You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Ron Paul’ category.
Rand Paul made some rather bizarre statements that at first do not seen true… This is an attempt to tackle them logically and see how in what context, they could possibly be true…
His subject was the extension of unemployment benefits.
First… Take his statement: “I do support unemployment benefits for the first 26 weeks…” He is talking about state money, not federal. Federal money starts on the 27th week. So at issue is who will pay for it. From the point of the Treasury, since employers pay unemployment insurance into the state, and the state pays the unemployed, essentially employers are paying the unemployment, and not the government… Of course sometimes the cost may outweigh the income and shifts have to occur. However it is in no way nearly as costly as using all Federal money, all of which comes from taxes, to pay for those people who cannot find work….
So from the Federal Governments role, not extending benefits initially looks good on its balance sheet…
Now let us look at it through economics… You have someone maybe or maybe not trying very hard to earn a job…. In any regards he doesn’t have one… So from the 26th week to the 27th week, this happens. His income goes from $330 (Delaware’s maximum) down to zero…. He files for SNAP (food stamps), Medicare, TANF (cash assistence) and utility payments. Most likely, with zero income he will be eligible. There will probably be a two to three week delay before the payments go into effect, and they will be paid with all the back pay up to when the request was processed.
Now, to keep TANF, this person must undergo a forced regime. They must show up at a service such as the Salvation Army or Career Team, and go through seminar training for roughly the equivalent of a work week. They get times for interviews and resumes, and have coaches helping them find employment…They undergo internships. This impedes their time looking for additional work… If one is required to spend the day in class, it makes going to an interview rather difficult… It sort of makes it harder to get a job for the same money that just getting unemployment would allow….
So the idea that cutting unemployment is economical for society is bogus. It completely forgets to factor in the cost of assistance that would be required. Essentially from an economics standpoint, it would not fund the supplicant from one fund, but would be doing so from another…. The one fund would need to be funded by additional revenue. The existing fund, would have to figure how to pay for the extra demand off of their limited resources…
In review, this idea does not work well on either the deficit’s or economic level. It simply moves the cost to another department, and that is actually more costly by the time one factors TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, and subsidized utility payments.
The only way cutting unemployment could work, is A) it forced someone to get a job, and B) the person disappeared off the grid and cost no one anything….
I cannot but help think, that the premise for Rand Paul’s argument, is based on the assumption that people are free-loading on unemployment. He is calling them out by implying sure they are going through the motions of looking, but they are acting like they are on vacation….
For it can only if that premise is taken, then the removal of benefits miraculously causes everyone to walk up and get a job and live happily ever after… Further more, I sense morality making a play here… The idea that getting money while not producing is unhealthy for our country, seems to be the driving force here…
If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers,” he said… “When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you’re causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy,”
The idea clearly stated, is that the perpetual unemployed group in our economy, exists because people are on unemployment. Other factors are irrelevant… such as no new jobs, such as old people suck; let’s hire new ones, such as the jobs we have are in Missouri; you’re in Delaware. All of these factors are simply dismissed.
If you want a job, Rand Paul’s stated assumption goes, you just have to go ask and they will give it to you, no questions asked. Only because you are unemployment, have you not only not gotten a job, but neither have you sufficiently looked…..
Are the jobs really there?
Let’s look at numbers…. Four days ago it was released that 230,000 new jobs grew in November. it surprised everyone. Unemployment dropped 3 tenths. The total number of unemployed dropped down to 10.9 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially unchanged at 4.1 million in November. These individuals accounted for 37.3 percent of the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 718,000 over the past 12 months.
So, 4.1 million of the 10.9 million are either at or over 27 weeks of being unemployed… if Rand Paul gets his way and benefits suddenly stop, 4.1 million shuffle onto on assistance instead of getting unemployment…. Rand Paul was expecting them to get work…
Let is demonstrate how long that would take….
4.1 million unemployed – 230,000 monthly new jobs = 3.87 million unemployed left without benefits in January 2014
3.87 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 3.64 million…. February 2014
3.64 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 3.41 million….. March 2014
3.41 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 3.18 million….. April 2014
3.18 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 2.93 million….. May 2014
2.93 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 2.70 million….. June 2014
2.70 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 2.47 million….. July 2014
2.47 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 2.21 million….. August 2014
2.21 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 1.91 million….. Sept. 2014
1.91 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 1. 68 million…. Oct. 2014
1.68 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 1.45 million… Nov. 2014
1.45 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 1.22 million… Dec. 2014
1.22 million -230,000 monthly new jobs = 920,000…… Jan. 2015
920,000 -230,000 monthly new jobs = 690,000 ….. Feb. 2015
690,000 -230,000 monthly new jobs = 460,000 March 2015
460,000 -230,000 monthly new jobs = 230,000 April 2015
230,000 -230, 000 monthly new jobs = full employment…. May 2015……
Of course this is only theoretical. If real, it would take much longer because one would have to factor in all the new perspective job seekers entering the job market each month, as well as factor the ratio of which the new get hired versus old, etc. and obviously it would take much longer than just this scenario implies…..
But the fastest we could ever hire all of those long termed unemployed is a year and a half….
A year and a half with no income. Even if looking for work regularly, and someone took a slot before you, it could be a year and a half until another slot opens up where you could finally be employed….
Those who say, one can get a job delivering papers, in the meantime, are forgetting that there already are 7.7 million part-time workers due to the economy, already working those jobs, and looking for full time employment as well…
So it appears that simple math proves Mr. Rand Paul wrong. Keeping unemployed workers on unemployment benefits is not providing a disservice to workers, it is doing the opposite; but cutting them off and leaving them with no money while they try to find work across a full year and a half is what would truly provide perhaps the greatest disservice to workers….
Rand Paul erred in his math.
Now this may be esoteric for most, but for me, this was the most intriguing aspect… (So instead of ending with a bang-up finish, this post will fade away ethereally..). Remember that unemployment benefits are taxable income… So if unemployment is extended past 27 weeks, the net cost over a year will be less because some of that comes back as taxes… So if one takes that calculation into effect, and at a 10% rate which is low… $33 dollars of every $330 Federal Unemployment check comes back, meaning the economy is being boosted by $330 dollars, at only a cost to the Fed’s over time, of $297….
The average benefit per person on SNAP is $133 dollars. Medicaid costs and average of $166 among low income people. Rand Paul’s plan would increase these two items to $299 per person, to save in another category, $297 per person…..
It appears the only thing Rand Paul has going forward in his favor, is the cultivation of anger against people terminated by the past Recession who cannot get rehired and must wait for the economy to grow…..”How dare they take our money!” The math behind his assertion, agoes completely against him….
But to his defense, he did say something of merit: “You get out of a recession by encouraging employment, not encouraging unemployment.”
Increasing the size of government would do far more to get people off of long term unemployment benefits, than cutting them off cold turkey. Adding 100,000 new Federal government career jobs each month, would do wonders all across the economy. Don’t think Rand will have any of that, which is why the economy will only putt along until Congress allows the Federal Government to again start hiring …..
Lol. That was supposedly in Alabama. So… I thought if I were to duel, I would plagiarize from Wikipedia as did he, to get myself up to that level of intensity…. since in his words, that seems to be a precursor to performing a duel… I now wonder how Aaron Burr was able to access Wikipedia before the silicon chip?
So the part of Wikipedia I wish to plagiarize, comes from here….
Tell me… does this sound familiar?
“The curriculum was changed radically. Independent subjects, such as reading, writing, arithmetic, the mother tongue, foreign languages, history, geography, literature or science were abolished. Instead school programs were subdivided into “complex themes”… ” Such a system was a complete failure,”
“Education was inflexible and suppressive. Research and education, especially in the social sciences, were dominated by corporate ideology and supervised by the DOE… Such domination led to abolition of whole academic disciplines such as teaching… Scholars were purged as they were proclaimed pro-union or Liberals during that period or worse, “anti Common Core”…. Most of the abolished branches would be rehabilitated later in history although many purged scholars would never be rehabilitated… In addition, many textbooks – such as history ones – were full of corporate ideology and propaganda, and contained factually inaccurate information …
“Another aspect of the inflexibility was the high rate at which pupils were held back due to not passing a test and required to repeat a year of school. Typically 70–90% of pupils in elementary grades were held back a year. This was partly attributable to the pedagogical style of the curriculum and its tests, and partly to the fact that many of these children had disabilities that impeded their performance. “
=====
My! My! My! How familiar it all sounds… And to think I stole it from a Wikipedia Account titled Soviet Education…… And just inserted Common Core for the references regarding communism…. as well as leaving the dates out…..
I was thinking over how Markell, Chuck Todd, Mark Murphy and even Al Mascitti were belittling those against Common Core as being Tea Party doofs… ” Oh, Common Core is Communist!” they mocked…. knowing fully well that communism has been gone now for over 20 years….
So being the curiosity seeker that I am, i went to see what Communist education was really like. I do know the stories we all heard growing up, sort of sound like Common Core today…. just substitute Pearson for the Politburo…. I do know that the concepts of “rigor” and “grit” were applied to both.
And I do know that their system didn’t work. Our’s did. We won.
As we were taught early on in our lifetimes, individuals banded together, are always more resourceful and stronger than something that gets all its commands from a central authority.
In the duel between the US and the USSR, the US won. A big part not often mentioned, was how we beat them in education. Our technological prowess was more advanced.
So the next time you hear someone beating up on a 9/12 patriot who states that Common Core is communist, figure out that he is talking about the pattern, and not the ideology. For if you isolate the pattern, as my attempt to stir up a duel by plagiarizing Wikipedia like Ron Paul shows, Common Core and the Communist system are rather consistent.
It’s just the Pearson conglomerate instead of the Politboro who is driving it. It’s the exact same car.
( Put-Put. Runs like a Skoda……btw)
Well so much for my duel. Guess I’ll go find a banjo player on a porch somewhere……
I’m shocked, shocked no one has this story this morning…
If you haven’t heard, Ron Paul Delegates had a commanding majority in the Louisiana Convention, and the extreme minority of Romney-aligned Republicans staged a coup, and had the Ron Paul Delegates arrested, including the newly elected Chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party… The 58 year chairman was thrown to the floor, dislocating his prosthetic hip, dragged out of the room, despite is pleas of “I’m the chairman of the party.”
Thugs, Republican thugs… Read the account then go out and punch the first Republican you see right in the mouth…
(Lol. Kidding of course. Bet you’ll feel the same way after reading the truth.. (which incidentally, isn’t on any of the networks news programs this morning…)
Boy, do we truly live in a FUCKED UP America……..
The candidate will be none of those currently running… So who is your guess on who will jump in to save the Republican Party?
In 2121 the Debt grows under Newt Gingrich’s Plan…… $7 Trillion
In 2121 the Debt grows under Rick Santorum’s Plan….. $4.5 Trillion
In 2121 the Debt grows under Mitt Romney’s Plan……. $3.5 Trillion
In 2121 the Debt shrinks under Ron Paul’s Plan………. $ -2 Trillion
And in 2121, Under Obama’s plan which was the base line for these calculations……. the debt is neither + or – but $0.0 Trillion.
Bottom line, Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, will make things worse. If for some reason you don’t like Obama, you’d better go with Paul……
Gotta be brief.
We learned all Republicans are not what Fairfax VA wants them to be. They are a diverse group of people bound together by ideals.
We learned more about Romney. That he and his ilk like Bain Capital are responsible for the economic woes we now face.
We learned that unlimited money is wasted on well informed voters. Romney spent more and won, but usually the Massachusetts candidate always wins in New Hampshire… After all metropolitan Boston, the capital of Massachusetts, is New Hampshire’s largest city…
We learned Huntsman really isn’t the dufus he was made out to be on all previous debates and media commentary.
We learned that Ron Paul, is probably too old to be president, even though we may admire his libertarian streak that resonates through every American.
We learned that Iowa was just a game, with big money alligning itself behind one candidate, then another, then another, then another, then another, and Rick Santorum now has just faded away….
We learned New Hampshire is not as flakey conservative (meaning they are more informed than most) as large parts of the rest of the nation.
We learned that often the wrong people get put in as front runners. Buddy Roemer gets a standing ovation in Nashau, among supporters of all the other candidates… (It was the best talk of the campaign so far)… Yet, the only Republican runner who has been a reelected governor, and reelected Congressman, is not allowed on stage at any debates.
You put a two-timing philanderer Pizza mogul as the prime presidential candidate, but shut out a 4 term Republican Congressman who was also a 2 term Republican governor? One who resurrected a state that was as bad off and as corrupt, as is Washington now? C’mon.. This election process is not natural.. it is staged. It is a Selection Process, not an election process……
We learned already that Citizens United will have to be overturned. It is now apparent we won’t have any fair elections until both corporations and the wealthy can no longer funnel enormous wealth into election cycles.
And most importantly, we learned the Republicans have no ideas on how to get us out of the mess… Since summer, not one good idea to get American jobs back into high gear, has come out in any campaign.. Instead we have gotten piped in music decrying who is the most conservative…
How will they get jobs roaring again?
right click on chart to view full image
It is funny how so much time and effort is spent determining who will run on the Republican side of the Presidential race, when that whole contest is made meaningless by this one chart…..
Republicans don’t want you to see this chart. Democrats simply lack the capacity to understand what it means…..
It means that if you want efficiency, then lowering taxes is good. That creates efficiency. But if you want jobs, then raising taxes is good, because that creates jobs…
The standard Republican argument against this: “That is bunk. Everyone knows cutting taxes grows jobs….” (end of argument).
What never gets done, except in the bottom comment sections of well meaning blogs, is the proper rebuttal….
If that is bunk, explain how and why history itself proves it otherwise?
And alas, they cannot answer that, because they are wrong… Low taxes do not create jobs. Higher taxes do….
Look for yourself.
Right click to open full image… Pictograph Courtesy of Viral..
So, can someone tell me again, why we shouldn’t tax the rich, and instead, balance the budget on the backs of everyone else?…….
I seem to be missing that little detail where that all makes sense……
In today’s political world, the embattled progressives are ironically in the same position American forces found themselves in Afghanistan around the time Obama was sworn in………
Things do not seem to be going well at all….
They did not get the Bush tax cuts off the books. Those tax cuts are still sending jobs overseas. They did not get single payer health care; insurers still limit health care. And now, many of the federal programs supporting the economies in their districts, are about to be eradicated….
“If only” Obama had stood tough!.. “If only” Democrats were better negotiators and didn’t give up everything at the drop of the hat… “If only” the Democrats worked harder last December to get the Bush tax cuts not reinstated. “If only” Democrats hadn’t lost the House last election, things would be different. “If only” Obama hadn’t sold us out! “If only” Obama had a spine. “If only” Democrats hadn’t caved and given Republicans 100% of what they want…“If only” the media would educate the public. “If only” truth was allowed on the airwaves….
The Progressives should not base their future strategy on “what-ifs” and “if only’s” as Progressives (especially here in Delaware) are prone to do. Such an approach is not “reality-based.”
It is instead, “hope-based”, which is to say in reality … “illusion-based”…
The illusion persists that Obama can “make” Republicans do what Progressive want. It equals the illusion that the US, can “make” the government of Karzai, do what everything we want…
In both cases, both progressives and the US, can’t force the issue. Instead, what they have to do, is out-argue, snuggle-up, and win the battle of the minds; they have to convince the respective populations that if they follow their way, the population will be better off.
With this bill, we now have a “reality” to assist with that convincing…
The core of all the arguing, is the hypothesis that America needs to tax it’s wealthy a little more.
When American’s go to the polls in 2012, they will have begun to feel the effects on the economy of what happens when one cuts $100 billion a year. Just like the balanced budget deficit bill of 1937 pushed America back into depression, so will this bill.
Progressives need to be out there saying, “We told you this would happen; see? We were right all along; all you have to do is tax the wealthy and this all goes away…..”
Unfortunately (or rather fortunately), there will not be a World War III to pull us out of this next upcoming depression… We will just have to spend Federal Dollars as if there was one. Which means, we have to return to the top marginal tax rates of 1941 – 1945…
So yes, there are no new revenues in this bill. Had there been, the reality would be that the House would have allowed a default.
But the argument can now begin… anew,… starting tomorrow! That increases in taxes cause an increase in jobs….. Had another default issue been allowed to occur again before the election, that argument would have been held hostage once again…
Now, it can’t… It can’t…. The argument of “good taxation” will get out there. This future election will be all about job creation…..
The Tea Party and Progressives both make the same error. They feel that holding another side hostage to get their way, is acceptable. That is not how America works. Often we fail, to remember that America is the one who put the Republicans into the position they did. Likewise, it was the Americans who put Democrats in the same position, two years earlier.
This argument needs to be played out over the course of an election cycle. The Americans themselves need to weigh in on this argument. Each side must argue their case.
It comes down to Clinton’s way… versus Bush’s…..
Start changing minds.
kavips 