BloggeRhythms

Democrat politicians, especially those running for the presidency, loudly and proudly clamor and scream for higher minimum wages and increasing worker benefits. At the same time, the business-world is changing rapidly around them while they remain in the stone-age ideologically. Totally unaware of how their policies will do the exact reverse of what they claim. Because quite soon employers will totally eliminate a huge percentage of low-end workers by automating to offset rising, unmanageable costs foisted upon them predominately by government over-regualtion.      

In that regard, billionaire investor Jeff Greene said Thursday in a interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box": “In the not-too-distant future, humans in the workplace could go the way of the horse-and-buggy because of the "exponential growth of artificial intelligence."  

"When we first had the internal combustion engine — the horseless carriages, the car was called — look at all the horses they just put out to pasture.” Making an ominous comparison to the present-day advances in automation, he projected that, "We are going to be destroying jobs at a record clip." 

Mr. Greene went on, “The way software, computers, robots are taking over … what's going to happen more and more is the American worker is going to be marginalized. Artificial intelligence (AI), right now, can do the task of a 100 IQ person. Assuming a yearly increase of 1.5 percent in the capabilities of AI, he argued, "Ten years from now … artificial intelligence will do the tasks of a 120 IQ person." 

As a result, Greene said the American economy "could be heading off a cliff," because both Republicans and Democrats are trying to use traditional solutions to "nontraditional problems." The current model is not working. We have to figure out how to reinvent the economy." 

While Mr. Greene is quite correct about his AI projections, because vast numbers of jobs certainly are at risk, he’s wrong about the politics. Because no Republicans in office, or running for one, are pushing for any kind of increase in minimum wages which is the major stimulant for worker replacement via automation. However, tired old, out-of-touch Neanderthals like Bill’s wife and Sanders, remain clueless regarding how the changing world’s gone past them, which is why their constituencies keep shrinking and are jobless. 

On another topic, while headlines, and the POTUS himself, say one thing, the US population says and believes quite the opposite. According to Rasmussen Reports today, “Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), favor prosecuting those who don’t agree with global warming.”

So, here we have good news again for Republicans, thanks to the POTUS. Because “only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.” Which undoubtedly will reflect in the polls next November. 

What’s most remarkable is that, listening to the major media global-warming one is led to believe that it’s a key issue of great importance. Yet the truth is that 68% of likely U.S. voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming. In fact, the new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 17% favor such prosecutions, with fifteen percent (15%) undecided. 

In total, just 24% of all voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, although that’s up from 20% in July of last year. Unchanged is the 63% who say that debate is not done yet, a huge majority. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. 

Thus what the statistics indicate, is that by fulfilling another unfounded campaign promise, and kowtowing to major self-serving contributors like Tom Steyer, the POTUS still hasn’t gained the support of more than 2/3 of US voters, and won’t. Especially since warming isn’t actually occurring at all, and hasn’t for the past 18 years.

According to Rasmussen: The margin of sampling error in their poll is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. 

And then, a friend sent this simple explanation of how the Obamacare health care tax actually works.

"1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured.

"2. Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.

"3. To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.

"4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original un-insured can be insured, so it will be ‘free-of-charge’ to them."

Simple socialism 101.

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Nasaw, @wsj.com, writes that: “President Barack Obama’s biggest campaign donors are mostly sitting on the sidelines of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary so far, not opening their wallets in support of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. 

“Almost four-fifths of the people who gave the 2012 maximum $5,000 to the president’s re-election committee hadn’t donated to a presidential candidate by Oct. 1, a Wall Street Journal analysis of federal campaign finance records found.” 

Many donors interviewed said, Bill’s wife hadn’t motivated them to give the way Mr. Obama and previous Democratic candidates had. Still others said they are put off by the larger role of super PACs and that their donations to candidates, which are limited in this election cycle to $5,400 for the eventual nominee, just don’t matter much anymore. 

However, it was a reader, Dave Lind, who provided an opinion that is far more likely the truth.

Mr. Lind wrote: "Almost four out of five of his 2012 donors haven’t given any money to Hillary Clinton..." 

“Why would they give Clinton money if Clinton ends up in prison or pardoned by Obama?  She's "radioactive" right now with the FBI investigation hanging over her head.” 

Which leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  

That's it for today folks. 

Adios