FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Borowitz writes: "President Obama has sparked outrage in Congress and renewed calls for his impeachment by signing a daring Presidential memorandum that would pay workers enough to eat."

President Obama signs executive order. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty)
President Obama signs executive order. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty)


Obama's Plan to Pay People Enough to Eat Stirs Controversy

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

15 March 14

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

resident Obama has sparked outrage in Congress and renewed calls for his impeachment by signing a daring Presidential memorandum that would pay workers enough to eat.

The memorandum, which is based on the President’s view that people should be paid for the hours they actually work, is shaping up as one of the most controversial and incendiary actions of his Presidency.

House Republican leaders held a press conference this morning to warn Obama that, by advancing his agenda of paying people for the work they do, he is “playing with political fire.”

“A Presidential memorandum is a powerful tool and should be used sparingly,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “It is not a vehicle for this President to enact his pet theories about people earning enough to survive.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) concurred, telling reporters, “With one stroke of the pen, President Obama is removing the single greatest incentive for work: hunger.”

“Apparently, President Obama needs a lesson in American history,” he said. “Hunger built the railroads. Hunger picked the crops. When the American people learn more about this action of the President’s, they will see it for what it is: a hunger-killer.”

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-84 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-15 12:18
This piece is a perfect illustration of why I usually do not find Borowitz funny.

It is not always what is said, but what is implied, or what can or is reasonably inferred by what a writer writes that is sometimes the most important aspect.

If one simply sees this as the absurdity on the right (ha ha) vs. how Obama wants more, the most important aspect is missed.

Because the standard should not be what is ridiculous vs. what is better, but what is the right thing to do -- and to fight for -- regardless.

When is Obama anything but content to push inadequacy to the fullest, rather than to do -- or try -- what is right?

Whether it is appointments, legislation, policies, or diplomacy, his negotiations are always short on standard and long on certainty -- only what Republicans (Borowitz's clowns) will certainly allow.

One might credit Obama for being pragmatic or practical, but this conflict aversion and lack of any real principle is his greatest failing as President.

People's needs are never really a consideration, except as a benchmark for the sales gimmick about how he is trying, wants better, etc., if not for these intransigent Republicans that never allow anyhting, which is not true. What is true is that the fight is never there.

So here is Andy, pointing out the obvious, that Republicans are how they are, ... kind of implying that Obama is enough, which he is not.

Obama is not fighting for a living wage. But one might forget that reading this.
.
 
 
+16 # universlman 2014-03-15 16:14
rubbish
 
 
-1 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-15 17:31
Oh? Do tell.

Can you be more specific?
 
 
+25 # Tigre1 2014-03-15 21:02
Pretty thick stuff here. Eloquent but neither insightful nor very intelligently reasoned out. Typical Troll talking points. Fail.
 
 
-21 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-15 22:13
Really?

Can you give me one example anywhere, ever, that you've read or heard these "Typical Troll talking points."

Yeah. Didn't think so.

And so brutal is the thickness that you've chosen to not rebut one single thing expressed before deeming it a "Fail."

Is this your usual standard for proof or argument? The no-proof-or-arg ument argument.

Interesting set of skills from RSN's best.
 
 
+35 # cymricmorty 2014-03-16 03:31
But typical trollish derailing of any meaningful discussion of the subject: the GOP's refusal to raise the minimum wage.
 
 
+8 # bmiluski 2014-03-17 08:32
"Can you give me one example anywhere, ever, that you've read or heard these "Typical Troll talking points."

This is so typical troll garbage. There are inuendos and accusations but nothing to back it up. THAT is what makes it TROLLISH. ... Noce try TROLL.
 
 
+42 # Reyn 2014-03-16 07:31
I'm not terribly fond of Borowitz either, but in this particular case he is spot on. Read what the GOP has actually SAID about the increase in overtime pay (the memorandum he is referencing) its astoundingly similar to what he says they think. This almost isn't even satire its so close.

Kind thoughts.
 
 
+4 # Henry 2014-03-16 10:22
I agree: Borowitz does not write satire.
 
 
-10 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-16 15:28
Reyn,

Unless you are more specific, I can only disagree with you. I would point you in the direction of my original comment as to why I disagree with you.

Depending upon the circumstance and other distinctions or details, I may or may not take issue. It depends on what is implied or if context is needed.

In this case, the missing context and implications are that Obama is somehow the good guy in this, as if he is fighting for what is right. He is not.

So if you are asserting that every aspect is "spot on," I disagree.

I accept characterizatio ns of Republicans as not being too far off the mark.

However, in terms of my argument, Republican ghoulishness is irrelevant.
.
 
 
+14 # randrjwr 2014-03-16 08:30
nice2bgreat does have a point here. To be specific, Obama is "fighting" for $10.10 an hour and that is NOT a living wage which I (and the currently estimated so-called "poverty level") peg at $15.00 per hour AT THE VERY LEAST! Buried in that estimate is the assumption that "living wage" means the earner does not have to work 80 hours a week at 3 different jobs (read "Nickeled and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich for further details) to get by--40 to 48 hours a week (for which all are paid--again, see "Nickeled and Dimed") at one job will suffice.
His Jobs Bill of a few years ago and his Gun Law of last year are other examples among many where he did not fight back against the bullying of the right (and some of the "left").
We who are amused by Borowitz (as I am) must still keep our attention on the real problems.
 
 
+11 # kalpal 2014-03-16 10:08
Within the RW what is inevitably the right thing to do is to starve the poor as a penalty for having become poor. A starving family is thereby encouraged to discard sleep so as to attain a better education and thereby climb into the working or middle class.
 
 
0 # Working Class 2014-03-16 10:40
Nice2BGreat - your not
 
 
+3 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-16 14:08
Quoting Working Class:
Nice2BGreat - your not

I think you mean YOU ARE not...you're. But point taken.
.
 
 
+6 # ljslotnick 2014-03-16 18:53
B.O. does what he can legislatively, but when he's up against lobbies such as the NRA, AIPAC and bigAg, he loses too many Democratic congresspersons ' support.

nice2begreat : Yes, this might be his greatest failing, indeed. Particularly with respect to the current NSA revelations...t hough I personally feel his relationship with Wall Street is more troubling. However, I'd say this failing pales in comparison with what Bush did in the wake of 9-11 (two wars and the Patriot Act) and what Clinton presided over (NAFTA and deregulation of financial markets.)

nice2b3great : Who cares? Borowitz' piece brought a smile to the faces of many readers. You, however, feel that the glow that Republicans' buffoonery shine on B.O. will jade our senses regarding B.O.'s shortcomings? Come on, let's stay focused on what is laying waste to our political system... corporate money and corporate media ?
 
 
-4 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-16 20:37
"B.O. does what he can legislatively, but when he's up against lobbies such as the NRA, AIPAC and bigAg, he loses too many Democratic congresspersons ' support."

No matter how you slice it, this is rationalization and exposes Obama's lack of principles, wisdom for effective strategy, and leadership qualities.

There is nothing mandating Obama's decisions or actions to support and sign weak legislation. It is just D.C. babble and Democratic Party talking points that justifies this mindset.

I agree that Obama has other weaknesses and conflicts, some you mention, but his willingness to put everything on the table in front of a Rabid Republican Congress that has led to consistent and painful legislative defeats while blunting the progressive agenda.

ljslotnick, you write that I "feel that the glow that Republicans' buffoonery shine on B.O. will jade our senses regarding B.O.'s shortcomings?"

My feelings are strong about the importance of shaping the dialogue and framing the debate. And I do feel that "corporate money and corporate media" are heavily responsible. But it is not just Republicans with links, the corporatist Democratic Party is what facilitates Republican domination. And by selling Obama as the hero in this piece, and neglecting that what Obama is asking for is wrong because it is not enough.

And partisan Democrats rationalize every failing Obama has as the best possible, considering...

And the dopey smiles of sycophantic readers is important, why?
 
 
+4 # EternalTruth 2014-03-17 07:08
"And the dopey smiles of sycophantic readers is important, why?"

While I agree with your main point (Obama should be fighting for a living wage), I fail to see the need to attack all who are amused by Borowitz as "sycophantic". I think he's funny, so, in short, fuck you.
And yes, laughter is important for maintaining our sanity in these stressful times. That's why. Thank you, Andy.

(and since you were grammar policing earlier, it should be "'are' important")
 
 
0 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-17 09:03
Short, sweet, and to the point. Just the way I like it.
 
 
0 # barbaratodish 2014-03-16 13:04
[quote name="nice2bgre at"]This piece is a perfect illustration of why I usually do not find Borowitz funny...If one simply sees this as the absurdity on the right (ha ha) vs. how Obama wants more, the most important aspect is missed.Because the standard should not be what is ridiculous vs. what is better, but what is the right thing to do...When is Obama anything but content to push inadequacy to the fullest, rather than to do -- or try -- what is right?

Whether it is appointments, legislation, policies, or diplomacy, his negotiations are always short on standard and long on certainty -- only what Republicans (Borowitz's clowns) will certainly allow.

One might credit Obama for being pragmatic or practical, but this conflict aversion and lack of any real principle is his greatest failing as President.

People's needs are never really a consideration, except as a benchmark for the sales gimmick about how he is trying, wants better, etc., if not for these intransigent Republicans that never allow anyhting, which is not true. What is true is that the fight is never there.

So here is Andy, pointing out the obvious, that Republicans are how they are, ... kind of implying that Obama is enough, which he is not.

Obama is not fighting for a living wage. But one might forget that reading this.
.[/quote
Here's a TRILLION dollar challenge: Make nice2bgreat laugh! Bet nice2bgreat has yet to even crack a smile, let alone even say "That is very funny" ever!
 
 
+2 # ljslotnick 2014-03-16 18:52
nice2begreat -- who is it that determines what the right thing to do it...or what's politically possible? Is it you?

nice2begreat : How about the debt ceiling? How about allowing states to not follow federal immigration laws or marijuana laws or DOMA that he disagrees with, with tacit approval?

nice2begreat : Listen, you can call Obama out on many things, such as trampling the constitution regarding invasion of US citizens' privacy (spying), assassinating American citizens abroad who are suspected of terrorism, throwing Habeus Corpus into the trash regarding Guantanamo detainees, not prosecuting (criminally) Wall Street criminals, drone warfare, etc.
But your overly-broad assertion that B.O. is "content to push inadequacy to the fullest" is simply meaningless. I really don't see any specifics coming from you, unless you consider words such as "legislation" " appointments" to be specifics.
 
 
0 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-16 21:08
ljslotnick, you write of my "overly-broad assertion that B.O. is "content to push inadequacy to the fullest" is simply meaningless. I really don't see any specifics..."

You do realize that the phrase you cherry-picked and isolated, in context, is SPECIFICALLY over Obama's pushing, NOT FOR A LIVING WAGE, but an inadequate minimum-wage increase.

And sometimes, my comments are not for everybody. Some maintain contextual ignorance about too much to bring them up to speed in a small amount of space. And, since my main point, in this case, is over a "living wage," I didn't want to muddy the conversation with too many peripheral issues, which your main point seems to be -- to drudge up irrelevance and make it the prime focus.

Obama's cabinet appointments, whether Treasury, FDA, DEA, EPA, SEC, Agricultural, Attorney General, CIA, NSA, FBI... and on and on are conflicted. Legislation is all watered down from banking reform to the ACA, maybe everything except over-turning DOMA, is inadequate.

But before getting into your fusillade of kitchen-sink questions, and keep in mind that I am not running for office ... the ones accountable for their actions are the elected officials ... and I don't mind defending my argument, but I'd like to keep it to just that ... defending my argument, which you, with all your words and questions -- some even directly quoting me -- have not addressed.

Is a $10.10 per-hour minimum wage enough to warrant Barack Obama as the hero of this story?
 
 
-1 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-16 23:17
.
***Comments Deleted by RSN:***

# Texas Aggie 2014-03-15 23:00

The reasons that you laid out for not finding Borowitz funny are beside the point. They have nothing to do with satire or humor. It would be similar to saying that you don't find water wet because the sun comes up in the east.


# nice2bgreat 2014-03-15 23:10

Quoting Texas Aggie:
The reasons that you laid out for not finding Borowitz funny are beside the point. They have nothing to do with satire or humor. It would be similar to saying that you don't find water wet because the sun comes up in the east.


Not quite analogous.

Humor is subjective, anyway.

The sun does rise in the east and water is wet.

And since when and why are reasons beside the point? Except in your case, where you have a reason for ignoring the argument and not making sense.
.
 
 
0 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-16 23:28
There was another exchange where my response to Texas Aggie was something like:

Do you have a better argument than the sun rises in the east and water is wet, therefore, my argument evaporates?


RSN, just because one of your preferred commenters are shown to not make sense or argue poorly, that is no reason to censor.

It is unfair, unprofessional, journalisticall y, shows bias, and gives a false rendering of history to favor someone with which you agree at the expense of posterity.

Shame on you.

To be fair, I did not include a tiny part at the end of the comment, which may have been their pretense for deleting the comment.


Here is what I actually wrote:

Quoting nice2bgreat:
Not quite analogous.

Humor is subjective, anyway.

The sun does rise in the east and water is wet.

And since when and why are reasons beside the point? Except in your case, where you have a reason for ignoring the argument and not making sense.

RSN, is this your best? I ask you.

Next.


But not only was my comment removed, the entire Texas Aggie thread was removed, which would imply that it was Texas Aggie's comment that was deemed inappropriate, which is unlikely.

Why was this done?
 
 
-2 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-17 01:18
***Comments Deleted by RSN:***

# bingers 2014-03-15 19:58

You don't find him funny, probably for two reasons, you have no sense of humor, and you hate having your subhuman standards mocked.


# nice2bgreat 2014-03-15 22:07

Interesting.

So it's not for the reasons I laid out that I don't find Borowitz funny?

But you got me, and anyone else who doesn't find him funny.

It is kind of sub-human to want a living wage as the minimum.

People who find him funny aren't so hard up for seeing the humor in constantly losing on policy and elections to these Republican buffoons that they won't critically analyze content for deeper truths and meaning.

It's just me. Sorry old me. The one with sub-human standards... mocked.

Just one question. Which standards are these?
 
 
-2 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-17 01:36
What gets me about deleting comments over the guise of civility is that I don't mind -- and actually prefer that people reveal themselves.

Deleting these responses deprives me of context for other comments.

I argue substance and relevance in all of my responses, to delete a comment that is no worse than many comments does a disservice to me when I respond appropriately.

And by appropriately, I mean, I address the substance of a comment.

Where there is redeeming content or a point to be discussed/argue d, I want the opportunity to reply and have the continuity of my replies maintained.

If there is redeeming content, RSN, nor the HuffingtonPost, nor anyone should be removing comments.

While I agree that prior to my response, bingers did not offer much.

But I took time to properly respond, raised legitimate questions, and wished to have my response maintained.

Had bingers inane presumptions been completely crass and vulgar, I'd not have a problem with removal, but that is not the case.

RSN should weigh more carefully the determinations to censor and more appropriately consider the effects.
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2014-03-17 20:28
For a more accurate handle, how about "nice2thnkurgre at"?
 
 
+33 # ak33 2014-03-15 18:17
Ok, so you don' find him funny, but you continue to come to RSN to read him?

Please!!!

Andy B. is not funny, he is so pointed that you can't see which direction he is pointing.

If the issues he is discussing weren't so devastating to our country your ignorance would be profound.
 
 
-10 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-15 22:24
The headline caught my attention, as a previous one I read of his likely did. Knowing that Obama wants the federal minimum wage increased to $10.10 per-hour, rather than a living wage, I thought I may want to comment about it if others were not.

Is that ok with you?

I have never been one to appreciate attacks or satire against easy targets. To me, Borowitz appeals to the lowest common denominator. Just not my interest.

I will say this for him. He is funnier than you.

"Andy B. is not funny, he is so pointed that you can't see which direction he is pointing." -- ak33 ... What?

And wouldn't it be that, BECAUSE the "issues [Borowitz] is discussing [are] so devastating to our country" that my (so-called) "ignorance" IS, then, "profound"?

Maybe it's the profound disappointment over Obama failing to demand a living wage, and Borowitz's implied support (in this case), that blinds me to the genius of Borowitz.
 
 
+17 # NAVYVET 2014-03-16 03:30
I agree with your critique of Obama--and you have a right to be angry--but you need to hone your sense of satire. The point of this lampoon was to hold up Bonehead to ridicule, while in other lampoons Andy has pointedly ridiculed B.O., showing our (p)resident to be as limp as a wet dishrag. Sometimes I find it hard to laugh. Although I write my own lampoon song parodies, they aren't meant for fun. Bellylaughs are rare in a political lampoon, which is a wake-up call, not entertainment. Pol satire needs wit but never should leave a warm feeling of good cheer. It needs to bring a rueful, reluctant smile, since there's a serious, angry edge to it.
 
 
-15 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-16 06:10
Frustration, contempt, and disgust -- not anger -- more accurately describe the mixture of my emotions regarding Obama and his loyal partisans, who, because of the precarious placement of their heads cannot see the light of day, let alone the proverbial writing on the wall.

With no sense of irony, this lesser group, so hard up for anything to cheer or laugh about finds peace in the mindless ridicule of their wholly equal, opposites -- all while getting their little asses kicked from sea to polluted sea.

As Marinsky writes below, Boroitz's humor is numbingly obvious. If I need to hone my sense of satire to that, ... no thanks, I'll pass.

Not sure where you see the anger. My raw emotion is tempered by reason; unlike the responses to my argument/critic ism. Is it the theoretical " not that you are, but you have every right to be" (angry)?

Anyway, save your lectures on satire for someone else. Thank you.

I will hone my sense for it as best I can, as I've always done: through an open mind, a willingness to laugh at myself -- when deserved -- by recognizing that everything is irony; and though it may not seem like it, ... with humility; and with the courage to fight the good fight -- against the strong, not the weak -- to not revel in the basest humor, nor play to mindless prejudice...

You say, that "Andy has pointedly ridiculed B.O., showing our (p)resident to be as limp as a wet dishrag." Good for him. I haven't seen it, but if you say so.
.
 
 
+14 # babalu 2014-03-16 05:09
Dear N2bg, supposedly you were responding to this Borowitz piece. Instead you bring up other problems you have with Obama - just like a troll. Obama could walk on water holding Jesus' hand and your ilk would still come up with some unrelated complaint. No wonder noone responds to "your arguments."
I weep for your "profound disappointment, " a phrase lifted no doubt from some know-nothing pundit. BTW that was sarcasm, not satire.
 
 
-18 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-16 05:59
Dearest babalu,

I have been hearing from your ilk all day. You know, the ilk that lacks the capacity to respond to what is written in front of your faces.

That is, except with inane assertions, presumptions, clumsy and absurd analogies, and misplaced sarcasm.

There is this saying about arguing with some people because others may not be able to tell the difference. And I usually don't because it's so easy and wrong.

But there is this pompous arrogance that you people have about not responding to content, but simply trusting that there will be enough of you clowns to feel at home, with all patting each other in righteous, apologist bliss.

So much so, that, except for one, you without basis, claim basis for disregarding my argument/critic ism of Borowitz, which is based upon his judgment to mock Republicans' ghoulish lack of sympathy for the poor and working-class people and their constant political intransigence, and pitted them against Obama in the fight for better wages.

Borowitz wrote of Obama. I didn't bring up Obama out of the blue, nor did I bring up "other problems you have with Obama."

My comment is over this specific issue.

My criticism is that Borowitz wrongly made Obama out as the good guy, when he is not. It is written above. You should read it.

And your assertion about this being "sarcasm, not satire" is at best trivial semantics, and otherwise wrong (as a correction). I don't even understand why you are making the point. Do you?
 
 
-5 # Henry 2014-03-16 10:34
Why so argumentative, all of you who seem to HATE what "nice2bgreat" initially wrote? It's this constant "US versus THEM" that is bringing America down! And it's a bring-down on RSN too. Not only a bring-down but it's stupidly macho and juvenile. This is addressed to the following people: babalu, bingers, tm7devils, kalpal, ak33, reiverpacific, bcwik – ENOUGH with the personal insults!!! You just make yourselves look like idiots, and you make the rest of us want to barf.
 
 
+50 # Margolicious 2014-03-15 20:53
Even Bobo Boehner stated before Cruz, Kantor, and the Tea Party takeover of the Repukican Party that all people that work should have enough to eat. Anyone who does not believe this is totally inhuman. The Repukicans are trying to create a communist country with their hatred of the poor and middle class. Their rich supporters should be weary of of what happened in France when the price of bread was too many sous that people could not afford to eat. The Wall Street bonuses this year are absolutely insane. These Wall Street criminals were rewarded for robbing the country and no one went to jail.
 
 
+23 # Tigre1 2014-03-15 20:59
FACE IT, reebooblicans have no sense of humor, except when someone stronger is insulting someone weaker...what used to be called "UnAmerican behavior"...now it's conservative humor.
You know, just low IQ bullying. They're so dense they can't understand why we don't like them and will extirpate their so-called philosphy while hopefully awaiting or advancing the expiration of the physical carriers of their greedy creed...
 
 
+30 # tigerlillie 2014-03-15 21:20
"With one stroke of the pen, President Obama is removing the single most important incentive for work: hunger."

Beautiful.
 
 
-6 # Marinski 2014-03-15 23:19
"Maybe it's the profound disappointment over Obama failing to demand a living wage, and Borowitz's implied support (in this case), that blinds me to the genius of Borowitz."
Agreed that Borowitz is humor-numbingly obvious and Obama disappoints. Both of them, again and again.
 
 
+15 # VictorG 2014-03-16 00:26
Borowitz' satire is wonderful. I love it. Sometimes he's off base in praising Obama. I can take that. He's still funny!
 
 
+22 # hjsteed 2014-03-16 02:58
Amazing how reality & satire bite for a living wage.

Anyone care to join a political Corporate lobbyist for a 5 star restaurant dinner with wine on their business credit card while the service staff hopes to get a tip generous enough to buy a nutritious whole grain loaf of bread for less than $5?
 
 
+12 # hd70642 2014-03-16 05:44
Larry the cable Guy + dumb and dumber+ Baby Huey = Us congress !. Instead of a
community organizer he should have had training to deal within the seveerly intellectually impaired ! This has got to be one of the worst legislative unassenbly in the history of western civilization . This congress makes the most annoying Jerry Lewis
Character look like Einstein in comparison
 
 
+20 # rockieball 2014-03-16 05:47
If Congress got paid for the work they did (especially the Republicans, the average worker would get paid more than they would.
 
 
+19 # ericlipps 2014-03-16 05:52
Sadly, too many on the right really do seem to believe that the minimum wage (which Republicans openly called a Communist idea when it was first established) is a disincentive both to work and to hiring.

Re the latter, how many times have you heard conservatives say that any rise in the minimum wage will mean the loss of jobs? To my ears, that sounds less like a warning than like a threat: "Let us keep wages low, buddy, or something bad might happen, ya know?"
 
 
+18 # cymricmorty 2014-03-16 06:47
You're right. Just like GOP Corker threatening jobs if VW workers unionized.
 
 
+5 # bingers 2014-03-16 15:57
And in fact the higher the minimum wage the higher the rate of employment. Always was, always will be. When people can buy stuff companies need more employees to supply the increased demand.

What we need is a law that the maximum total compensation is no more than 40 times that of the lowest paid person in the company. Then companies would have less incentive to go for the short time profit and invest in the companies' sustainable growth.
 
 
+18 # RHytonen 2014-03-16 06:48
"pet theories about people earning enough to survive?"

seriously?

I will never agree that people don't have a right to life - after birth of course, when they actually -you know- exist.

Nor would I agree that, without the hopelessness of constant survival threat, they are inherently lazy and would not simply become so BORED that they would eventually do something they enjoy, and are therefore best suited for, thus benefitting society.

All that corporatist "inherent laziness of the poor" theory seeks to justify is: the perennial holy grail of business - a replacement for slavery.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2014-03-16 15:59
RHytonen

Crud, meant to give you a thumbs up and accidentally hit the wrong button. Consider your total to be 2 thumbs up more than shown. Sorry!
 
 
+4 # RHytonen 2014-03-16 06:56
“Apparently, President Obama needs a lesson in American history,” he said. “Hunger built the railroads. Hunger picked the crops."

Good luck convincing ANYONE, but most especially a black man, of THAT one.
 
 
+13 # lipakala 2014-03-16 07:03
Citizens United explains a lot.,.,Remember those high paid CEOS.?It needs to be undone.
 
 
+8 # reiverpacific 2014-03-16 08:08
Quoting nice2bgreat:
Oh? Do tell.

Can you be more specific?


Can YOU be more specific?
You put vague issues at length but very ponderously, blurring any point you are trying to make.
Are you blaming Borowitz, Obama, the Rethugs, or just striking out in an ad hominem blanket declamation?
 
 
+10 # bcwik 2014-03-16 08:32
I think in the case of nice2bgreat Mr. Borowitz is hitting a little too close to home for comfort. Or to mix in another metaphor, Wow! That shoe must really pinch to elicit such a response.
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2014-03-16 09:04
Quoting reiverpacific:
Quoting nice2bgreat:
Oh? Do tell.

Can you be more specific?


Can YOU be more specific?
You put vague issues at length but very ponderously, blurring any point you are trying to make.
Are you blaming Borowitz, Obama, the Rethugs, or just striking out in an ad hominem blanket declamation?

BTW, you're being pretty defensive at some length in response to those who dare to disagree with you, a pretty good indication of an atrophied sense of humor.
"A'b'-a'b'-a'b' -tttthath all fffolllksss! Heh-heh-heh-heh !!!"
 
 
-4 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-16 15:06
Really reiverpacific?

Am I taking issue THAT people disagree with me, or that they disagree with me without addressing a single point I make.

You write, "Are you blaming Borowitz, Obama, the Rethugs, or just striking out in an ad hominem blanket declamation?"

Is it complicated? I blame Borowitz for what he is responsible, Obama for what he is responsible, and the "Rethugs" for what they are responsible. Isn't that how it should be?

And you, like almost everyone here, cast my arguments as "vague issues at length but very ponderously, blurring any point you are trying to make," without addressing anything I wrote.

You people are not even doing the usual, which is to ignore most of what is written and cherry pick one aspect, which is usually semantics or tangential to the crux, and ignore the rest.

Actually what is most common is to simply click the thumb of disapproval, so this is quite the step up. More so, it is what I knew to be the case. That you people lack the capacity to honestly and/or logically/intel ligently engage in meaningful discussion.

Based upon arguments I've made here, I have not had to defend one thing, because not one person has addressed one single thing I wrote.

Why not start with my conclusion and argue that?

And after, we can all have a laugh over electronic balloting, drone strikes, NSA spying, environmental devastation, fracking, depleted uranium, privatized prisons, health care, and all the other good jokety-joke issues.
 
 
+5 # bingers 2014-03-16 16:01
No, you're taking for granted that you have a legitimate point. You don't!
 
 
-4 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-16 16:26
You clever fellows seem to have endless ways of being inane.

Too cryptic for you, sad fellow?

Then I will be more clear.

Argue your point? Where is my point illegitimate?

You all seem to think that simply stating that someone has no point is the same as proving it.

You pitiful excuses of humanity have the audacity to claim superiority over your Tea-Party brethren?

One fool after another. Dumbest of the dumb.

Saying someone is wrong is different than proving it.

Moreover, a person is not wrong, so much as what they say is wrong (or right). To demonstrate that, you might consider using as a basis for your arguments, either "actual words and/or phrasings" used by whomever you disagree with or logic.

Clicking a thumb does not prove you right, nor does just deeming yourself right prove it.

Which part of this do you people not get? ??????????????? ????
 
 
+15 # Aaron Tovish 2014-03-16 08:40
I think what make it almost always a pleasure to read Borowitz is his spot-on parody of the way the political media works, both the reporting style and the politicians offering up sound bites.
Each era has its reporting style, this one, too, will pass. When folks listen back on it in a decade, they'll shake their heads in wonder that people tolerated being spoken to in such a pre-packaged way. They will find Borowitz to be one of the few who knew better.
 
 
+13 # dahansen 2014-03-16 08:42
If hunger makes people work, maybe we should use it on Congress, if it works so well Eric Cantor, and maybe you will all work for the common good of America, instead of partisan politics. Not take a vacation when there are important issues in the world like the negotiations with the Russian diplomat and Sec. Kerry!
 
 
+2 # L. Smith 2014-03-16 11:33
I have to agree that the "satire" misses the mark, by essentially excusing Obama's role in the living-wage discussion. There are no good guys in this debate. $10.10 is not a living wage, and as for the comments on hunger in the article, let's not forget that Obama signed off on the farm bill that included cuts to SNAP.
 
 
+4 # fredboy 2014-03-16 13:36
I believe those who bully through the argument of a living wage don't understand the situation or challenge.

Most of the snidest assholes who decry the poor look puzzled when I ask them about their own experience in poverty as a child. Because they did not face such challenges.

What the bullies, and most all bullies, don't understand is the likely consequence of bullying. During my leadership workshops I share the story of a might Native American tribe that stormed west, devastating all villages before them. Until they met one lone man standing silenty, facing them at a creek bank. And while they focused on him, they never saw the incoming, lethal hail of arrows.
 
 
+1 # fredboy 2014-03-16 13:37
I believe those who bully through the argument of a living wage don't understand the situation or challenge.

Most of the snidest assholes who decry the poor look puzzled when I ask them about their own experience in poverty as a child. Because they did not face such challenges.

What the bullies, and most all bullies, don't understand is the likely consequence of bullying. During my leadership workshops I share the story of a mighty Native American tribe that stormed west, devastating all villages before them. Until they met one lone man standing silenty, facing them at a creek bank. And while they focused on him, they never saw the incoming, lethal hail of arrows.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN