Third Worlders Subscribe to Income Inequality Scheme

More immigrants from third world countries equal more Democratic Party voters.  This conclusion is a no brainer since these people are used to corrupt politicians who use populism to deceive and control the citizenry.  Just look at any Latin American country and you’ll be astonished at the amount of poverty while the political elite sit behind gated estates.  Therefore, it should be no surprise poor, uneducated immigrants subscribe to this income inequality scheme Democrats expound.  Here is an excerpt from the Washington Examiner: 

Gimpel cites several reasons why future immigration will likely mean more Democrats. The first is that "immigrants, particularly Hispanics and Asians, have policy preferences when it comes to the size and scope of government that are more closely aligned with progressives than with conservatives." Those preferences have expressed themselves in a two-to-one party identification advantage for Democrats in those groups.

Another reason is that the arrival of immigrants, whose ranks include substantial numbers of the poor and unskilled, increases income inequality in the areas they choose to live. "It is from areas of higher income inequality," writes Gimpel, "that we find the most support for a robust government with an expansive regulatory and redistributive role in the economy, among all citizens, not just immigrants." That will likely mean more electoral success for Democrats

An astonishing 76% of the immigrant population receives some form of taxpayer funded welfare, that’s because they have sprouted an anchor baby, compared to about 52% of the native population.  If you want to see our future, look to California if we are unable to change the hearts and minds of these diasporas.

 

Texas has about the same demographics as California, but with a different outcome.  The Federalist published a comparative analysis. The results are astonishing.  Here is an excerpt:

Both California and Texas have official poverty rates above the national average. But, under SPM, Texas’ poverty rate matches the national average while California’s is the nation’s highest with proportionately 47 percent more people living in poverty than in Texas and the United States.

 Much of California’s nation-leading poverty rate is due to the high cost of housing in the Golden State, a significant portion of which is driven by hyper-controls on development, greenhouse gas fees, restrictive zoning, and taxes. It takes five years to get permission to build in California what commonly takes five months in Texas. If California is America’s future, then that future is overrun with poverty.

The United States used to export its ideas and ideals.  Now, we’re importing proven destructive social experiments and third worlders squawking for a government teat.  Soon, states like California will become Mexico’s Crimean Peninsula.

 

Source:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-finds-more-immigrants-equals-more-democrats-and-more-losses-for-gop/article/2547220

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/06/americas-future-california-or-texas/

Liberal Utopia is Only a Failure Away

Utopia is only a failure away.  Those who are harmed will get over it, because in the end, it all equals out.  That’s libtardism in a nutshell.  Unfortunately, we are witnessing those policies being played before our very eyes with the Democratic Party’s income inequality meme. 

Recently, a Seattle CEO of a credit card processing company decided to put into practice what liberals have been carping on for decades: implementing an income equality workplace.  Many conservatives predicted this was a doomed experiment.  The surprise was it only took three months for that prediction to become reality.  Skilled and dedicated employees were making as much as entry level workers causing dissention and resentment.  The survival of Gravity Payments is in question.

The living wage experiment is also proving to be a failure.  This time it’s not from some small regional company from the left coast, but from a megastore headquartered in America’s heartland.  Wal-Mart has bought into this utopian concept of higher wages for entry level employees equals a happy work environment.  That would probably be the case if they raised the wages of everyone else, but income equality doesn’t work that way.  Here is an excerpt from Bloomberg News:

 When Wal-Mart Stores Inc. chief Doug McMillon announced plans to boost store workers’ minimum wage earlier this year, he said the move was intended to improve morale and retain employees.

Yet for some of the hundreds of thousands of workers getting no raise, the policy is having the opposite effect.

In interviews and in hundreds of comments on Facebook, Wal-Mart employees are calling the move unfair to senior workers who got no increase and now make the same or close to what newer, less experienced colleagues earn. New workers started making a minimum of $9 an hour in April and will get at least $10 an hour in February.

“It is pitting people against each other,” said Charmaine Givens-Thomas, a 10-year Wal-Mart veteran. “It hurts morale when people feel like they aren’t being appreciated. I hear people every day talking about looking for other jobs and wanting to remove themselves from Wal-Mart and a job that will make them feel like that.”

Liberal utopianism doesn’t care whether or not we appreciate their outcomes; it’s the sentiment that counts.  Equality, fraternity and liberty to fleece other people’s wallets and ambitions are part of the Democratic Party’s transformation of America.  It worked so well for France during the Reign of Terror, why shouldn’t it work here?

Source:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-06/an-unintended-consequence-of-wal-mart-pay-raise-unhappy-workers

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/05/minimum-wage-hike-is-pay-cut-for-middle.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/03/seattle-ceo-who-set-firm-minimum-wage-to-70g-rents-house-to-make-ends-meet/

Envy Economics and the Introduction of Income Inequality

Progressives are always looking for ways to divide the American people.  The objective is to play one group against another in an attempt to gain and exercise power over all of us.  The latest con to come down the pike is “Income Inequality.”  

Carolina Journal Radio interviewed James Piereson, president of the William E. Simon Foundation, on economic growth and the introduction of envy economics.  Here is an excerpt:

Piereson: Well, the Piketty book is a very serious work. I’ve written about it and spoken about it. It focuses exclusively on the distribution of income and wealth in our free-market societies, and it places great emphasis on the growing inequality which they detect.

It’s a very much one-sided interpretation of our free-enterprise system. It has many dimensions that go beyond the distribution of income — innovation, quality of life, progress, freedom. All sorts of dimensions that have to be taken into account, and he only looks at one of them.

As I’ve said, this focus on inequality is a new issue. Traditionally, when we’ve spoken about inequality, we’ve talked about elevating the poor into the ranks of the middle classes. All of our government programs in the ’60s and ’70s, and even before that, were focused on elevating the poor. 

This comes at the problem from the reverse angle. That is, the wealthy, the very rich, and trying to find ways to redistribute their wealth and income back down through the rest of the 99 percent.

As I say, I think that is a fool’s errand. We can’t improve the living standards of 99 percent of our people by trying to take income and wealth from the 1 percent who are successful. And as I say, that obscures the real problem that we’re facing in America and other societies across the West, which I think is not inequality but something else.

Kokai: And you mentioned during the Hayek Lecture — after you showed a number of slides and discussed a lot of the data, including some data from Piketty and his colleagues — and said that to you it looks like slower, sluggish economic growth is a much more pressing problem.

Piereson: That I think is the core problem that we’re facing in the United States and in Europe and of course in Japan, which has been struggling with this for 20-odd years. Our economy has had sluggish growth since at least the year 2000. Even before the financial collapse in 2008, our economy is growing only at 2-2.5 percent. 

And then, of course, it went over the cliff in 2008. And we really haven’t really regained the kind of solid economic growth we had in the 1960s or in the 1980s or the 1990s.

 
Two percent economic growth in America is not going to get the job done. That’s a recipe for stagnation of incomes and standard of living for our middle classes. And it will not allow for mobility for people who are way down the ladder.

Click the link below for full transcript:

Source: 

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=11758

Income Inequality: Is the Governments War on Poverty to Blame