            Mitt Romney stated in his campaign that a foreign student graduating from a US college would get a green card stapled to their diploma. You voted against Romney. Boehner’s plan provides for a pathway to citizenship as well as children brought here illegally. It did not provide the immediate citizenship of the senate plan. And yes, many house republicans did not support Boehner’s plan because it puts those waiting in line; engineers, scientists, etc., on the bottom of the list and in many cases, no chance of a green card. But you and your president attack Boehner’s plan.

            This president represents your views only. He never picks up the phone, as did Ronald Reagan, and make deals with the other party. And of course it’s not his fault is it? It’s everyone else.

          • JMax

            I’ve never heard of Boehner’s plan so I couldn’t criticize it. I’ve never heard the president criticize it. I’m not sure he has one. Can you link me to it? I’m sure that the president would be willing to support any comprehensive plan that could pass congress that is actually meaningful. Doing it piecemeal will not work.

            This president represents the views of about 52% of the country if the last election was an indication.

            Apparently you are unaware that Obama and Boehner spent a great deal of time personally hashing out an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff back in 2011. That was achieving results until Boehner backed out because of pressure from Cantor. You can’t bargain with people who refuse to give you any chance of accomplishing something and who are ideologically opposed to compromise.

    • scott autry

      The problem is – people on your side keep preaching that those 1% are getting even more fabulously wealthy by stealing from the middle class.

      Most Americans simply don’t buy that.

      My entire life, as a working class person, I’ve heard your side say the rich are getting richer and everyone else is being robbed and sliding into oblivion, so turn over even more power to the government to run things “equitably”, but when I look around, I see it’s just BS.

      The Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world got grossly wealthy by even creating whole industries – industries and products that have made all our lives better. I might envy those guys some but I don’t begrudge them their wealth.

      AND – since I have plenty of examples of other nations where creativity, production, innovation, and whatnot that drives a strong economy retarded in even nations that give more but still limited control of the economy to politicians and bureaucrats, I most definitely don’t want to give the Left the power to try their hand are redistributing wealth and reorganizing the economy based on their idea of fairness and what might work better than the system we have today…

      • JMax

        Straw man arguments. The Walton family steals from everyone. They pay their employees so little that they have to get public assistance to survive while the Waltons amass great wealth. So you and I pay a portion of our taxes to enrich them. Most Americans just haven’t figured that out.

        Last time I checked the employees of Microsoft and Apple aren’t living off of public assistance. Nobody begrudges Gates and Jobs their wealth.

        • scott autry

          Wrong. You are the one throwing up smokescreens and outrageous dodges. Walmart is one corporation. Even if you are correct in your example, it does nothing to counter my point – which focused on the broader economy in capitalist vs socialist/communist nations – not a claim about all corporations…

        • Tim Ned

          The employees of Microsoft and Apple are engineers and other professional positions. There is also a dramatic shortage of these types of positions in the market as our company competes for these employees. These incomes in the middle class have risen over the years.

          Walmart could go out of business tomorrow for all I care. But they have a huge market for entry level positions to choose from and no competition. That’s the problem. If you expect to work as a check out clerk at Walmart the rest of your life and make the money professionals at Microsoft and Apple, you’re dreaming. There is no value in these positions.

          By the way, what do you think of the self service check out at Home Depot?

          • scott autry

            I’m not a fan of the percentage of part-time jobs over full-time has risen in the US, but I also don’t jump on the bandwagon of Kill Walmart either, because I can think back to how the auto and steel and other industries that spurred on American economic development were strangled to death by manufacturing costs compared to overseas competition.

            I’d rather have a robust economy including 24/7 discount stores and plentiful part-time jobs than what little I saw in France in the mid-1990s: High unemployment, high taxation, dependency on government bureaucrats, and higher prices and inconvenience for consumers because shops seemed to be closed more than they were open.

            If the French were happy with that, which a couple I talked to were, fine for them, but I certainly didn’t want to see American society follow their lead.

          • Timm Ned

            Yes, but you will never win that argument with Democrats. They want to employ clerks with a livable wage, what ever that means. Just like Home Depot which uses automatic check out which I see used quite a bit by consumers, these industries will obsolete personnel with automation. I consult in manufacturing and I see this. Wages get high, automate.

            I travel internationally quite a bit and I agree with your statements. Europe is terribly expensive and even though they have higher wages, they pay more for everything and their middle class is devastated by the high prices and taxes. They live in flats, many don’t have cars, and are highly dependent upon government programs. The poor and middle class in Europe are totally dependent upon their government handouts.

            You will never win the logic war with democrats. They want the European style socialism. When you hear the term livable wage, this is right out of the left wing play book.

            There was time and place when being a cashier, burger flipper, and other similar jobs were always part time and for the young. The democrats want to change this and they see this through higher taxes and regulation.

          • scott autry

            I’ve wondered if scholars have studied the parallels of the Progressive/Liberal dream and feudalism like in the former Russia.

            Don’t they both have as a rough foundation the idea that the workers are under the authority of the state which promises to meet their needs in exchange for control of production, distribution, costs, and wages?

          • Ryan Nichols

            Whoa whoa. Stop breaking down j max. Engineering/bagging groceries. It’s all the same man. Obamamama!

        • scott autry

          walmart site:www.cato.org

        • Jeff Webb

          >>They pay their employees so little that they have to get public assistance to survive while the Waltons amass great wealth.<<

          Should the amount Wal Mart pays employees be based on what's needed to survive?

          If a barely-surviving employee's necessary pay increase matches the compensation of a more experienced employee with a far better work ethic, is that fair? What if the former's situation is due entirely to repeated, poor decisions?

          Would it be fair to customers whose ability to survive will be strained by the price increases making up for the higher wages?

          What do the Walton's make a year, and what do you think would be the proper income for them?

          • JMax

            “What if the former’s situation is due entirely to repeated, poor decisions?”

            In other words it’s not enough that they earn a low minimum wage. They should suffer the consequences of not being as wise as you.

            “Would it be fair to customers whose ability to survive will be strained by the price increases making up for the higher wages?”

            How about the Waltons suck it up and take a few billion less in profit.?

            There is no “proper” income for the Waltons. We’re not talking about how much they make. We’re talking about how much they share with their employees.

          • Tim Ned

            There is no official release of where the Waltons earn their money but I don’t believe they are employees of Walmart but probably, and I believe they are, on the board of directors. Their income is through stock.

            To handle their PR issues that people like JMax make is for the Waltons to sell their stock. Perhaps sell it to the government to turn it into a real money maker like Amtrak.

            And if Walmart fails as a result of their lost leadership; so be it. No one should care. The crap they sell is available online where they pay no clerks, stock boys, greeters, etc. and fly under the radar.

            The best solution for this situation in our PC world is to let Walmart fail that will force the professional cashiers to find real jobs. If they will.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>In other words it’s not enough that they earn a low minimum wage. They should suffer the consequences of not being as wise as you.<>How about the Waltons suck it up and take a few billion less in profit.?<>There is no “proper” income for the Waltons. We’re not talking about how much they make. We’re talking about how much they share with their employees.<<

            Actually, I asked the question because of what you said earlier: "….while the Walton's amass great wealth."
            Meaning, exactly what do you think should happen as far as their amassing of wealth is concerned?

            For example, do you think they should be denied the entire amount they would've amassed in a given year, and then it be split evenly between all of their minimum wagers that year?

          • scott autry

            No, the bulk of his point is that workers making the same amount get by quite fine.

            From my experience back home, if you investigate the lives of immigrant families in that area, you’ll find one reason managers prefer to hire them is – they work hard and apply the same discipline they use in their work as they use to manage their lives. Many native-born working class people do the same. But, there are others who can never seem to make ends meet – even though they make the same amount and have the same basic family structure as immigrants who manage their lives well enough to send extra money back home to help family.

            And you have still never addressed the point that – we have ample evidence that more government control of the economy leads to fewer jobs, higher prices, higher taxes and dependency…

          • JMax

            I get it. It’s their own damn fault.

            What “government control of the economy” are you referring to?

        • Ryan Nichols

          J max doesn’t understand. He sticks to his progressive manual without question. Fact; forty five thousand a year is enough to raise a family. Sure you’re not rich, but you’re not poor. That can be achieved by two working parents, making $10 hr with minimal overtime. You add in tax credits for two kids they’re easily over $50,000. Sorry j max, but you’re just regurgitating a narrative from your leaders that keeps them in power. You need to wake up!

          • Josh

            Math isn’t a very convenient or friendly thing for politics in general. Well, at least math that can’t be tilted.

            My best friend works at Wal-Mart and tries to get me a job there every other month it seems like. He makes $13/hour, after working there for two years, gets full benefits, and two weeks paid vacation every year. After taxes and everything like that, it’s under $20k a year, but then you figure he gets almost everything back in state and federal refunds. (So why they take money out in the first place is beyond me, but whatever.)

            Plus he gets around 3k+ in taxes for his two kids, and with his wife making $9/hour as a receptionist, they do quite alright at right around $40k+.

            But that doesn’t matter. Because the owners are rich, there’s this feeling shared by many that wealth itself needs to be shared. Owners shouldn’t be profiting much more than employees; employees should be paid this thing called a “living wage,” or should be in a profit-share setup.

            Folks don’t seem to realize that a guy who stocks boxes in the back of the store, like my buddy, simply isn’t worth $100k/year. Sorry, but that’s reality. But these people also aren’t minimum wage workers!

            Salaries like this aren’t going to help families purchase yachts or extra cars, and maybe not even good private schools, but responsible families do just fine with these jobs.

            Families who have a lot of debt, or who keep having children despite already being poor, are another story. Families where people earn minimum wage — well, I wouldn’t know what to say to that. I know it’s a whole big thing that the minimum wage needs to be raised, but I don’t know any actual working adult who makes minimum wage. I know a lot of people brand new to the workforce who make it, like my cousins in high school and such. But they won’t be there long if they keep working their way up.

            It’s hand-holding fodder to take the stance that everyone’s entitled to a job and everyone with a job is entitled to this vague and ever-changing living wage, which is really what’s under the other rhetoric once you cut through it. Yet entitlement is an extremely popular mindset in America, with millions holding it; and certainly popular in some Euro nations, with thousands rioting in the streets once they realize they’ve bankrupted their fool selves trying to artificially inflate the monetary worth of individuals in a market-based system.

            GFY, math! You’re no friend of the dreamer.

          • scott autry

            Which implies a big point: Why is it the working class never seems to march along lockstep with the great champions of the little people? And why do most of the great liberators of the poor masses come from the upper middle class, “educated” circles?

            The Left would say they are too stupid to know what is best for them…

          • Josh

            That really is something to scratch one’s head over.

            One might think that these haughty progressive elites just placate the poor for votes and to keep people polarized. But that’d be too cynical. We all really know that they’re just trying to help! And noooo, that’s not sarcasm. No.

            I’ve never really seen or heard anything from the working class. They typically tend to work and handle their business. And before anyone jumps on this and points out union protests, let’s just be really honest here. You don’t know who’s a teacher or auto worker or what and who was bused in and given a sawbuck and a hot meal in those protests. Public union protests have always been inherently dirty and iffy.

            Mandatory wage hikes are, at best, very temporary fixes which manage to positively affect only a small portion of people, with each new wage hike causing an entire level of employment to go extinct. The CBO and the number-twisters in big offices, living on taxpayer money, can spill their spiel about how it’s only going to cost X number of jobs. But they don’t read what’s underneath; they don’t see that starting-point jobs, positions of high turnover, and jobs that don’t require experience suddenly require experience and don’t have the same turnover, and duties get combined and resumes are needed rather than simple applications.

            Though no matter how many times we repeat the cycle in America–raise minimum wage, watch prices go out of control, repeat–you’re right: It’s always those well-to-dos from their houses in gated communities telling everyone else what people need to earn and how people need to live.

            IMHO, the more noble fight to fight by these liberal champions of the poor would be to drive prices down rather than driving wages up. After all, one thing we can all agree on, regardless of politics: It’s not the amount of money, it’s what the money buys.

            Then again, I’m probably wrong there. If $1 was $100, there’d still be whining if I, as a business owner, earned more zeroes than my employees. Not fair! I’m making myself rich…and all I ever did was risk everything to start a business, face lawsuits, deal with insurance, gather and maintain capital, sacrifice my time to get started, educate myself, put my ideas out into the world, refrain from debt and personal hindrances, etc. Must be privilege at work, though. Racism and patriarchy and Illuminati.

          • scott autry

            I think there was a time and place for unions during the evolution of industrialization. I think they can still have a place today, but it is also clear they helped kill key industries by pricing American products out of the market.

            On prices, the one area of the US economy I truly despise is the Health Care Industry. I have no idea how to solve it, but to me, it is legalized extortion: With the health care professionals (including pharmaceutical industry) acting as the leg breakers for mafia dons in Insurance.

            I can’t see how the health care industry is a market place: Individuals (or their employers – or now the government) must pay monthly with no services rendered except “protection” in case something had happened. Because if you don’t have insurance, and you do require significant medical care, the industry will financially break your legs…

            And I would venture what I feel is a safe guess that health care costs went out of control in direct proportion to the rise in insurance coverage. I hate it…

            But I doubt seriously the solution is letting the government fix it…

          • Josh

            I can agree completely on healthcare. And I take a little from the R and D on this topic. I don’t believe a person’s health should be up for profit, and I do believe that, if that’s the system, then there has to be ample competition allowed in every state.

            But even then, the mess of business the health industry has become would cause any smaller insurance company to quickly be absorbed by the larger ones or defeated outright. Stuff is just too expensive across the board. And government only makes it more of a mess. At least this government. Maybe there are smaller, more controlled, less corrupt governments able to handle healthcare. Ours can’t handle it in even limited capacities, like with veterans or the elderly. So, I’m with you: It’s an area that stumps me.

            I’d personally like to see politicians focus on–or remove focus from–agriculture and energy. Whatever they’re doing now, with their regulations and subsidies and what have you, is causing prices to skyrocket on everything from a gallon of milk to a kilowatt hour of electricity. That’s not just private profiteers looking to make a killing.

          • scott autry

            That was something I was thinking when reading the articles on Walmart by the Cato Group.

            A person can’t live off $10 an hour? Where? They must get government aid? Why? Are they in states where liberal governments have dramatically lowered the threshold? (Something like the federal government pushed banks into giving risky loans because owning your own home became an entitlement.)

            In the early 2000s, while I was in grad school, my wife and I lived off her $8 an hour for 40 hours a week in Hawaii – a place infamous for its high cost of living. Money was extremely tight but we made it. I come from a working class background, and many a family made it on $10 an hour. Of course, there were others making the same wages who got toys as donations from schools or churches at Christmas because they “couldn’t afford” to purchase them themselves.

            The immigrant population where I’m from also skyrocketed in the late-80s and early-90s, and those families made the same wages with same hours, and they managed to make it work for them to the point they even sent significant money back home.

            So, no, I see no compelling argument to hand more control of the economy over to politicians and bureaucrats – when history has shown beyond a shadow of doubt, the more control given to government, the worse the standard of living (to go along with less personal freedom).

          • scott autry

            Conversely, I work with 2 people now who once lived in New York making well above $50,000 a year, and they left because that salary meant little due to the amount of taxation each level of local government took out of it…

          • macveen

            The majority of Wal-mart employees make $7-8/hr, around minimum wage. Most of them are part time with no benefits whatsoever After minimal taxes, that works out to ~ $13-14500/yr per employee

            That is how Wal-mart makes its profits, off the backs of its poor employees!

          • Ryan Nichols

            I know that not to be true. Go fill someone else full of crap.

          • macveen

            How do you know what is not true?

          • Ryan Nichols

            Because a good majority of walmart jobs start at 9$ hr. Sure some are lower. Like greeters or cart gathers. But you want to know what’s ironic? Walmart says if they pay 15$ hr many would lose their jobs. And the employees and detractors say they can easily afford it right. The irony is they’ll both be right. Walmart pays 15$ hr. It gets a wave of more educated, more ambitious, more qualified workers to choose from. And many of the poorly educated, unmotivated, people at the bottom of the ladder will be pushed out.

        • macveen

          For once, I agree with you completely. I am ashamed that this sweatshop of a company is American born & bred. Walmart represents corporate greed run amuck. As a conservative, I detest their business practices and refuse to go near their stores.

    • scott autry

      A nutshell of my view: I’ve been from the working class my whole life, and what I’ve seen has never matched what the Left, the media, and higher education have been preaching too me: That the richest Americans keep stealing more and more of the wealth from us making our lives more and more miserable.

      What I have learned is — when the economy is stronger, there are more jobs and more economic opportunities, and a higher quality of life for everyone. And I don’t seem to be alone in this experience – which is why you don’t find the working class lining up behind the Left to dramatically overhaul our economic system… I’ve never understood why the Bill Ayers of the world can get off pretending they understand my people and know what is better for them than we do ourselves…

  • Peter Banachi

    But a hardcore Liberal Ideologue would stop reading it midway through :(

  • firststater

    Hillary Clinton’s time has come (08), and gone. Republicans need to cease hyper ventilating over her possible candidacy and instead expend the ergs on finding the most qualified and viable candidate to run in 2016. My sense is Americans are now looking and longing for a real leader now for this job.

    • sgthappyg

      The most qualified and viable candidate at this point may be Gary Johnson. Vote Libertarian. Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. The two party system is dysfunctional.

  • gbauti

    I think the message that the Democrats are trying to imply it is okay to be poor, and target the wealthy, so they could get more? Is this the right message? That’s why we have divided nation because of it?

    Well, for sure, they won’t buy the message of conservatives as most of them are believers whereas the Democrats are most, they embrace secularism.

    The mainstream media will never intervene with regard to a family value, hard-work, education, talks about God. America is deteriorating its family, and we are drifting afar to its core of “respecting each other.”

    Hilary Clinton’s principle is different from conservatism because of her liberal mind. She has a family of her own, and she knows how important to have a family. She never gave up on Bill despite his infidelity.

    The integral part of a community is a family. Whatever happens inside the family circle it reverberates to its community, and the impact could be devastating.

  • D Parri

    Hey, anyone out there want to know why Hillarious smiles when she does those interviews and talks about how dead broke’ they were when they left the WH?

    Well, ‘dead broke’ is a status of financial position that does not take in the outlook for future income, based upon some currently held assets with matching liabilities. It is, rather, a desirable position for someone to hold when speaking to an IRS agent. Make no mistake, the financial position they reported to the IRS was somewhere between “broke”, and “dead-broke”, but it didn’t stay that way for long.

    That is why she smiles when she talks about it. She knows that very few people will understand that she can accurately, technically say that they were ‘dead-broke’. And she loves it.

    • scott autry

      I don’t care who the president is – if they whine about their financial distress after leaving the White House – they are being dishonest. Book deals and speaking gigs are lined up for them just waiting for their signature to cash the checks…

      I do believe, however, that our way of government and politics has led to a situation where too often people in high public office face financial ruin in the form of unending court costs if they happen to be drug into a possible scandal for no fault of their own… It is part of our over-litigious culture…

  • Concernedmimi

    The politicians who answer questions with clarity, honesty and common sense; not dip and dodge as most do today, they will be the winners in the coming election. We are tired of lies read from a tele-prompter!!!!

  • D Parri

    Oh, and a meaningful debate between Hillarious Clinton and a GOP opponent?

    She’s made her $100m (and more), so as she once said, “What difference…does it make?!”

  • D Parri

    When are people going to have the courage to speak about the incorporation of generational entitlement dependents that this administration has effectively capitalized upon for political influence and social engineering.

    Aside from those that honestly seek out help for a temporary purpose, and for whom those programs were established, the bulk populace now consists of individuals whose familial line can be traced as participants in the programs for upwards of 30 years. The offshoots and new members from such a generational spread are what has caused the current ‘blossoming’ of entitlement rolls (can’t call them welfare programs any longer), and it is only going to succeed by going to seed.

    Disincentivizing the human spirit by rewarding behavior that shares no reason for existence, save that of continued propagation, is akin to fostering the growth of cancerous cells observed in the human body.

    Although medical researchers are continuing to seek out new answers in their fight against cancer, it appears that the Democratic party–led by Obama–is diligently fighting to spread the growth of cancer-like welfare programs (there, I said it) that will only cause the death of its host, the American government and society, if a cure is not achieved soon.

    • scott autry

      Not the death of the host, to them, but death of the current system.

      The Left trusts government (in their hands) far, far more than they do business and the marketplace. They distrust them. They see them as inherently evil. Instead of “competition” for resources, they believe in giving them and their version of government the power to allocate resources as they see fit…

      • D Parri

        That is precisely why go to the doctors to try and determine the nature of our malignancy. We may not see it ourselves, but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.

        A zero-sum equation will always lead to a zero-sum outcome, but the investment that costs greater than its return is eventually pared out and disposed.

        The government is essentially a “distributor”, as opposed to a “producer”, and those that see the government only as a hand that feeds are not in a position–by nature–to see the larger picture. It is the responsibility of government, whether Democrat or Republican, to determine the degree of ‘healthy’ government programs that can be operated. We should be able to trust them as we would our own doctors.

        However, should is the operative here.

        • scott autry

          Right. The thing that gets irritating about the Left, especially the further left you go, is that they purposefully remain blind to the clear lessons of history: If there has been a society in which government control has led to greater efficiency, production, wealth, and quality of life, then their team would have a shot of winning an honest contest. But, when the reverse is true, and has been proven true time and time again in the 20th century, it becomes too irritating to allow them their point of view – because it is a view from ignorance —- but too often, this is exactly what they are teaching each new generation of young minds in college….

  • scott autry

    What Goldberg wrote above and Bob Dole’s Bridge to the Past are a good window into the heart of the divide between liberals and conservatives.

    The Left can only see the social evils of American/Western history: Segregation, other forms of institutional racism, sexism, the abuse of workers in early industrialization, colonialism, and so on.

    They do it in part because – well – frankly – those were real social ills – but also because they were the location of the Left’s greatest victories in the 20th century.

    The problem with this for us today and in the near future? 1. They are stuck in the past – basing their motivation on a blindness to today’s reality and 2. They use a fictitious, implied “better world” that is ahistorical.

    Some on the right might try to avoid recognition of the dark elements of America’s past in favor of only acknowledging the good (which the Left brushes away like flakes of dandruff), but the majority of conservatives are not ignorant of the black marks in American history – They just recognize that the America of today is not the same as the ones prior to the Civil Rights Movement, or the 1930s or the late 1800s (much less pre-Civil War).

    The Left refuses to admit the gains the society has made. They fight year after year to convince the young minds in higher education that our society is still highly oppressive and thus the great liberators (liberals) are still needed to forge radical change.

    Which brings us to a vital point: Change.

    Not minor tweaking of this or that area where we still have problems. No. They mean Change with a capital “c”.

    Which means, even if they won’t state it directly, they imply they have as a foundation for their “activism” — a better system than the one we have now…

    In the 1930s, they were open about this. They preached the communist revolution. They kept this up through the 1980s. If you read a book like Indoctrinate U., you even find that, on college campus right now, you still find professors openly preaching it.

    This is vital to understand: Liberalism isn’t simply into Deconstructionism – picking apart the real ills of America’s past. The breaking of American society apart is part of an effort to —- reshape it.

    And what makes it so important to recognize is — we have a Mt. Everest of historical material from the 20th century to judge whether the path they point to will or won’t lead to the better American they envision.

    That is the madness on the Left…

    It seems quite clear – no amount of evidence is going to convince them they need to come up with a better foundation and/or admit the success of our current system – even with its continued flaws…

    When you have professors, like in Indoctrinate U., who openly and proudly state they are Maoist (or the likes of Bill Ayers saying he is a little “c” communist), it should make the human brain pop…

    When challenged on this publicly, they pretend to laugh and conjure up the ghost of McCarthyism and swear they are not pointing us down that failed road. But, when you watch the likes of Sean Penn and other liberal elites flying to shake hands with each new Castro (like Hugo Chavez), you know they are at least lying.

    This is the heart of being Progressive: You don’t just work within the system to improve faults any society will have. You work toward a different, better system…

    Which would be great – IF – there was a better system out there we could have faith in….(Instead of the one they favor – which led tens of millions of people to the slaughter in the 20th century.)

    • scott autry

      Another window into the heart of the matter: Why was the media so gungho to get Obama in the White House no matter how much further damage it did to the greater society’s already high disdain for the media?

      Or better put: Why do you think the media refused to dig into Obama’s past and fought so hard to cover him when negative bits and pieces got out despite their silence?

      Because, any digging the media did turned up key items — items that the media recognized would alienate average Americans — but items the liberal media AGREED WITH…

      Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers are the prime examples. Why did the media have no problem with their connection to Obama? Because, like Obama, they believed Wright and Ayers were just speaking the unvarnished reality of oppressive American society – oppressive as it has always been and continues to be…

      The media was willing to put the final nails in its coffin because they saw in the unreported background of Obama exactly what they want out of a president… A president who might fight for Progress…

      • D Parri

        “…might fight…” is the operative here. After five+ years, the context now becomes historical and we can see only deceit and deception as the operatives that have actually been played out.

        Hardly an improvement.

      • JMax

        Everybody knew about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers prior to the 2008 election. The learned about it, processed it, and decided (correctly) that it was not particularly relevant to them.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          JMax, Even you have to concede that the media worked hard to downplay the significance of Wright with the whole “crazy uncle” narrative.

          I also blame John McCain. He should have pounded Obama for staying in Wright’s church, but he was afraid he’d be accused of race-baiting. The media would have indeed done that, of course, but that shouldn’t have stopped him.

          • JMax

            “Even you have to concede that the media worked hard to downplay the significance of Wright”

            Only as much as Fox News, Rush, Beck, and Drudge worked so hard to make it the issue of the election. Wright didn’t say anything worse than what Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, and a half dozen others have said about people they dislike.

            McCain let his frothing at the mouth running mate do all the dirty work. She was much more articulate anyway.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>Only as much as Fox News, Rush, Beck, and Drudge worked so hard to make it the issue of the election.

            Yes, because a handful of conservative outlets really have the same kind of reach as the mainstream media.

            >>Wright didn’t say anything worse than what Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, and a half dozen others have said about people they dislike.

            Remind me which Republican presidential candidate sat in those peoples churches for 20 years and listened to racist, anti-American rants.

            >>McCain let his frothing at the mouth running mate do all the dirty work.

            Like what?

          • JMax

            Here is a list of 534 radio stations across the US syndicating Rush Limbaugh’s show:


            Here is a list of 442 radio stations across the US syndicating Sean Hannity’s show.


            Here is a list of 297 radio stations across the US syndicating the Mark Levin show.


            I could go on.

            All Republican presidential candidates have sat at the feet of those people.

            Well it appears Palin feels she was muzzled by the McCain campaign on Wright, but she certainly wasn’t shy when talking about Obama “palling around with terrorists”.

          • Jeff Webb

            In 2008, how many millions of people got their news & editorials from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, NPR, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, LA Times, NY Times, SF Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Detroit Free-Press (you get the point), compared to the radio shows you cited, Drudge, FNC, Nat’l Review, NY Post, Washington Times, and any other provably conservative-leaning metropolitan newspapers?

            >>I watch Fox News, the oft-proclaimed number one station in cable news, almost as much as I watch MSNBC. At the time there was plenty of Wright to go around on both networks.<<

            That's like saying between me and Joe Montana we've won 6 football championships.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Are you seriously trying to tell me that a handful of conservative radio shows that are listened to by an almost entirely conservative audience is somehow a sufficient counterbalance to the over 80% of the entire media that leans liberal? Give me a break.

            The media entirely ignored Reverand Wright for a good 6 months during the campaign while Fox News (mostly Hannity) was providing multiple examples of Wright statements that demonstrated how extreme the man was.

            It wasn’t until someone at ABC News bought a “Best of” DVD at Wright’s church, that featured all of those controversial rants on video, that the media showed any interest in the man that Obama long called his spiritual adviser, and named his book after. Not even Obama’s most loyal fans in the media could have put the toothpaste back in the tube when they realized there were copies of that DVD everywhere. They sure tried though, pushing that “crazy uncle” metaphor and giving Obama the benefit of the doubt when he claimed he had never heard any of it WHILE SITTING IN HIS CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS.

            >>but she certainly wasn’t shy when talking about Obama “palling around with terrorists”.

            Was Bill Ayers not a terrorist?

          • JMax

            Do you think that Wright gave anti-American sermons every week for 20 years?

            The Wright videos were widely shown on TV.

            Bill Ayers was not a terrorist when Obama knew him. And Obama didn’t “pal” around with him.

          • Josh

            “not a terrorist when Obama knew him”

            Too dizzy to respond to that. Just want to ask: You’re sticking with that?

            Incredibly kind standard.

          • JMax

            Obama’s association with Ayers was minor. They served on one or more foundation boards of directors. Obama condemned Ayers’ past.

          • Josh

            Okay. But is that directed to me, or did you reply to the wrong person?

          • JMax

            To you, your “too dizzy” post.

          • Josh

            Yeah. Not sure what it has to do with what I posted then. But okay.

          • Integrity

            True. He condemned it, but only after it became politically expedient for him to do so. Do you recognize the pattern? QED

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>Do you think that Wright gave anti-American sermons every week for 20 years?

            No. Is my argument only valid if he did it each and every week? The notion that Obama didn’t hear this stuff numerous times while attending the guy’s church for 20 years is beyond stupid.

            >>The Wright videos were widely shown on TV.

            Yes they were. How does that negate anything I’ve written?

            >>Bill Ayers was not a terrorist when Obama knew him.

            Good God.

            >>And Obama didn’t “pal” around with him.

            Obama launched his political career at a fundraiser Bill Ayers held for him in his basement. While Obama’s relationship with Wright was for more significant than the one he had with Ayers, taking exception to someone saying the two palled around together is pretty silly.

          • JMax

            My pastor has given sermons that I didn’t agree with. So what? A lot of them are very good. I don’t go to church specifically for the sermons. I go for the fellowship and sense of community as well. If I were a community organizer, I would likely go to a church that a lot of my community attended. Clearly the “controversial” things that Wright said did not sway Obama.

            You said the media ignored Reverend Wright. That’s incorrect.

            George W, Bush was a drunk and abused drugs before he married Laura. He rehabilitated himself. We was not the same person. People change.

            Yes Ayers hosted a coffee at which Obama announced his first candidacy. They served on charitable foundation boards at the same time. There is no evidence that they discussed politics, terrorism or anything else. Or that they played basketball or poker or went clubbing together. The verb “pal” is to spend time and do things with a friend. Obama and Ayers were not friends and did not hang out together. Saying that they “palled” around together is not only silly, it’s a lie.

        • Integrity

          I am not sure about that. I would not be surprised that half the people who voted for Obama would have no clue who Joe Biden is. QED

        • scott autry

          As these others have said, BS. Wright was the most glaring example of how dang hard the media worked for Obama that election: They ignored. Then buried. Then fought to downplay it once something they didn’t want people to see got out despite their silence.

          If you know of Wright – especially some of those sound and video bites – and you believe the media would have allowed any other single Republican survive if a similar scandal broke on them, you’re simply delusional.

          Wright damaged Obama DESPITE how very hard the media worked hide then defend Obama from criticism of it. It was perhaps the most astonishing display of media malpractice I have ever witnessed, and I will never forgive them for it. I didn’t like the liberal press before that but I despised them eternally after it.

          • JMax

            How well did the so-called liberal media cover Sarah Palin and her Pastor Muthee, the Kenyan witch hunter?


          • scott autry

            It would help if I thought you and The Left were joking when you say stuff like this – but you’re not – and it just makes any dialog with you utterly pointless…because your side is either prone to subterfuge or delusions…

            You honestly want to compare Obama’s spending, how many years was it?, in that church in Chicago and the visits in Alaska of that pastor?

            It is even more mind-boggling to consider you have the balls to bring up Sarah Palin as an example of how the media treated Obama as fairly as it did his opponents!!

            If God had designed our DNA right, a person’s head would pop when he forces such a thought through it…

            Unbelievable…..Palin….as an example of the media taking it easy on Republicans……I’m almost too stunned to respond….

            The media went NUCLEAR the instant she was nominated. It was the grossest display of media malpractice since Newt Gingrich led the Republicans in retaking the House…

            It really is not worth talking to people on The Left like this. Just using the phrase “so-called liberal media” announces its pointlessness…

            This is the last time I do it. If you can’t admit the press is liberal, that it worked for Obama in 2008, (and now also that it put a savage beating on Palin the likes of which has rarely been seen), there is no value in continuing.

          • JMax

            I don’t have any particular problem with Obama’s association with Rev. Wright. Everything in context.

            “You honestly want to compare Obama’s spending, how many years was it?, in that church in Chicago”

            From what I’ve read most of the “controversial” statements were from two sermons. Two in how many years was it? I think the Palin witchcraft video is pretty creepy, but I’ll bet it was never on the network news.

            “These sermon excerpts were widely viewed in early 2008 on network television and the internet.” – Wikipedia.

            I never said the media took it easy on Republicans nor on Palin, however deservedly. I said you didn’t see any of the really creepy stuff or about her husband being a member of a secessionist group.

          • Jeff Webb

            Wright limited his anti-Americanism and racism to only 2 sermons? If you really believe that, I’d love to see your collection of bridge deeds.

          • scott autry

            You’re implication was that Obama got much the same treatment as Palin. That the media did not run interference for him over Wright. That it took it easy on Palin. And now that Rev. Wright probably only made damning statements a couple of times while Obama was in the church.


          • JMax

            No. I’m saying the media made no secret of the Wright controversy and certainly did not “run interference for him. Otherwise why would he have felt the need to deliver his major speech on race?

            The media did not take it easy on Palin.

            No, I’m saying that like most people Obama didn’t go to church every Sunday, that Wright did not deliver the same sermon every Sunday, that almost all of the clips shown on the media were from two sermons, that Obama may not have heard them, and that regardless of whether he heard them or not, without full context it’s hard to judge. And I’m saying that Wright’s words were no more hateful than those of Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others that the right is so enamored of.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            They certainly reported it. Of course, a visitor to one’s church is a far cry from sitting in one’s pews for 20 years while they preach racism and anti-Americanism.

        • scott autry

          The bottom line on Wright is: If that material had been available against McCain – the media would have been wall-to-wall coverage of it until he resigned from his campaign or the election came to an end. Period.

          Anyone who tries to deny this is lying or delusional.

          There is no other way to look at it.

          Trent Lot gave the media one sound bite where he said one vague, stupid thing about a reprehensible man (who still managed to get elected each time), and he was forced out of a leadership position in the Republican party and then out of politics.

          The media had all those videos and audio clips of Wright – and had Wright himself still going out and speaking his true mind – and the media did everything they could to defend Obama. Even creating “Rev. Wright Free Zones”.

          Just look at the Joe the Plumber episode.

          If you take the position the media did anything less than become an arm of the Obama campaign that election – you aren’t worth listening to.

          I’m not usually that “closed minded” on things, but there is no other legitimate way to be on that one issue. The media became part of Obama’s team. Period.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Mosul and Tikrit, is Democratic foreign policy writ large. And tens of thousands of (illegal immigrant) children plugging the border is their domestic policy writ large. Need anyone say more about Hillary Clinton?

  • George Williams

    You competely ignore the importation of poverty through illegal immigration from south of our border. These people do not even have a high school education and they are by far the greatest source of dependents on welfare if the party in power has its way. Welfare and earned income tax credits, a form of wealth transfer, will all ultimately be bestowed on these people, despite any promises made as the result of any legislation passed by Congress. Ultimately, those denied it initially will gain the political influence to make it happen. It will be called unfair to deny them and the party in power will demagogue it to the max for political gain.

  • Drew Page

    I can hear the Democrats now Bernie, “Republicans tell the poor – it’s your own fault.” They will drag out the old ladies in wheel chairs being dumped over a cliff by a rich looking white guy in a dark blue suit. They will show pictures of single minority mothers with a litter of kids in tow, without shoes and with hollow looking eyes positioned next to a picture of the Koch brothers at some banquet, under the caption – “Republicans want to cut off food stamps.” they will show pictures of the Statue of Liberty with the inscription “Gives us your poor, your oppressed longing to breathe free…” with a sign that reads, “The GOP says go someplace else.” When young black girls are warned of the dangers of having babies out of wedlock, Sharpton and his ilk will claim the Republicans are pushing genocide. You know they will do it and so do I. It will take more than guts for Republicans to do as you suggest and tackle these issues head on, it will take a well thought out strategy and it will take the best that Madison Avenue has to offer in order to sell it.

    As far as HIllary pushing the idea of income inequality, she will get away with it as easily as Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry and the other liberal millionaires do.

  • http://www.facebook.com/peter.boddie Peter Boddie

    Most excellent!

    Every INEQUALITY Democrats whine about is either a lie, or has been made worse by their own policies. —Pundit Pete, 2014

    You might like the graphic I made of that. Feel free to share (w/ credit).

  • disqus_yeZNegncsV

    Right on.

  • ulyssesmsu

    I get the impression you’re right, Bernie. Great column, as usual.

  • loupgarous

    Want to know why there are so many poor people? Because being “poor” in the sense of falling below the poverty line gets you a regular check, a little card that you can use like a debit card at the supermarket, and free ride health care – with no co-pays and no insurance company chiseling away at your free income for things they don’t feel like paying for.

    Europeans like to gas on about all the “poor” in America, but the truth is, in purely material terms a “poor” person in America fits firmly in the middle (or “working”) class in Europe. We just let the Democrats and all the special interests on their hayride lie about the plight of the poor.

    I have cancer, and am on disability because the nature and location of my cancer make it impossible for me to work at the offices I used to – oh, there was talk about accommodation, but over at Eli Lilly and Company, where I was a contract clinical data analyst, I was constantly made unwelcome because of the increasing number of absences I had owing to surgery and medical treatment for my cancer. I learned that working ill doesn’t work for cancer patients in intractable pain.

    So I applied for those Social Security disability payments you hear about, had to stay in a friend’s house while I waited eight years for them (by this time my cancer had spread to my liver), and was told that while I qualified for three years’ back Social Security payments, a law limited my back payments to a year and a half. I moved out of the friend’s house gratefully, and found that my payments wouldn’t cover rent, food, and utilities, much less Medicare co-pays.

    But my condition’s given me a chance to stay in a subsidized apartment and see the other poor up close. Many are like me, people with educations and a good outlook on life who just can’t work, and are grateful not to be on the streets.

    But many grew up in the culture of being poor and demanding all they can get from the system, despite being able to work. They have no inner lives, no ability to derive meaning and satisfaction from a spiritual or an intellectual life, or from good honest play and work. So they take drugs. When their government payments are not enough to feed their drug habits, they steal more from other people around them.

    As a libertarian, I have no particular problem with drug use as such, but as a citizen, I see what it does to people. It takes good-hearted men and women and turns them into ATMs for the drug pushers, some of whom actually wind up above the law and able to pursue very lucrative lives of crime because they share information (and I suspect money, as well in some cases) with the local police.

    The government has been used as a money hose to pour billions into a way of life that doesn’t work for the poor. Money just isn’t enough. There needs to be responsibility and accountability. The assumptions under which half the budget of the world’s only superpower goes to maintaining maybe thirty percent of the nation in a material level of comfort people in other countries might envy, but beset by crime that makes every day a nightmare in some neighborhoods are just invalid.

    It’s not just single parent neighborhoods, Bernie. It’s social promotions in our public schools for kids who can’t read the label on a can of beans, and it’s lack of insistence that the teachers teach and the parents parent, and cops enforce the law all over town, not just in the “nice neighborhoods.” My Mom was widowed twice, and I grew up in a single parent home, but it was a single parent home with books in it, and where accountability was a way of life.

    I think you’ll find that focusing on a single issue like single parent households is going to get your candidates owned by Hillary Clinton in a debate, because she is at least intelligent enough to show your man (or woman) that she understands what, perhaps, you do not – that raising every kid in a home with two parents isn’t a panacea. It’s just a good start.

    • ulyssesmsu

      So? At least it’s a start. Bernie never said it was the whole answer. His main point is that Democratic Party policies have destroyed the black family and kept black people poor, partly with their own acquiescence. There are always exceptions–maybe you are one. But your story doesn’t cancel out the validity of Bernie’s primary point.

  • 1Shalom1

    Chris Christie has the guts to speak up and call it for what it is. Candy Crowley and Bob Schieffer would not have been able to intimidate Christie like they did Romney. Bernie’s right. Where is the Republican with the guts to speak up. Americans will vote for him.

  • James

    Yes, the Republican candidate should bring it up; sort of like Mitt Romney and the 47%?

    • loupgarous

      I hate how no one else on the right jumped up and made an issue of the fact that Romney was right. Tip-toeing around the issue of the income inequality that counts – that we’re not all equally liable for helping run the country at income tax time, so that 47% of us (including me) are riding on the coattails of those who (also like me, until I got cancer) send the big checks in to the US Treasury every year, or have big slices of their paychecks docked by the US Treasury… tiptoeing around that unpleasant fact got the charlatan now in the White House elected TWICE.

      When the wheels come off the wagon because we have all this money going out to almost half of America and only just over half of America’s in paying for it… then we’ll see the problem. When it’s too late.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    You can never solve any problem unless you learn and acknowledge the TRUTH about that problem. When I was a kid I always wondered why people didn’t try one thing in government, see if it worked, and then adjusted or tried something else. I have learned the reason: ideology.
    Good essay, Bernie, as always. :-)

  • Jarob54

    Hillary Clinton want’s the nation to believe she is no different than the rest of us.She knows the labours of everyday Americans, she was dead broke when she and Bill left the White House. Yeah right. If that’s dead broke, I want some of that. And so the yarn gets spun, hitch up your pant legs it will get deep. But thats the way it is with politicians. They will say anything and do nothing 99% of the time.
    Funny story: Last summer my son who was eleven at the time asked me his dear old dad age 60 whom I admired. He asked if admired Mr Obama. No I said. He asked why. Why? I don’t admire any politicians since Sir Winston Churchill died.
    Who do I admire he asked. I admire Roger Daltrey. Who his he my son asked. I said he is a 70 year old Rock ‘n Roller who made a fortune by the sweat of his brow. He came from working class to become a man of extreme privilidge. He has talent and he works hard. He went into the studio this past December with Wilco Johnson who has beeen diagonoised with pancreatic cancer and Wilco always wanted to recored with Daltrey. Never mind Roger Daltrey had just come off a three continent world tour with The Who. Daltrey said yes and they hit the studio and released this January ‘Going Back Home.” It is a smash hit in the UK and Daltrey donated his earnings to his Teen Cance Trust. The man does not need to work, but as he said I want to work. Now that’s a man to admire.,
    And as the song goes. We don’t get fooled again.

    • Alexander Shaskevich

      Nice plug.

  • Sam

    No one ever wants to hear that the little guy is the problem. That’s never going to go over well. We like to take in our news information much the same way we like to hear a nice story. David is always virtuous, Goliath is always a scumbag. I think news organizations want to please their audience and present news stories the way that most folks would like them to be, because reality often sucks and is unattractive.

  • Alexander Shaskevich

    By the way, does the minority community have more smokers than the non-minority community?

    • Stimpy

      Probably. They most definitely win the prize when it comes to sexually transmitted diseases. They seem to be leading in the self destructiveness category. Only they can put a stop to that, not the government.

  • 633

    Goldberg has-as he frequently dos-written a very good column. Absent however is a salient point: the cultural emphasis that helped create the single parent household norms are substantially a result of social engineering ardently supported by the feminist movement. Which is institutionally arguably the single most devoted participant in the non traditional family rhetoric which animates the Democratic Party base.

    • Alexander Shaskevich

      ” the cultural emphasis that helped create the single parent household
      norms are substantially a result of social engineering ardently
      supported by the feminist movement.”

      Excellent point.

    • MB12345

      “…a result of social engineering ardently supported by the feminist movement.”

      Nah. It’s not that smart or calculated. The vast amount of single-parent households has more to do with non-martial sex and the number of men not stepping up to do the right thing after the woman gets pregnant. Single-parent households are not the true problem. Fatherlessness is. A good father ensures his son studies hard. A good father would kill any teen boy that looks at his teen daughter. An absent father does none of these things, and leaves the stress of raising the kids to a mother who is likely uneducated and certainly overworked.

      • nickshaw

        You do, of course, hope that every father is “good”.
        Sometimes, two parent families aren’t better off.

        • Stimpy


        • MB12345

          An absent father is not a “good” father. And that’s the problem. We conservatives like to blame feminist influence for this problem. But the problem isn’t the middle to upper class single mom from a well-off family, who went to college and decided to pursue a feminist life. Poor (and often, but not always, minority) women from the wrong side of the tracks can’t afford to be feminists. They simply made bad choices about the men they chose spend time with.

          This is a generational crisis, as children learn by example. Boys who grow up without good fathers present don’t often learn to become good husbands and fathers themselves. They get girls pregnant and disappear. Girls who grow up in the same environment don’t learn which kind of man to seek out because they had no good example; they watched their own mother shack-up with losers. This isn’t young women inspired to seek Steinem-esque independence. It’s the exact opposite.

          And it is this, which drives today’s social engineering championed by the Democratic Party elite. It is dependence and not feminism. Feminism would actually preach the opposite lifestyle; that a young woman not become a single teen mom from the ghetto or the trailer park, but pursue higher learning in hopes of becoming a self-sufficient woman… who might chose to be a single mother, but who would be much more in control of her life and not a slave to the economics of being a welfare parent who got that way by making bad choices.

    • nickshaw

      And reinforced by more than a few in the entertainment industry.

  • Carl Weston

    She hasn’t even announced yet. Don’t encourage her…

    • Stimpy

      There’s no stopping her. She is going to rule the liberal world in her leisure suit.

  • Alexander Shaskevich

    Yes Bernie. When a problem in society is prevalent in the minority community ( out of wedlock births ) then bringing it up is racist. It is as if everything that is in the minority community that is wrong cannot be pointed out because it is in the minority community. If it was not in the minority community, then you can talk about it.

    • 633

      True enough. Example: Charles Murray’s book The State of White America in 2010 restricted itself to metrics illustrating the impact of disfunctional and single parent households for whites only (which was bad enough). It didn’t deal with black America, because Murray felt pointing out the same negative impact there would be considered racist.

    • nickshaw

      You could just talk about single parent homes within the white community as being a problem.
      No, wait, then you’d be exhibiting your “white privilege”.
      Sheesh! You can’t win! 😉

  • Beenthere

    20% of kids from single family homes live in long term poverty….what about the 80% who don’t?
    One thing you learn in a single family home, after going through the furniture to find change for bread and going to an opinionated relative to borrow $10 until the welfare check comes in, is that you never want to be in that position as an adult. You learn at an early age that your job as the oldest is to provide and that’s what you do.
    I agree that education suffers in that environment but ambition is a strong replacement and taking jobs at an early age that are usually held by adults gives a person the confidence that he can do any job as long as he has the basics.
    If you want to talk about income inequality lets talk about the difference in pay for the people who send our soldiers, sailors and marines overseas to carry out their political wars and what they pay those soldiers, sailors and marines and their families.

    • 633

      From a career standpoint military personnel are compensated quite well, particularly if the annuity value of the benefits (lifetime minimal personal cost health care,defined fully cost of living adjusted retirement benefits after 20 years) are calculated. And the metric you ask about- which Bernie doesn’t address:-single parent kids who don’t live in long term poverty are still substantially less likely to attain affluence (depending of course on your definition of that term). Charles Murray’s last book (the State of White America in 2010) explains that reality quite well.Goldberg isn’t dinging on these families in an individual context; I’m sure he would be the first to applaud those who succeed. He’s making the point that a culture or political party that declines to recognize an obvious cost and effect relationship isn’t serious about helping the lower end of that spectrum.

  • Ksp48

    Turns out that Dan Quail was correct.

    • sniper2535

      Yep. If he didn’t have an R by his name the idiots on the left may have pondered the notion before being told by the media what to think about it.

  • Haaseline

    Here’s what you really need to know??? All the Hillary trash talking isn’t going to keep her from the WH…. It’s obvious the base loves to rally behind this crap and there is a thought that “taking the higher road” won’t be as effective as mud throwing. GOP needs to come up with a KISS message that everybody in America can understand and stay focused on the features & benefits for all americans. If not its just a WH filled with another ideology that 1/2 of America hates??

    • Alexander Shaskevich

      Trash talking will not keep her from the White House, that is correct. Just trot out her husband and say “You want this guy prowling around the White House, while his wife is out working?”

      • Haaseline

        And then again some people just have to “be judges” in life??? I hope the GOP can run on solid principles that work, but something tells me , its the same moaning , complaining and lies just in a different package,,, or as I would call them “the tallest midget”

  • Kit Carson

    Just read some Amazon reviews about Hillary’s new book. Liberals and Clinton supporters are already whining about Hillary’s dismal book ratings, demanding they be pulled. Once again leftists believe freedom of speech pertains to them, and only them.

  • lark2

    Here is ALL you need to know about Hillary, her husband, and the Clinton Mafia. They are ALL LIARS. “Income inequality” is an issue they can currently “use”. They don’t actually “believe” anything. They USE issues that are expedient and if there are changes in popular beliefs, the Clinton’s and their people will shift to the new views. Like Obama, they truly care only about money and votes. Fortunately, they are not as skilled as the bamster and there is nothing mysterious about the Clintons … we all know all about them. They are brilliant prevaricators and wordsmiths. The sad part is that there are so many citizens who fall for their crap no matter what.

    • El_Tigre_Loco

      Why is bill clinton not on a sexual predator’s list?

  • dennis`

    Let’s not forget liberal policies that have encouraged single parent families. Have all the kids you want and we will pay you for it.

    • Ksp48

      And easily foreseen. About 55 years ago in 8th grade I wrote a paper in which I said I couldn’t believe that the government actually had programs that paid young girls to have babies, but only if they were not married and no man lived in the house. And the same program gave them raises for having more babies. My 8th grade teacher accused me of vein heartless (she might have said that I lacked compassion). So now there are three dependent generations and in some cases four generations . Who exactly was the heartless one?

  • Tim Ned

    It takes a village to raise a child. I guess that explains why we have so many village idiots in today’s society.

    • pasquale7

      chuckle, chuckle, good one.

  • Gloria

    Again – so simple and so obvious – self perpetuating moral disintegration resulting in fewer good citizens and more conscienceless members of society. The entertainment industry, aided by the media, glorify bad behavior. You can’t turn on the tv without seeing and hearing what was once considered blatantly immoral language and sexual activity. Makes me sick, and makes our society sicker. Where are the role models? Very hard to find them today. Father Knows Best, The Wonder Years? Hah. Old fashioned values are practically non-existent. Families that dine together, attend church services together are a shrinking factor, much to the detriment of our country. Sad. And I don’t see it changing. The enemy within? Hey, in the old days, you could be poor and still be happy and live a decent law abiding life. My grandparents all managed to accomplish that when they arrived on these shores. And they were EXCELLENT role models! Two parents are better than one, but even a single parent who demonstrates good values can produce fine upstanding sprouts.

    • gongdark

      Gloria….I luv ya. You hit the nail squarely on the head. If this be your moral and intellectual stand, on beliefs and behavior, I’ll be looking forward to more of your comments. Take Care

      • Gloria

        Hi gongdark,
        Thanks! Sad to say, my values seem to be a disappearing commodity. I know many others feel the same, but we are in the minority and our numbers continue to dwindle. Makes you feel helpless. So I just try to influence the ones I can – like my own kids and grandkids. What else can ya do?

    • Ksp48

      Any father on TV today is portrayed as a bumbling idiot, to be lovingly tolerated but ignored.

  • kelly

    The Clintons have amassed a $100 million fortune. Were they industrialists? No. .com millionaires? No. Fortune 500 CEO? No. Politicians? YES.

    • Ssherbin

      Yes, and in this case Obama is correct. They didn’t do it by themselves, the government helped them.

    • Stimpy

      They are still 39.9 billion behind Putin. Putin takes the cake when it comes to corruption.

  • Seattle Sam

    Liberals remain dedicated to the singular (and self-serving) proposition that for every problem there is a solution that requires you to cede more of your autonomy to government. The notion that individual behavior might be a root cause of these problems is antithetical to the proposition..

  • Tova Feinman

    Actually, teasing out the existence of confounding variables in scientific research is critical. In the case of smoking, that has already been done. So, the process of looking for confounding variables is actually not ideological, it’s standard operating procedure in a scientific inquiry. Having said that, I make no apologies for the fact that my husband and I have worked extremely hard to achieve the successes we have. I grew up extremely poor but was blessed with a good mind for math and science. I used those talents G-d gave me to achieve my goals. I respect Hillary’s climb to success. I dislike the hypocrisy that only wealthy Democrats are the “good wealthy” and deserve their success. Good for her being a 1%er. Also good for the Koch brothers.

    • Ksp48

      1%. The top 1% income a couple of years ago was about $360,000. That is chump change for the Clintons. Less than two hours for HER and less than a hour for HIM. Maybe a ghost written chapter (or less). They are worth more than $100,000,000. AND AL GORE IS WORTH CLOSE TO A QUARTER OF A BILLION. More than Mitt Romney who created one of the world’s premier equity capital firms.

      • Tova Feinman

        It is none of my business how anyone else earns their money or how much they earn as long as it is legal. It is none of my business how anyone spends their legally earned money. That is their business. What is my business is that my husband and I act as good stewards of the income we have been blessed to be able to earn. We care about giving charity. We care about helping extended family. We have pledged to be there for our disabled daughter for as long as she needs us to be. The government IS NOT a good steward of ANYBODY’s hard earned money, least of all ours. Only we can be that trustee for our priorities. Our priorities are not the government’s priorities. Beyond the obligation to obey the law, the rest is between us and G-d.

        • Ksp48

          Nor mine, until they claim poverty and try to make “income inequality” a campaign issue. Hypocrisy and mendacity are the issues and that is everybody’s business.

  • Joe Adams

    The world in which we live allows little possibility for enforcement of honest behavior. Almost everyone involved is gaming the system for their own personal benefit. Poor, single mothers learned the game long ago, and though it’s not much compared to the what their bureaucrats & gov’t bosses get, it’s something. Many single mothers think that a small gov’t check each month validates their worth. This is what democrats have supported and promoted since Lindon Baines Johnson. Who wins with this philosophy?

    • Josh

      ^ Said the guy who called my post “too cynical.” lol

      Not that I disagree, mind you. I just appreciate irony.

    • El_Tigre_Loco

      Exactly what unions are about. The union bosses pull in six figure incomes and keep the peon members in line with crumbs.

      • pasquale7

        Not quite crumbs, especially if you belong to the SEIU. Government unions have managed to force government jobs, at all levels, to be quite generous as to salary and even moreso when they retire. As a reward the elected officials have managed to make 8-12 years as an elected official extremely lucrative. e.g., Lee County (FL) Comissioners make appx $35,000 a year and if you serve two terms (8 years) at age 65 you will receive a yearly pension of $21,000. e.g., Representative Anthony Weiner after 12 years in the House will receive over $2,000,000 in pension money and benefits. If you work 40 years at $40,000 a year on average you will earned $1,600,000 in salary and you know how lacking your Social Security monthly checks will be and you will need a lot of that money to pay your co-pays on Medicare. I have quite a few friends who opted for government jobs in the late 60s and I am amazed at the amounts of their pensions and their medical benefits. I know I got off track, but working for governments has become a substitue for the old labor unions, but much more secure.

        • Stimpy

          Gotta love that government teat. Wish I had some of that.

          • pasquale7

            gimme dem, gimme dem, gimme dem crubs…..AND DA WORST PART is the federal guvment is the main cause of inflation. With an 8% Baseline increase in the budget every year, how can it NOT be the most significant factor in inflation? I am puzzled that they require 8% a year but out of the other side of the mouth they give us a 1-3% increase cost-of-living increase to our SSA checks and of course they are cutting Medicare 50+ billion a year for ten years to pay for Medicaid. A little salt in the wound; medical payments to illegals are skyrocketing, but they are more entitled to medical care than we are. Not to mention that criminals can get all the medical care they need, plus they get free dental care. Need dental work, commit a felony. Preferably rob a bank so you go to a federal pen. Maybe one of those country club prisons. And if you are not getting enough sex in prison, get a sex change and become a female. Whatta country.

  • scott autry

    Such reporting would be considered a War on Women. If it were a War on Men, the media could get behind that – like they did in the 1980s-90s. Just as they have Balkanized the college campus, they have divided the society into advocacy groups – those oppressing and those being oppressed – and – yes – the media clearly picks sides (because that is the only ethical thing to do (notice I didn’t say “moral” since they don’t like that word)) and that directs much of what they will and won’t report and how they “analyze” each for “ignorant Americans” in the flyover states to digest as best as their feeble brains will let them.

    We could take this a step further:

    The Left will not champion the reestablishment of the family. They will consider that an attack on single working moms.

    What they will champion to “solve” this problem is – Big Government.

    It not only takes a village – it takes a “right thinking” leader (read “Leftist”) – with the authority and pocket book (full of money taken out of the purses of all villagers) to put into place —– social equality programs —— that will solve the nation’s problems far better than individual ignorant parents could.

    There is a reason you see so many artistic renderings of the world’s worst dictators as paternalistic father-type – or why communist leaders like Kim Il Sung forced citizens under his boot to call him “father”.


    Advocating the rebirth of the American family – to these people – is like saying you want women to become slaves again and want a male-dominated, racist, homophobic society to reemerge to victimize us all over again…

    Just go back to how the media and Dems responded to a key message in Bob Dole’s campaign…

    • scott autry
      • scott autry

        Note: That background is not a digital board. It is hundreds of children drilled to death to turn individual cardboards to mimic a digital billboard.

        Yes, this is an extreme example. Yes, it is ultimately unfair to imply today’s Left in American society wants to or will take us to Kim Il Sung Land – but – this is the broad strokes of the It Takes a Village ideal. We can gain some useful insights if we notice how the nations who have tried the communist economic/social model have used art to depict their authoritarian leaders as the “dad” of all children and people…

    • scott autry

      NY Times 1996: “By now, for example, Bob Dole must regret that he ever declared that it takes a family, not a village to raise a child…”

      “Mr. Clinton served notice that Mr. Dole would not be allowed to forget his blunder. ”We do not need to build a bridge to the past, we need to build a bridge to the future,” Mr. Clinton said in elaborating his theme that he and the Democrats are the best leaders for the next century.”


      • scott autry
      • scott autry

        And what was Clinton’s first big project in social equality: Reducing the amount of money the government takes out of the pockets of individual parents so they can raise their children as they see fit? Of course not. He wanted more money taken out of the pockets of citizens so the government could institute universal (read “state controlled”) health care…

        • Drew Page

          I think you meant to say “INCREASING the amount of money the government takes out of the pockets of individual parents so they can raise their children as they see fit?”

          • scott autry

            No. It was a factitious question – a Democrat wanting to help out families by lowering taxes…

    • Joe Adams

      Right on, Bro.Your heart is in the right place.

  • SkyCitizen

    Excellent piece Bernie, your craftsmanship shines through to everyone but the stupid, unfortunately that seems to be the majority.

    The liberals have succeeded mightily in co-opting the press, education, and endeavored to weaken the bedrock of belief systems for most Americans. Many Americans seem ready to accept anything and everything handed them but responsibility,

    It’s been National Socialism deja vu however, unlike National Socialism Americans still remember a time of prosperity and the contrasting political landscape. Conservatives need to make the case that single parenthood is a financial dead end and not a rite of passage. That receiving a pittance of government largesse leads to a life of uninspired boredom and that full throttle illegal immigration removes opportunity from citizens whose birthright it is.

    Over time I’ve seen you chastise the American press and deservedly so. The press never ceases to dutifully defend the 1st Amendment as sacrament. If only the press would defend the rest of the Constitution as fervently I think the Republic would be better served. If the press doesn’t do it’s job then nothing works. It’s the responsibility of the press to attenuate the ebb and flow of politics. It’s easier on the Nation in all respects to have half the folks unhappy half of the time rather than half the folks unhappy all the time. I apologize to F.D.R.

  • Josh

    I was just struck by something the other day while watching game 2 of the NBA Finals. It’s certainly not a unique observation. Anybody with sense realizes it. But I was fresh off of hearing some progressive liberal drone on about the wealth gap about two hours before tip-off. Then, as I was watching the game, it became clear that this “1%,” “the wealthy,” “the rich,” or whatever other names they’re called, really means “old white businessmen on Wall Street” and not the many athletes, coaches, trainers, owners, and rich fans in the NBA stands. Income inequality doesn’t matter if the wealthy in the scenario are actors or musicians or trust-fund babies grown up to become Democratic donors. “Wealth” has a much deeper meaning than any monetary amount in a bank. It’s more similar to modern feminists claiming patriarchy and telling men to check their privilege.

    I’m personally happy if Clinton doesn’t drone on about it or even bring it up ever. I agree that this “debate” or “conversation” or whatever is needed on the topic. But like with the meaningless babble surrounding race relations, it doesn’t accomplish anything. It only serves as a platform for talking points, accusations, twisted numbers posing as facts, and outright lies.

    So I really just hope the nonsense goes away and isn’t talked about at all. Every time I hear drivel about the 1% or wealthy or whatever, I just hear a hefty redheaded feminist with glasses yelling loudly that she doesn’t get to speak because patriarchy.

    I don’t want to hear about two-parent family models and financially secure and responsible parents raising children whose odds of financial success are vastly improved. That’s only going to be met with the equivalent of white-men-operated patriarchy, and nothing serious will come of it. I’m not much on the ignore-it-and-it-goes-away myth, but I would like this wealth topic to disappear out of mainstream dialogue. The people with microphones are far too fickle and vain to speak about it honestly. It’s better left alone, IMO, not refuted. Refutation doesn’t do anything for anyone at anytime anywhere on the planet. Just ask the religious or UFO or Bigfoot or Illuminati folk.

    • Joe Adams

      Your ripost is much too cynical. We have to talk about it and stay engaged.

      • Josh

        Okay. But to what end? I can see it being cynicism if, say, these were new and fresh and exciting issues, and I was just shoving them aside thinking they’d share the same fate as others. But they’re not. They’re old issues that have been talked about so often, by so many, and nothing’s really been said whatsoever on the subject. It’s an issue that’s buried deep inside of ideology — it’s an issue that’s tied to politics and race and a host of other hot-button issues that do not allow for honest debate or sensible action.

        So to what end? Talk about it. Stay engaged with it. Okay. For what, though? One’s own sense of duty, like with green credits? I don’t get it.

        IMO, the issue is better served with action, not words. Clinton debating a generic Republican on the issue has no payoff that I see. If anything, it will greatly detract from other issues when, predictably, America’s media and progressive contingent goes nonsensical in their accusation-heavy coverage.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Actually the solution is relatively simple. 1. Single parent mothers MUST report paternity or get NO assistance whatever. 2. The thus fingered parent with the “Y” chromosome (you can’t really call some of them fathers) MUST submit to DNA testing. (if paternity proven) 3. They get a job, pay support, or go to jail. (Have no fear the jails won’t fill up). We live in a society where BAD behavior is rewarded, and good behavior is penalized. As economists continually point out, people respond both to coercion and reward. While at first you wouldn’t see packs of men marrying their girls, you absolutely would see them refrain from activities that put them at risk of jail or a lifetime of child support. This is NOT one thing new under the sun. What on earth do think marriage was (is) in the first place. It was (is) a compact between three parties. A man a women and a community. A community enforcable compact that ensured when two breeding (consenting) adults engaged in intercourse, they had a prior agreement (a community enforcable compact) to care for resulting progeny. Even today it’s called a marriage license. And even today we still hear words in marriage ceremonies like, “who gives this woman to this man”. And thus parental support is transferred to the new bread winner. (who not being able to have babies was in a much better position to sell his labor (you know, to earn a living) on the open market.

    • Joe Adams

      Yeah Brian, your suggestion might work in an honest society. But the world in which we live allows little possibility for enforcement of honest behavior. Almost everyone involved is gaming the system for their own personal benefit. Poor, single mothers learned the game long ago, and though it’s not much compared to the what their bureaucrats/ gov’t bosses get, it’s something. Many single mothers think that a small gov’t check each month validates their worth. This is what democrats have supported and promoted since Lindon Baines Johnson. Who wins with this philosophy?

      • Brian Fr Langley

        There are actually some English speaking countries where some local jurisdictions do something very similar. When a marriage breaks up the mother is awarded support, fathers who don’t pay actually do get sent to jail. It works shockingly well. They always seem to find away to get a job and pay. The fact that it’s “out of this world’s orbit” to even consider, that fathers should support their progeny is what’s really “out of this world’s orbit”. I mean how on earth did it come to this?

    • rs724503

      You must not know much about the family court system. Giving family courts any more power then it already has is a bad idea all around.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        Then don’t worry about supporting vast numbers of fatherless children.

        • rs724503

          You ever hear the expression “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. That’s basically what your idea is. You think that you are trying to stop the flow of fatherless children but you aren’t. All you’re really doing is giving an entity which far too often breaks up families and bankrupts all participants yet another tool to break up families and bankrupt people.

          Your idea sounds good in theory, but that’s a theory which doesn’t take into account the reality of the corruption in family courts.

          I doubt you have the first clue about how family courts work or what sort of corruption there is there and your idea is to give that corrupt entity even more power.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I hate to pop your balloon, but family court is NOT what I support. The fact is, for some three millennia civilizations have proscribed sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Why? Because a village would otherwise soon be over run with hungry, fatherless children. (sound familiar) (in fact, the word orphan used to mean fatherless). Without at least some kind of societal proscription, (it used to be marriage), on indiscriminate breeding, (it used to be called adultery or illicit sex), civilization will inevitably spiral downward. Already labor participation rates are at an all time low. More folks than ever are supporting burdens far in excess of their own families. As they get tired of working for other folks they’ll quit as well.

          • rs724503

            You may not support family court however it is family court where your idea will materialize. Whether you support it or not, what your idea is doing is giving even more power to an entity which needs less of it.

            You can’t legislate or regulate good parenting or good families and those who try only give the government even more power to corrupt.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            3000 years of history says you’re wrong. BUT more importantly, folks are simply not prepared to pay endless support to other men’s children. Eventually sanity will prevail, or this civilization will collapse on the weight of socially maladjusted (fatherless) children.

          • Josh

            The biggest difference between our society and those societies isn’t much to do with values and more to do with good health. We no longer lose well over half of the children born and 3/4 of children conceived! lol

            Let’s not forget that prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, why multi-wiving and concubines and — well, no use to go through all that again. We seem to view the “facts” of history through a completely different lens.

            But, in all seriousness, we need better balance in the justice system in this particular area. Men expected to be ATM machines is seriously F’d up. Particularly from the side that wants it that way because they view women as docile, delicate and dim victims of a man’s seed who have been abandoned by a no-count philanderer.

            That’s simply one of many scenarios in today’s society, and certainly no longer the dominant one.

            One of the dominant scenarios, particularly in minority communities where out-of-wedlock, single-parent children are more like a plague, is that women seek to get knocked up for the benefits and intentionally drive the men out of the home. A large percentage (I will find the exact numbers later; they slip my mind) of women with multiple children also have multiple fathers.

            They’re not victims of no-count men who drop their seed. They know exactly what they’re doing.

            The “it takes two to tango” saying here doesn’t offer enough context to what’s going on in some precincts. The fact that law forces men to be an ATM is one of the driving factors of women abusing the system to get ahead in their own lives. Children are meal tickets for women in today’s world just as much as, to men, they’re annoying side effects of unadulterated, unprotected sex.

            Bring balance to this issue. Like most things in America, it needs to be updated with the times.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            The men being used as ATM’s are not typically the one’s who’ve abandoned their families. But even if the female you’ve mated with is a slutty ho, what’s that to do with your children?

          • Josh

            What’s that question got to do with balance?

            But that’s okay. I know what I’m in for when I speak with you. I’ll answer your question even if you ignore my entire concern.

            Here’s how it works to date in America:

            Woman gets pregnant, the “how” not mattering one iota, and thus she has 100% freedom to keep or terminate the pregnancy without a man’s consent at all. Once she has the child, she’s exponentially more likely to retain custody in court if she wants. She’s instantly entitled to not only the man’s money, but the man doesn’t even have to be the father by DNA. As long as he has signed a birth certificate, even if he was tricked into it, he’s on the hook as the ATM machine. And the woman, considered a “single mother” from here on, even if she initiated the breakup, left, and has a new man, so long as she’s not remarried, is entitled to over half a dozen government assistance programs on top of the father’s money.

            Men are extremely unlikely to receive joint custody, let alone full custody. Single fathers are far less likely to receive assistance. Women, even if earning more money, can still tap the father’s wallet. Fathers face prison for not paying, even if circumstances are such they cannot pay.

            There’s no balance here. “Children” aren’t the reason the issue is so off kilter. It’s because:

            1) First-world modern feminist policies are more pervasive than we realize.

            2) Old-school, women-shouldn’t-vote religious men don’t think enough of women to understand the former and cannot see that the imbalance in a woman’s favor is what’s driving births far more than supposed loose morals. They can’t see it’s a business; it’s a livelihood for many women. They just see sex and wag fingers and demand responsible relationships, not thinking about the laws they created that feminist influence has now perverted.

            If it was truly about children and not politics and religion, we’d have balance on the issue and children wouldn’t be brought into the world solely to be bargaining chips.

            As it stands, however, women are considered too weak-minded and helpless. It’s always the man’s responsibility for children. The old-school religious view them that way, and so too do new-age feminists, ironically enough, in their quest to “empower” women by removing all responsibility.

            Things can be going perfectly between my slutty ho and me. We can be getting on like gangbusters, loving live. But any one day she wants to, that slutty ho can walk into a lawyer’s office, demand custody, and force me to pay a lawyer for a losing court case, thereafter forcing my money to her for my children, having the state deciding whether or not I’m a good father, all the while she’s free to bring other men around, earn money however she sees fit, while receiving state assistance. Meanwhile, I’ll get to see my children two weekends a month, if I’m lucky.

            If I walked into that lawyer’s office first, I’d still be in the same boat in the end as if she did.

            That’s what it has to do with my children. No balance, and it’s enabled by people who are unable to accurately view the issue outside of their own religious or political views.

            Make it tougher for assistance, and make it tougher for mothers to retain full custody, and you’ll see a lot more families staying together, and far fewer “oops” pregnancies, particularly in poorer areas. Remove the damn tax credit too while we’re at it. But make more laws that demand more money from more fathers, however, it’s simply going to perpetuate the babies-as-a-business careers many young women are adopting.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            1st blaming traditional conservative views for the ultra liberal feminazi take over is ludicrous. 2nd If you don’t want to tend your garden DON”T plant your seeds. 3rd I said welfare ONLY when paternity proved by DNA and the father is fingered. 4th Why the hell should my tax dollars go to your children (even if the girl you mated is a wanton gold digging b!tch) As for balance I couldn’t agree more, but short of jailing single mothers I’m not sure how you’d achieve it. Having said that, a father should be provided absolute unfettered visiting rights if he’s paying his fair share of support. But tax payers should NOT be on the hook for other folks choices and children.

          • Josh

            Nowhere in any of my posts in my two or so years at this site do I call for taxpayers’ money to be spent on this rubbish . So if that’s what you’re taking from my posts, I suggest reading them again.

            Nor am I saying a father shouldn’t care for his children. What I’m saying is that the father needs to be treated as more than an ATM. This progressive modern feminist we-don’t-need-men culture wants men to be mere wallets for single mothers. And, yes, the types of conservatives I’m speaking about play right into that.

            Mothers need to be held to the same standards, not treated as victims or helpless parties in need of financial assistance. A traditionalist view that, no matter what, the man is the head of the household and the woman is, well, a weaker, more supportive role, certainly enables the modern feminist vision to come to fruition.

            It’s sorta like the war on porn. Though the two sides want it gone for two completely different reasons, the two sides still want it gone.

            When women are viewed as equally culpable for bringing children into the world, my stance is that we’ll see millions of fewer children being brought irresponsibly into the world by single parents and teens and especially women whose only reason for having children is for financial security.

            But I have no issue with making men pay. Men simply shouldn’t be stepping stones due to people’s outdated religious views and wild and wide-eyed political views of gender domination.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            First your posts indicate you blame Christian conservatives for this sorry state of affairs rather than the left wing loony policies that are really to blame. Second, how does one hold a single mother with young children culpable? Should she be spanked? Or tattooed with a scarlet letter on her forehead? Deprived of welfare or money to feed her children? Unhappily for society, child birth and child rearing are difficult and time consuming. This means female is NOT as marketable as male labor. This is not some religious male chauvinism, it’s simply the facts. Being raised by a single mother myself, (in a large urban center), for my mother getting an education, getting a good job, and then keeping a good job (while taking care of children) can be extra-ordinarily difficult. Since it is virtually impossible to hold single mothers responsible, then I’d choose the children’s fathers. Who I would NOT choose is (except as a last resort) is tax payers.

    • El_Tigre_Loco

      Report paternity? Have you ever watched The Maury Show? Women on there trot in a dozen men for DNA testing to prove that, “I am 1000% sure he is the father.” God help us all.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        So your solution is to pay welfare (forever) to husbandless mothers and their fatherless children?

  • Jeff Webb

    One thing’s for sure: if Hillary does make any speeches on dysfunctional behavior, nobody in the audience will ask her what makes her an authority on the subject.

    • Jenn

      “IT TAKES A VILLAGE”…Hillarious thinks us as parents cant bring up our own children so enter the government….THIS TOTALLY SUCKS BIG TIME!!!

  • Integrity

    Bernie, I am unsure what the hell bothers many Americans anymore. Perhaps you are being a bit quixotic. I hope not. QED

  • jackietreehorn3

    Spot on Bernie. Taking accountability for the choices that lead to your lot in life is not a popular thing to do. Not all poor or economically challenged people are like that. Some are just dealt a bad hand. To those that weren’t though, it’s easier to point the finger and blame others. And the more they hear from their political leaders it isn’t their fault(talking points), the more entitlements they feel their owed. Ultimately we become a nanny state. Aka the liberal playbook to stay in power

  • Brian Stover

    Incomes are SUPPOSED to be unequal. There are so many factors involved, I won’t even try to list them here.
    The only way that everyone has the same income, is when that income approaches zero.

    • El_Tigre_Loco

      How about Cuba where doctors earn $30 per month?