BloggeRhythms

Today’s items contain evidence of a growing public awareness that leftist leadership is out of tune with reality, particularly regarding the economy and financial matters in general.  

Appearing in a health care debate on CNN Thursday, Bernie Sanders “offered a frustrated small-business owner concerned about the impact of Obamacare regulations an answer he knew she would “not be happy with.”  

“LaRonda Hunter told Sanders that she employs just fewer than 50 people at five hair salons in Fort Worth, Texas, but because of her small profit margin, she can’t afford to provide health insurance for all of her employees, and because of Obamacare regulations, she can’t afford to expand.” 

Responding, “‘Let me give you an answer you will not be happy with,” Sanders went on to say: “I think that for businesses that employ 50 people or more, given the nature of our dysfunctional health care system right now where most people do get health insurance through the places that they work, I’m sorry, I think that in America today everybody should have health care and if you have more than 50 people, you know what, I’m afraid to tell you, but I think you will have to provide health care."

When Hunter then asked how she can afford to provide health insurance for all her employees without either raising prices or lowering wages, Sanders joked that he’s “not much of an expert on hairdressing in general.” 

He further guessed that there is another employer in Fort Worth that does provide health insurance and that because Hunter doesn’t offer it, those other businesses “are in an unfair competitive situation.” 

“You can compete and maybe charge lower prices, get business, while they on the other hand might be providing decent health insurance,” Sanders said. 

When Hunter called Sanders theory into question, by saying the profit margins for employers in her “entire” industry are “about the same, Sanders once again admitted that he “certainly doesn’t know much about hair salons in Fort Worth. Nonetheless he concluded: “I do believe if you have more than 50 people, you should be providing health insurance.”  

So, here we have not only a self-proclaimed socialist with no tangible business background opining on subject matter he knows nothing about whatsoever, yet still telling an experienced business owner what she can and cannot afford. And if that isn’t the height of unabashed, outright ignorant arrogance it would be hard to identify what is.    

Then, as often happens, two readers offered comments giving the situation additional depth.   
Fred Donaldson agreed with Sanders, writing: “Hair chop shops enjoy huge margins and she has enough dough to own five salons. Another whiner.” 

Christine responded to Donaldson: “[S]o because she chose to run Beauty Salons she should be penalized in the pocketbook by forcing her to pay for others basic needs??? She is a small business owner with overhead as well as she probably is on her feet 12-16 hrs a day…

“Get a life Mr Donaldson, how about you try some manual labor as well as employing 30 – 40 people, pay all the bills, as well as the payroll taxes and the insurances that go along with it i.e. liability ins, unemployment ins, workers comp… trust me, she is far from rolling in the dough…”

While it certainly sounds like Christine is similarly experienced as Hunter, “Likes” from others were in her favor three to one. 

Next, in a similar context according to the Associated Press @FoxNews.com the head of the International Monetary Fund said today that Trump's “taking office is likely good for the American economy in the short term, though rising interest rates and a strengthening dollar will challenge global trade."

Christine Lagarde said additional investment in U.S. infrastructure and tax reforms will boost America's economic fortunes, but will squeeze international markets because: “That's a tightening that is going to be difficult on the global economy and for which economies have to prepare.” 

And then, she presented a response that helps explain greatly why so many nation’s around the globe are facing upheavals from their citizenry’s.   

When asked how the world missed Trump's rise and the United Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union, Lagarde described a creeping, "insidious" push toward anti-globalization and protectionist thought. 

"We have been saying globalization is great, international trade is great — and it is," she said. "But we have not looked at those who were badly, negatively impacted." 

And then a following thought seemed to surprise the article’s author who went on to write: “Still, she stressed the importance of data and facts in making decisions.” 

That was followed by Lagarde’s quote: “I know it's not fashionable at the moment, but I think that facts, figures (and) actual assessment of the reality matter and that we have to be honest about it." 

Which means that, just like the preceding Sanders interchange, here we have another major decision-maker publicly exposed as being completely out of touch with the most basic elements of how their fields of responsibility are composed. What's more, both Sanders and Lagarde apparently haven’t cared a whit about the “facts, figures (and) actual assessment of the reality matter,” whatsoever in the past and other than lip-service probably still don’t.   
   
Here again readers added to the discourse with awareness. shhsgirl wrote: “Hm. An intellectually honest IMF chief.  Who knew?"

OldWyomingMSgt. followed with: “Farmers have been meeting for the past few weeks in fear of Trump. Trump apparently doesn't know we export about 1/3rd of our crops. Our biggest buyers being Mexico, Canada & China. Yeah, let's destroy our exports markets.” 

To that, mkuck responded: “We can stop buying as many cars, cell phones, TVs, and laptop computers. Are those other countries all going to go on a diet to stop buying American grain? There is only so much produced in the world. If they buy it from, say, Australia, then those countries they bumped out will have to buy from us or go hungry.” 

All of which goes to further confirm that in today’s world of instantaneous access to information, primarily via the Internet, those who want to be informed are doing so. And that’s an element politicians and others in responsible positions are now having to live with.

It also means that political party's no longer have the control once possessed, because voters don’t want mere affiliation today. What they crave is economic opportunity and personal freedom to pursue their lives, goals and objectives. Which is why Independents are the fastest and largest growing disassociated voting force in the nation and most certainly will stay that way well into the future.  And, sooner or later, even a mental neanderthal like Sanders might eventually figure that out.

That's it for today folks. 

Adios