What would the US Senate be without Elizabeth Warren? She's a national treasure.

WARREN: If we started in 1960 and we said that, as productivity goes up -- that is, as workers are producing more -- then the minium wage was going to go up the same. And if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour. So my question, Mr. Dube, if the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker.

No, it didn't. But the best part is when she very coolly schools a business owner, David Rutigliano, who walks right into her trap.

WARREN: During my Senate campaign, I ate a number 11 at McDonald’s many, many times a week. I know the price on that. $7.19. According to the data on the analysis of what would happen if we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 over three years, the price increase on that item would be about four cents. So instead of being $7.19 it would be $7.23. Are you telling me that’s unsustainable?

BUSINESS OWNER DAVID RUTIGLIANO: Senator Warren, not all restaurants are created equal. I’m in a full service restaurant business. McDonalds has efficiencies and they operate completely differently than I do. I have many jobs, many jobs that pay well above minimum wage. We have a retirement plan. We offer health insurance to our salaried employees. So my business is a little different. I can’t raise a four cent price. I mean I don’t have, I don’t operate like a fast food restaurant. I would hope you appreciate the distinction.

WARREN: I do appreciate the distinction and I’m not going to be in the business of being a McDonald’s representatives but they would talk about having some higher paid jobs and some opportunities for management and advancement as well. But I get your point, maybe it’s only four cents on $7.19. But if your entrees are $14.40 we’ll see how fast I can do the math — are you telling me you can’t raise your prices by eight cents?

Continue reading »

Shorter Erickson: fascist death squads are awesome! Erickson later played the "I was KIDDING!" card, but you know what Freud said about jokes.

Anyway, I find it amusing that so many wingers are celebrating the election of a Pope who is known "for questioning free-market policies, which he blames for leaving millions of Argentines impoverished," and once said,

“The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers.”

That's right, he thinks wealth inequality is a "sin."

Oh, and he hates austerity, too.

But Francis also seems to be an opponent of austerity, most notably during his time as spiritual leader of Argentina when the country defaulted on its debt in 2002.

A paper by Thomas Trebat, “Argentina, the Church, and Debt,” details the church’s role in the crisis’s resolution. Argentine bishops, including Francis, had long criticized the laissez-faire policies of Carlos Menem, who was president from 1989 to 1999. “The bishops were critical of the economic model as a generator of poverty and unemployment, notwithstanding the stability it had brought to the country,” Trebat wrote.

Looking forward to John Boehner, Paul Ryan and all the other Republican Catholics in this country to abandon their tax cuts for the rich/screw the poor economics, and embrace Pope Francis' teachings.

DOWNLOADS: (231)

PLAYS: (842)

Embed

Wow, how tone deaf can these Republican presidential candidates get?

We live in a time when two-thirds of Americans and over half of Republicans believe that rich people should pay more in taxes. This is also a time when we're having a unprecedented national conversation about our troubling wealth inequality.

And here you have the fabulously wealthy Willard admitting that he pays a lower federal income tax rate than many middle class people pay -- while dismissing the nearly $400,000 in speaking fees he rakes in as funny money. And now the fabulously wealthy Newt gleefully cheers him on.

Remember, right-wingers mocked Warren Buffett's claim that he pays less in taxes than his secretary. But it looks like Republicans are about to nominate a man worth hundreds of millions of dollars who admits he pays a lower rate than...Warren Buffett's secretary.

It's really quite something.