Economists: Give America a Raise and Create 85,000 New Jobs

Fair Minimum Wage Act

Via HuffPo.

In a letter released Tuesday through the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, 75 economists, including seven Nobel Laureates, argue that the government should hike the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour by 2016 and then peg future increases to inflation. A proposal from Senate Democrats, backed by President Obama, to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour is currently stalled in Congress.

…During the initial phase-in period of a $10.10 minimum wage, the U.S. economy would grow by $22 billion, according to a December analysis from EPI. The economic growth would result in the creation of 85,000 new jobs, the analysis concluded.

If Republicans refuse to raise the federal minimum wage, let’s call it what it is: economic sabotage.

UPDATE: Republican Millionaire Has A Compelling Case For A $12 Minimum Wage, And He’s Taking It Directly To California Voters

UPDATE: Bickering Intensifies As Republicans Filibuster Unemployment Benefits

  1. #1 by brewski on January 14, 2014 - 4:35 pm

    That letter lies. Some of those people listed as “economists” are not economists at all and have no education nor credentials in economics.

    If you are going to lie and be dishonest, don’t make it so easy to get caught.

  2. #2 by Jebus on January 14, 2014 - 4:52 pm

    Let us be the first to cast stones at shameless liars.

  3. #3 by Jebus on January 14, 2014 - 4:58 pm

    After unrestricted money creation it is arguable that 10.10 is akin to 6 bucks an hr 5 years ago. You name it, it costs more.

    The issue isn’t the minimum wage, the true issue is how the Fed is constantly creating money to hide the economic disaster that is at hand, and then pump up the stock market with direct infusions of Fed created monies to prop it up through those firms who own and run our government. Goldman Sachs comes to mind.

    Keep in mind that over half of the governments actual monies come to it from equity rises in the stock market and dividends the government owns from buying said with our money and assigned debt.

    Whatever they dump becomes the people’s debt..and as the the amount of dollars keeps on piling up, the currency progresses towards worth less….ness. Toss in another war monger president starting shit wherever he can, and voila! 10.10 an hr, sure why not?

    Doesn’t mean you have to hire anyone.

  4. #4 by cav on January 14, 2014 - 7:33 pm

    Shorten hours also too. 48 in a day would be an improvement – provided a work day continued to be comprised of 8.

    • #6 by cav on January 15, 2014 - 7:30 am

      Your link got an A for right wing propaganda. What’s new?

      Of course Forbes is perfectly objective in things ‘status quo’.

      Our corporate media is corporate.

    • #7 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2014 - 8:01 am

      You linked to an opinion piece, whose author thinks that wages automatically go up when labor productivity increases. Where is the evidence for that in today’s economy?

      • #8 by brewski on January 15, 2014 - 8:05 am

        Your source is an opinion piece.
        Your letter lies.

      • #9 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2014 - 6:44 pm

        Do wages automatically go up when labor productivity goes up?

        • #10 by brewski on January 15, 2014 - 6:51 pm

          If you are going to use an ignorant word like “automatically” then you aren’t serious about learning. Get back to me when you are serious and I will be happy to school you.

          If anything, what your chart shows is that all hell broke loose under the Carter/Democratic monopoly of the 1970′s, Long long long before Reagan and long long long before the 40 year control of Congress by the Democrats ended in 1995.

          You have a lot of splaining to do.

          • #11 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2014 - 7:01 pm

            Your source, the insufferably arrogant and wrong Prof. Paul Roderick Gregory:

            “If anything, the long-term trend in labor’s share of the pie is slightly upward, not downward as Reich implies.”

          • #12 by Larry Bergan on January 15, 2014 - 7:04 pm

            Let’s see; the wages started to stagnate right after, (anti union-anti voting), ALEC was formed.

            Let’s blame Jimmy Carter.

          • #13 by brewski on January 15, 2014 - 8:37 pm

            An economy of 100% subsistence farmers will have a wage/GDP share of 100%. Is that what you want? So we can all be equally desperate?

          • #14 by cav on January 16, 2014 - 9:10 am

            This makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. Might just as easily qualify as a LIE.

            But, who knows…bruuski is such an expert?

  5. #15 by Nathan Erkkila on January 15, 2014 - 2:52 am

    The Tea Party that has their death grip in congress will not pass this bill regardless of the political ramifications.

  6. #16 by brewski on January 15, 2014 - 11:11 am

    “Several decades of studies using aggregate time-series data from a variety of countries have found that minimum wage laws reduce employment. At current U.S. wage levels, estimates of job losses suggest that a 10 percent in crease in the minimum wage would decrease employment of low-skilled workers by 1 or 2 percent. The job losses for black U.S. teenagers have been found to be even greater, presumably because, on average, they have fewer skills. As liberal economist Paul A. Samuelson wrote in 1973, “What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2.00 per hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?”3 In a 1997 response to a request from the Irish National Minimum Wage Commission, economists for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) summarized economic research results on the minimum wage: “If the wage floor set by statutory minimum wages is too high, this may have detrimental effects on employment, especially among young people.”4 This agreement over the general effect of minimum wages is long-standing. According to a 1978 article in American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.”

    Linda Gorman, PhD in economics (something Robert Reich does not have)

    • #17 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2014 - 6:50 pm

      The problem these economists have is that their predictions never come true. Before Congress gets around to raising the federal minimum wage, usually about half the states already have a higher standard of pay.

      You can’t point to an example of unemployment resulting from raising the federal minimum wage. It actually boosts the economy and creates more jobs.

      • #18 by brewski on January 15, 2014 - 8:40 pm

        source please.

        and don’t give me pithy opinion pieces faking it as “studies” by some lefty activist group. Your links to a Huffpo op ed piece which then links to an activists op ed piece referring to a “study” which is not actually any study at all is not worth more than ass-wipe.

        • #19 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2014 - 7:17 am

          You seem alarmed by the fact that federal minimum wage increases have never actually caused unemployment. Right-wing concern trolls always say that they want to keep wages low for the benefit of low-wage workers, but that’s utter nonsense.

          Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment? (PDF)

          • #20 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 8:42 am

            Do you admit that Reich has no PhD in economics, is not an economist, and the EPI lied?

            If raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour is such a good idea, then why phase it in gradually over three years? Why not just make it immediate?

            I read your link and the link from your link and the link from the link from your link and nowhere in any of that is there any linked “study”. They are all op-ed pieces which refer vaguely to studies many of which have already been debunked. Your link also mis-states what those studies actually say. So your post mis-states what those studies say, and those studies have been debunked and I have also already provided you with actual peer-reviewed real studies which demonstrate that minimum wages do indeed cause unemployment among the least skilled. I already gave this to you but you willfully ignore this and keep bleating the same tired old lefty mantras which have already been shown to be factually wrong. So you are either intentionally dishonest, really stupid, or both.

            Which is it?

          • #21 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 8:48 am

            From your source:
            “Employers can reduce hours, non-wage benefits, or training. Employers can also shift the composition toward
            higher skilled workers,…

            Hmmm. So your source does say that raising the minimum wage does have costs on the lowest skilled workers. Shocking!

          • #22 by cav on January 16, 2014 - 9:18 am

            Come to think of it, No-one, anywhere, has ever seen Richard Warnick and Robert Riech in the same room.

            Fact.

            Bruuski by the width of Einstein’s brain.

          • #23 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2014 - 9:40 am

            I linked to a letter signed by 75 leading economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners and 8 who have served as American Economic Association president. Not just Robert Reich.

            Why not raise the minimum wage effective immediately? Because it’s politically impossible as long as the Tea-GOP controls the House of Representatives. They are the ones who always say they want to “help” low-wage workers by keeping their pay below subsistence level.

            Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Cause Job Loss

            The buying power of the minimum wage reached its peak in 1968 at $10.74, adjusting for inflation in 2013 dollars. The unemployment rate went from 3.8% in 1967 to 3.6% in 1968 to 3.5% in 1969. The next time the unemployment rate came close to those levels was after the minimum wage raises of 1996 and 1997. Business Week observed in 2001, “Many economists have backed away from the argument that minimum wage [laws] lead to fewer jobs.”

            Numerous states raised their minimum wages higher than the federal level during the 1997-2007 period the federal minimum wage remained stuck at $5.15. Research by the Fiscal Policy Institute and others showed that states that raised their minimum wages above the federal level experienced better employment and small business trends than states that did not.

            A series of rigorous studies by the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley, significantly advances the research on minimum wage employment effects. Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders compared all neighboring counties in the U.S. located on different sides of a state border with different minimum wage levels between 1990 and 2006 and found no adverse employment effects from higher minimum wages.

          • #24 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 10:52 am

            False, no you did not.
            That letter included Reich as being one of the 75 “economists”. Reich is not an economist. Therefore that letter, that organization and your credibility has already been shot out of the water. That letter, that organization and you have revealed yourselves to be dishonest. When you redeem yourself and that organization apologizes for blatantly lying, then we can talk. Until then you have no credibility and neither does EPI.

  7. #25 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 11:01 am

    Do you know what the word “exogenous events” mean? If not then you have no business posting comments on topics you know nothing about:

    “The unemployment rate went from 3.8% in 1967 to 3.6% in 1968 to 3.5% in 1969.”

    There were 3,500,000 service members in 1969.

    Today there are 1,429,995.

    You want to suck 2 million people out of the working age population and that will push your unemployment rate pretty low and your wages pretty high.

    Geez. The ignorance you display.

  8. #26 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 11:05 am

    “Research by the Fiscal Policy Institute and others showed that states that raised their minimum wages above the federal level experienced better employment and small business trends than states that did not.”

    Cart before the horse. Easily explained by the fact that those states that were doing better then rose their minimum wages, not the other way around. You need to learn about cause and effect.

  9. #27 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 11:10 am

    From EPI:
    “…the research record still shows that minimum
    wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job
    losses for others, and that policymakers need to bear this
    tradeoff in mind when making decisions about increasing
    the minimum wage.”

    http://www.epionline.org/studies/Neumark-01-2013.pdf

  10. #28 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 11:19 am

    More from EPI:
    “WASHINGTON – Today, the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) released a new analysis estimating that at least 360,000 jobs — and as many as 1,084,000 jobs — would be eliminated if the federal minimum wage were raised to $10.10.”

    http://www.epionline.org/release/new-study-10-10-minimum-wage-could-eliminate-as-many-as-one-million-entry-level-jobs/

    You lose.

  11. #29 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 11:35 am

    More from EPI:

    Michael Saltsman, research director at the Employment Policies Institute, released the following statement:

    No amount of denial by the President and his political allies—and no number of “studies” published by biased researchers—can change the fact that minimum wage hikes eliminate jobs for low-skill and entry-level employees. Non-partisan economists have agreed on this consensus for decades, and the laws of economics haven’t changed.
    Instead of raising small businesses’ labor costs and creating more barriers to entry-level employment, the President and the Senate should focus on policies that help reduce poverty and create jobs.

    • #31 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2014 - 11:50 am

      Just a coincidence that this front group for the 1 Percent are also calling themselves EPI, same as the Economic Policy Institute?

  12. #33 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2014 - 11:48 am

    brewski–

    I appreciate that you’re deep in denial here. The fact is you cannot show that raising the federal minimum wage has ever resulted in increased unemployment.

    Paul Krugman:

    First of all, the current level of the minimum wage is very low by any reasonable standard. For about four decades, increases in the minimum wage have consistently fallen behind inflation, so that in real terms the minimum wage is substantially lower than it was in the 1960s. Meanwhile, worker productivity has doubled. Isn’t it time for a raise?

    Now, you might argue that even if the current minimum wage seems low, raising it would cost jobs. But there’s evidence on that question — lots and lots of evidence, because the minimum wage is one of the most studied issues in all of economics. U.S. experience, it turns out, offers many “natural experiments” here, in which one state raises its minimum wage while others do not. And while there are dissenters, as there always are, the great preponderance of the evidence from these natural experiments points to little if any negative effect of minimum wage increases on employment.

    • #34 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 12:04 pm

      #27 did.
      You lose.

      • #35 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2014 - 12:30 pm

        From the conclusions of the paper you linked to:

        Can one come up with a dataset and an econometric specification of the effects of minimum wages on teen and low-skilled employment that does not yield disemployment effects? As in the earlier literature, the answer is yes.

        The authors set out to disprove the consensus of economists that minimum wage increases don’t add to unemployment. They failed to do so, even in the narrow case of low-skilled jobs.

        • #36 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 12:58 pm

          You are totally misinterpreting that sentence. Read it again.

          “Can one…” means one can select which data one wants to use and ignore other data in order to come to the conclusion that you want them to. So he is accusing the authors of the other studies of picking and choosing which data they want to use to get the answer they already decided that they want.

    • #37 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 12:08 pm

      “One man’s opinion”

      - Richard Warnick

  13. #38 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 12:07 pm

    Let me ask you a question:
    If you were President of the United States, and I was Speaker of the House, and I came to you proposing a deal, or a trade, what would you trade for a federal minimum wage of $10.10? What would you be willing to give me?

    • #39 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2014 - 12:33 pm

      Nothing. Raising the minimum wage ought to be routine – better yet, automatic. If you failed to do it, I would campaign against your party for committing economic sabotage, and my party would take control of the House in the next election.

  14. #40 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 12:16 pm

    From the Economic Policy Institute’s own website:

    “We are recognized as national leaders on breakthrough liberal economic policies.”

    So they admit they are not objective at all. At least they, for one, are honest about their bias.

    • #41 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2014 - 12:37 pm

      EPI’s evil twin, the so-called Employment Policies Institute, has a policy agenda too. Does that mean everything they say is automatically wrong?

      • #42 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 1:01 pm

        It means you should not read their material without a critical eye, as you have done with the self-identified liberals.

  15. #43 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 12:19 pm

    Time for Obama to invent a distraction:

    “More Americans Worse Off Financially Than a Year Ago
    Yet most expect to be better off within a year
    by Andrew Dugan
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – More Americans, 42%, say they are financially worse off now than they were a year ago, reversing the lower levels found over the past two years.”

    • #44 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2014 - 12:41 pm

      The link you didn’t provide is to Gallup. How is this a distraction? Distraction from what?

    • #45 by brewski on January 16, 2014 - 12:55 pm

      That isn’t the distraction. What I mean is that people are suffering so bad under his rein, that he will need a distraction to get people to forget about their suffering. Maybe start a little war somewhere.

      • #46 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2014 - 2:42 pm

        I thought you were going to parrot the Faux News claim that President is only talking about inequality because he wants us to forget about the shortcomings of the ACA (“Obamacare” in Faux-speak).

        The Obama administration has erred in not realizing the depth of the doo-doo we’re in. Even now, I doubt if they really get it. The so-called economic recovery has been great for Wall Street and corporations, but there was nothing in it for the average American.

        As for your idea about a war, it seems to me that President Obama is making an all-out effort to prevent a war with Iran– even bucking members of his own party in the pocket of AIPAC.

      • #47 by cav on January 16, 2014 - 2:46 pm

        A 9-11, so to speak?

        “For the companies, the money that it pays to workers – the livelihoods of working people – is an annoying cost of doing business. The less they have to pay in wages to get its services, the better it is for them. That’s why companies always push the wage down further and further whenever possible. It can’t be low enough as a component of their costs.”

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/16/who-needs-the-minimum-wage/

        • #48 by cav on January 16, 2014 - 3:11 pm

          for thread continuity…

          ibid

          “Is the minimum wage a job killer or a boost to growth? In truth, nobody knows what the effect of raising the minimum wage will be on the overall economy. It may be good or it may not. Certainly, the economy will grow or it will shrink, but nobody will ever know whether it was because of a raise in the minimum wage or not. Statistics might point out an occasional association between a higher this or a lower that, but the tendency is in all directions. Statistical associations are always straw men for ideological arguments. Economists would rather play the role of forecasters than ask a simple question like: what kind of a relation is working for wages?

          (snip)

          It isn’t true that when a capitalist gives a dollar more to a worker he is richer for it. But Republicans take it one step further. They say: if capitalists suffer bad profits, then this is bad for the economy, then this is bad for the nation, and ultimately this is bad for the working class. Their lie is that the enrichment of the wealthy is really just a service to the workers.”

          $10.10 an hour is still a shitty wage!

          Now, please disregard repetitive comment below.

  16. #49 by cav on January 16, 2014 - 2:57 pm

    ibid

    “Is the minimum wage a job killer or a boost to growth? In truth, nobody knows what the effect of raising the minimum wage will be on the overall economy. It may be good or it may not. Certainly, the economy will grow or it will shrink, but nobody will ever know whether it was because of a raise in the minimum wage or not. Statistics might point out an occasional association between a higher this or a lower that, but the tendency is in all directions. Statistical associations are always straw men for ideological arguments. Economists would rather play the role of forecasters than ask a simple question like: what kind of a relation is working for wages?

    (snip)

    It isn’t true that when a capitalist gives a dollar more to a worker he is richer for it. But Republicans take it one step further. They say: if capitalists suffer bad profits, then this is bad for the economy, then this is bad for the nation, and ultimately this is bad for the working class. Their lie is that the enrichment of the wealthy is really just a service to the workers.”

    $10.10 an hour is still a shitty wage!

  17. #50 by cav on January 17, 2014 - 7:14 am

    Why is it that no-one ever brings up the notion of a profit cap / ceiling?

  18. #51 by brewski on January 17, 2014 - 9:03 am

    please explain

  19. #52 by cav on January 17, 2014 - 3:18 pm

    Disclaimer: I am not an economist.

    So much dialog about the lowest the low will settle for, but never anything about when enough is enough – certainly no law-making, no maximum earning level.

    I understand ‘the share-holders’ are all entitled to as much as they can grab, but, after all of that, nothing is said about the insanity of out-and-out, over-the-top greed.

  20. #53 by brewski on January 17, 2014 - 3:22 pm

    So you think we should pass a law enforcing maximum income that people are allowed to make? So we should have an income police stopping Jeffery Katzenberg, George Soros and Matt Damon from making too much money?

  21. #54 by cav on January 17, 2014 - 3:35 pm

    Nice attempt to put words into my mouth. ; )

    What I’m suggesting, and I have no idea how to bring this about, is that some of them, the harder core, should even be made poor.

    Some of them are not at all interested in the greater good.

    Some of them should only be allowed enough ‘wealth’ that they can afford either one senator, or congress critter, Not both.

    With that kind of wealth, ripped from the working person, there develops the notion that 5-10% of the population should be living in constant misery, stress and fear, as an example to the rest of the populace of what might happen to them if they resist. Even if you have a job, a house, etc. you don’t want to buck the system because you don’t want to end up like those at the bottom.

    At the top…there’s more than enough to both purchase the government they desire, but plenty left to thwart the sassy rise of anything akin to collective bargaining.

  22. #55 by brewski on January 17, 2014 - 4:16 pm

    I understand your point. But every idea has a practical reality.

    The word “should” worries me. “Should” almost always means someone telling someone else that they “should” be doing. How one person enforces their “should” on another person is never pretty. Sure, everyone “should” be more interested in the greater good. But how are you going to implement that? To implement that you need some sort of enforcement mechanism and then someone needs to be the enforcers. Who will those people be? Where do we find these angels who lack any self interest that they will only do what is right and generous. Just like the IRS, or the NSA, or the Port Authority.

  23. #56 by cav on January 18, 2014 - 7:37 am

    Yea, I hear others using ‘should’ and I suggest something of what you just wrote. Of course, when I wrote it myself, I completely miss its usage.

    Believe me, it’s not Leftist Authoritarianism rearing its ugly head, more my idealism – that almost refuses to accept the murderous, inhuman tendencies of which we are capable. It doesn’t help that there’s been such structural accommodation and deceit in the furtherance of these dark tendencies, and worse, their realization.

    It may also be another instance of the _____ will always be among us, but, as Martin Luther King’s testimony suggests, we’d be guilty ourselves if we remain silent. Certainly there will be technical difficulties, but correcting these criminals really ought to be part of our agenda.

    Adjusting ‘Practical Reality’ is difficult enough, tamping down and redirecting energies is noble enough, creating a better society is hardly impossible. A change of focus, elimination of a Citizens United here, a PATRIOT Act there, the prosecution of a Wall street criminal there, freeing whistle blowers here and there, passing on a war now and again, fomenting a little Peace in the vacuum, and, before you know it, a new direction is established.

    That;s been our challenge for quite some time – one that is felt by people across the political, racial, and all simplistic spectrums. But the ridiculous notion that there is no alternative (TINA) has sold quite well, even in contradiction of the Reality we all can see is ever changing. If ‘they can adapt it,manipulate it to their own ends, so to can we, I mean; we’ve got the numbers..

    Being sold-out by lying politicians and ‘shadow governments’ needs pushing against – it is coming.

  24. #57 by cav on January 18, 2014 - 8:09 am

    Paraphrasing:

    The difficult we readily accomplish, the impossible…may take a while.

  25. #58 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2014 - 8:40 am

    Until George Soros becomes a Trillionaire, I don’t ever want to hear his name again.

    Until then.

  26. #59 by brewski on January 18, 2014 - 9:25 am

    There is no alternative as long as the one party remains in control. There are no parties of the Democrats and the Republicans. There is only one party of the incumbent insiders. Obama and Mitt are exactly the same. They both coddle their insider forces and make sure nothing gets done and no one has to suffer any consequences for their actions.

    • #60 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2014 - 12:03 pm

      I wouldn’t say “exactly the same.” Just too close for comfort.

      Gore was not exactly the same as Bush in 2000, but they were so close that a lot of voters couldn’t tell the difference.

      The Dems ought to stop running corporatists for President, but they are going to do it again with Hillary.

      • #61 by brewski on January 18, 2014 - 4:15 pm

        How was Gore any different than W in 2000?

        • #62 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2014 - 7:49 pm

          Wasn’t stupid as hell?

          • #63 by brewski on January 18, 2014 - 11:08 pm

            Gore is stupid as hell.

            “Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve dug in it. I’ve sprayed it, I’ve chopped it, I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.
            (Source: [New York] Newsday, 2/26/88
            Oh wait.. I didn’t mean that…
            “Sometimes, you never fully face up to things that you ought to face up to.” — Al Gore, discussing why he accepted checks from his family tobacco farm and contributions from tobacco companies for years after the tragic death of his sister that he spoke about so emotionally at the 1996 Democratic convention.
            (Source: “‘Numbness’ Let Gore Accept Tobacco Help,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 30, 1996)

          • #64 by cav on January 19, 2014 - 9:01 am

            He’s fat too…and a politician…what’s not to like?

            GWB, on the other hand gave ‘cluelessness’, and inattention to the consequences of ‘his’ policy, a new, deeper (heretofore unimaginable) definition.

            ‘Lesser-evilism in the Great State of Denial”and Darkness. Who could have predicted such outcomes?

            I’ll rationalize my Optimism when I’m done being spied on, clubbed, gassed, jailed or droned after a brief stint on the protest line.

        • #65 by Richard Warnick on January 19, 2014 - 4:22 pm

          Gore’s message in the 2000 election was “The People versus The Powerful.” Unfortunately, that wasn’t the least bit believable coming from him. But he won the election anyway, by more than 540,000 votes.

          He ought to have said, “Peace and Prosperity – let’s not screw it up, people!”

          • #66 by brewski on January 19, 2014 - 4:38 pm

            I thought he said “I have the personal carbon footprint of a medium sized country, so do as I say and not as I do”.

  27. #67 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2014 - 2:24 pm

    George Soros for president!

    NOT!

  28. #68 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2014 - 2:36 pm

    Lucas McCain for president! Oh, wait, he’s dead.

    Who we gonna get?

    The world is waiting, but I think we have the best possible one right now. We should push him to do the right things. I REALLY believe he wants to NOT get droned.

    Kind of amazed he hasn’t been. Aren’t you?

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: