Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

A Greater Share

by Sam Huntington

A few weeks ago, CNN blessed us with further examples of journalistic excellence when they suggested that an increase to the minimum wage is absolutely necessary if we love babies. No, I’m not kidding. During a discussion about minimum wage, and why an increase is necessary, someone tossed up a visual that indicated the following: according to a poll, mothers of young children can no longer afford to diaper their children after an accident. Therefore, children are not regularly changed, and this results in increases to kidney infections, and this in turn increases health care costs for everyone.

Consequently, anyone who doesn’t think we should increase the minimum wage hates babies.

—Sigh—

We must have forgotten, or simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that increases in the cost of labor causes upturns in consumer prices. Now of course, while this trend is ultimately inevitable, proven by the fact that it is impossible to purchase a brand new Ford sedan today for $3,800.00, don’t we want to encourage purchases in our present economy, rather than discourage spending?  What is the likelihood that the cost of diapers will rise after passing a mandatory increase to the minimum wage?

Moreover, I am astounded that the cost of diapers is even an issue.  If a young working mother cannot afford the cost of diapers for her infant, should she perhaps re-prioritize her spending?  Here's an idea: given the cost of a carton of cigarettes these days, maybe this distraught mother could stop smoking.  We must also wonder whether the flustered young mother ever considered the cost of babies before one magically appeared on their doorstep ...

I have an alternative suggestion. Rather than increasing the minimum wage by fifteen cents an hour, why not reduce taxes by that same amount? I think if the government doesn’t want to do this, then we can only assume that elected officials and bureaucrats hate babies, who suffer the effects of totalitarian tax policies and are in danger of becoming leftist swine once they achieve maturation.

Better yet, why don’t the rich cats, such as Pelosi and Reid, spend their own personal wealth providing diapers to smoking mothers who never seem to know when to say no?

27 comments:

  1. Wanna see a great picture of the Moocher?

    http://theaverageamericanparty.blogspot.com/2013/07/al-sharpton-confronted-by-ex-gang.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, AA ... I can do without lunch today.

      Delete
  2. Why even have a minimum wage?

    "In a study released by Cato Institute today titled The Work versus Welfare Tradeoff: 2013, researchers Michael D. Tanner and Charles Hughes show that in every state in the nation the cash and benefits package available under various welfare programs exceeds what a person would earn at a minimum wage job. The lowest benefit is available in Mississippi ($16,984) as compared to $15,080 working at the federal minimum wage. The fact that many welfare benefits are tax free, the value is much greater than a similar amount earned in a private sector job."

    Read more:

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/19/obamas-work-to-welfare-program/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Welfare State is a threat to human welfare, and that’s a fact. By all means, lets release all those people from mental hospitals so that they can roam the streets hungry, cold, and in need of care. Let’s give money to people for voting progressive. Let’s give Obama-phones to people in exchange for installing a communist in the White House. This is really an utter disaster for America, and if it continues, then I suspect the system will implode.

      Obama ranks right up there with the likes of Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, and Carter ... and it took "an enlightened" society to put them into office. Gad ...

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. I think so, Odie ... I think they clean up dirty diapers that have been deposited in Wal-Mart parking lots.

      Delete
  4. As the number of welfare recipients increases, the number of taxpayers supporting welfare programs decreases. Under Obama, there is no longer a requirement for some work in order to qualify for welfare benefits. Why work at all when you can earn more in welfare benefits than you can by (ugh) working? So we should wonder about the purpose of Obama’s welfare programs. Personally, I think its purpose is to bankrupt the United States. From Obama’s perspective, that would be a resounding “mission accomplished!”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BINGO!

      "I come to bury America, not praise her." --Barack Obama

      Delete
  5. What in the world happened to the mindset that it is not the role of government to provide for anything I need for daily living? Food, housing, baby supplies, medical care, etc? That's the way I was raised.
    The government should only be a big project vendor not a personal life manager. I like having roads. I like public education (to a point but that's another topic altogether), I like having the FDA to hopefully cull bad food, bad drugs. I like air traffic controllers. I like our military.
    If you're hungry...if you're sick...if you're homeless...if you need diapers...there are 101 million charitable resources who will give you a way to not die in the street. You may not like the food. You may not like the accommodations. But you will not die in the street. (And if the government stops trying to play nanny, we'll pay less taxes and have MORE money to give to local churches and charities that help people in need in our own towns).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What in the world happened to the mindset that it is not the role of government to provide for anything I need for daily living?

      The American people have been weaned away from self-reliance and individualism. The collectivists want to take care of us, and decide for us what is best for us … my gosh, it sounds almost like communism!

      Delete
  6. I curious what your focus is here, Sam.

    It seems clear that it has nothing to do with the truth of the situation that poor mothers can't afford diapers.
    If she can't pick some up at some charitable location then screw her. Got that.

    But you jump to apparently (hard to tell with your disjointed flow) suggesting that lower taxes will help resolve the problem. How does that work? Doesn't help the mother, she ain't paying taxes. Doesn't lower the price of diapers. Really, what are you getting at other than advocating an upward wealth shift that you, in some fever dream, thinks will benefit you.

    Or we can buy into your idiotic theory that wages are the sole determinant of cost (nothing like simplistic solutions in the Libertarian sandbox) and wonder how lower wages are going to help poor women afford diapers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I curious ...?

      I have to say that your inability to focus appears to be among the least of your problems.

      Now shoo.

      Delete
    2. I have to say that your inability to answer Ducky's questions exposes your lack of both honesty and knowledge. Answer the questions, Sam. How are lower wages going to help poor women buy diapers? You started this.

      I'm all for lowering taxes, but Ducky's point is valid. Lower taxes don't benefit people on welfare and others who don't work.

      Instead of latching onto Ducky's typo as a way of dismissing him, you should read your own stuff. You make plenty of typos and misspellings. You're in a glass house and throwing rocks. Not too smart.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,
      You, too, live in a glass house.

      Your comment is worthy of dismissal (deletion). Surprised that it hasn't been deleted. Yet.

      Delete
  7. Productivity is a result of "self-reliance" (initiative & growth). What do the "collectivists" have to re-distribute when productivity dissipates? Are "collectivists" completely oblivious to the history of their folly or the present day petri dish of collectivism, known as North Korea? Why do we continue to support a Public Education system that only succeeds in the inculcation of mental enfeeblement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly.

      You know, if you use the term self-reliance in the presence of a progressive, you can actually induce a stroke.

      Hmmm ....

      Delete
  8. If people can't afford diapers why are they having children? Did they miss the Public Education class on proper cucumber-condom application? Why should a society advocate the perpetuation of irresponsibility?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, no … Jon, you’ve got this one wrong. Progressives only concern themselves with family planning AFTER someone is knocked up, not before. And, since promiscuous sex is what the left is all about, cleverly concealed as the right of a woman to choose (as opposed to respect for women, marriage, commitment, willingness to accept personal responsibility for individual behavior), well, you can see how a demand for a taxpayer funded diaper allowance could work its way up the ladder to a bona fide inalienable right. It just takes time, is all.

      Delete
  9. Je ne vois aucune raison pour laquelle les couches doivent être une préoccupation pour le contribuable. La solution est simple: ne pas avoir des bébés jusqu'à ce que vous pouvez vous le permettre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. À mon avis, Louis, la gauche ne cherche pas de solutions de bon sens, ils cherchent à asservir davantage le peuple américain à ce navire négrier terrible dieu nommé progressisme.

      Delete
  10. Well, looking at this in a somewhat different light, perhaps our subjects actually did attend the the cucumber-condom demonstration, in lieu of: math, reading, history, etc and decided that all they needed to do was unfurl the condom on an [actual] cucumber to effectuate protection. As bizarre as that may sound, at first blush, consider this. It is reported that in the Public Education domain 4X3 may now = 11, just as long as the, so called, student can provide an explanation as to why; I $#!t you not!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now we must investigate the legitimate reasons for the conclusion that 4 x 3 = 11. I submit that under the new leftist education program (no greater misnomer has ever been uttered in the history of the word) a suitable reason might include: (a) My single mother is a democrat, (b) I didn’t have suitable diapers as a child, (c) It worked for Obama Care, and (d) If you’re going to give Ducky a master’s degree in filmography, then you should accept my dumb answer, too.

      Delete
  11. Q: What the difference between a Democrat and the rear end of a horse?
    A: I don't know either.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Angelfire,


    I think that I've got it. The rear end of a horse, actually serves a purpose. It is the terminuses of the alimentry system of a horse. As such it applies to bovines, as well;. Pure Bull$#!t!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Those rich cats don't want to redistribute THEIR income. They want to redistribute OUR income. They're special, just like they are exempted from ObamaCare, they are exempt from all that stuff that we have to endure. How dare you suggest that our progressive betters actually live under the laws they craft?!

    Had a build up of sarcasm there. Had to get it out.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OK, now where is Ducky with his usual idiotic retort? I actually thought that he would be the first to enlighten the rest of us as to how 3x4 = 11, as only a liberal could do. Come on Ducky, you can do it!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Since we have over 30 states that pay more to not work than work maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour.

    Of course a grease burger would be $12.00 and add fries and a hippo meal and it would top 15 so then we could raise the minimum to $17. Somehow that doesn't seem to solve the problem.

    I guess when you have "the leader" who has no interest in improving job opportunities and would would rather promote trickle up poverty, raising the minimum wage and promoting food stamps is something he can do and he does that well.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective