Unmasking Ulterior Motives in Political Rhetoric

It is not often politicians make comments that make sense for lurking underneath the comments are ulterior motives: currying votes by telling would-be voters what they want to hear. Often they must tailor their public remarks with an eye to satisfying their supporters whether, SuperPacs, party affiliations, or constituents. After all, if you are running for president of the U.S. your goal is to meet the expectations of people who want you in that office in exchange for some services: tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, and defunding of government agencies and departments.
Sometimes, though, even the most rabid political partisan might see it fit to break away from the party’s talking points and weave a narrative that might have the effect of causing supporters to flee. This deflection from

(See Fortune) In his party, advocacy for any increase in the minimum is tantamount to heresy—like admitting to global warming—and should not even be considered as an option in as much as market forces can be trusted to determine wages, not the government in the marketplace. But Dr. Carson dared to go a step farther by proposing that the minimum wage should be indexed to account for inflation. Increases the minimum wage should be automatic so that they cannot be politicized; in which case we would never have this conversation again. The proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour languishes in Congress. However, a number of states have already committed to raising it to $15 an hour. Even some private companies have taken the initiative to increase the minimum wage on their own despite almost universal opposition to it by congressional Republicans. (See The Gazaette) How times have changed! The minimum wage, like maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure, used to be bipartisan