The next attempt by the progressive to divide America even more.

In a report for Sunday's NBC Nightly News, White House correspondent Kristen Welker eagerly promoted efforts by President Obama to use class warfare against Republicans leading up to the 2014 midterm elections: "President Obama will aim to reboot his presidency this year after a rocky 2013. The first item on the agenda will be extending unemployment insurance benefits....In his weekly media message, Mr. Obama blamed Republicans for leaving those benefits out of last month's budget deal." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

A clip played of Obama ranting: "And denying families that security is just plain cruel. We're a better country than that." Moments later, Welker proclaimed: "The President will also renew his call for an increase in the minimum wage in his State of the Union address. Another piece of a Democratic strategy designed to paint Republicans as the party of the rich ahead of the fall elections."

Welker only briefly explained the GOP position: "Many Republicans say they will only support it if the $6.5 billion price tag is offset by spending cuts." A sound bite followed of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul noting: "I've always said that I'm not opposed to unemployment insurance. I am opposed to having it without paying for it."

Near the end of the report, Welker predicted that Obama's "biggest political priority will be to shift the narrative on health care." Despite all the political damage the President has suffered from the ObamaCare failures, she asserted that the "administration has recovered after an initial rocky rollout."

Welker then remarked: "Republicans see nagging problems with the Affordable Care Act as their winning campaign issue."

"Nagging problems" like millions losing their health insurance?



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/01/06/nbc-touts-democratic-strategy-paint-republicans-party-rich#ixzz2peHk4SYV

You have a weird interpretation of that article. The GOP is dividing it's own people, the democrats are just trying to help the average man on the street and you think it's dividing the people.

You really need to look in the mirror and see what looks back at you. I'll bet it isn't nice...in fact it should scare the hell out of you!

No matter how many times certain ideas are completely debunked, many, nevertheless, have a way of always returning. The present push by Democrats to increase the federal minimum wage rate is one such debunked idea returning for its tired and predictable reprise. Currently the federal minimum wage is $7.25-per-hour. The president and congressional Democrats would like to see this rate increased to $10.10-per-hour by 2015, a 39% increase. The city of SeaTac, WA, has recently increased its minimum wage for certain workers to $15-per-hour, from $9.32, a 60% increase.

The president and his allies frame this debate in terms of fairness. Why should some work at wage rates barely above the poverty line? Unfortunately, since most people have little or no training in economics, have never learned how to focus on the long-term economic effects of various governmental programs, have never learned that wages are simply a name given to employers’ labor costs and have no special economic properties beyond that, harmful populist measures, such as laws increasing the mandated minimum wage, often pass with little thought to their long-term consequences. In the case of mandated minimum wage increases, the primary long-term negative effect is a guaranteed general increase in unemployment and a specific increase in unemployment among those already at the bottom–the black teenager, the unskilled, the uneducated.

Why is this? Many workers’ skills are simply not worth the new, higher required minimum rate. And those who are not, lose their jobs. Although an employer may entirely need a worker at the lower rate, at the higher rate he may not. And when he does not, the employer must find an alternative to his new higher labor costs. Generally this means letting go at least some workers. Even though a worker may be quite willing to work at the old lower rate, and the employer receives real benefit by employing the worker at the lower rate, the government deems this voluntarily agreement illegal. The employer by law must pay the higher rate if he wishes to continue employing the worker. The government, in effect, is stating that it would prefer the worker be unemployed than to work at the lower rate. Thus the obvious result: an increase in unemployment.

http://boxerinsights.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/an-increase-in-minimum-wage-have-we-learned-nothing/