...to Obama's unemployment comments and to Peter King.
I got an A+, :), it was exactly what I was thinking just before he mentioned it. It's what I was thinking the other day when Mark Levin responded to a viewers question the other day on another video. First thing out of his mouth was "Here we go again!", subtlety attacking questioner... And so, that's why I tend to agree with someone like Rand that has been raised by someone like Ron before I believe someone like King with the wAy they talk and all. Friends and family ask why should I believe what I see in the DP more than what I see on the MSM, I should use this video as an example. Overall to me it just show how dumbed down society really is. BTW I don't believe everything is see in here either, OMG, however 90% of the stuff I believe do comes from here. Thanks to all of you that participate on this site. Happy New year to everyone! I think 2014 will be a good year!
It is better to look dumb and not be, than to look smart and not be.
While fundementally I don't think it's correct for the government to give ANY handouts, I can't understand why NO ONE in congress (NOT EVEH RAND) is proposing this.
NOT ONE foreign nation has paid a panny in U.S. taxes, but EVERY ONE of those on unemployment HAS paid taxes.
So WHY, WHY, WHY do we continue to away 60 billion dollars a year to all these foreign countries, while not ONE person in congress CAN'T FIND ANYTHING TO CUT???
It's utterly unbelievable to me.
This should have been such an easy response for Rand.
"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
He is playing perfect politics. It would be really sad if he falls just shy of winning the presidency because his supposed most loyal followers never fully grasp what he's out to do and therefore never show the same kind of passion they did for his father. I myself am finally convinced he is our best hope and now fully support him after having had some reservations. Go Rand!
If you cut people off of unemployment prematurely, naturally the so-called "unemployement" statistics will then go down (and artificially look better) --- because ...hello.... the people are no longer marked in the unemployment system anymore.
But that doesn't mean that you actually found a real, full time job!. Do not conflate those two things.
Instead, it may even mean that their Landlord has now kicked them right on to the streets to starve to death, because they couldn't even pay their rent anymore, without their unemployment money to tide them over.
There is a nasty and wrongheaded myth created here....that people get so prosperous off of unemployment checks that they don't want to find a job. That is just total B.S.
Unemployment checks just barely cover a very cheap rental scenario -- there is absolutely no profit in it. And it isn't enough to ever get you anywhere.
The truth is that people always really want to work, and have a real job .... because jobs and careers are how human beings are identified, respected, and recognized in life.
I've been laid off 5 times in my life, and let me tell you that it is the worst thing, and worst feeling you could ever imagine. Suddenly, you have no more business card, no identity, no money, no ability to go out and do things (which cost money), and you just have to hunker down and pray for the phone to ring back, while you scrape enough change together to pay for your housing costs. It totally sucks.
I would've been a homeless person without unemployment benefits.
In 3 of the cases, I found a job within 4 months.
In 1 case, it took me a whole year+ (13 months).
The other case was about 8 months.
One other point about unemployment statistics. If people take bad jobs that under pay them ... because they're desperate ... that still counts statistically as if they lived happily ever after, since "have a job". But successful reemployment is more elusive and more difficult, because the technologies and skills are always changing. Sometimes you even have to go back to school first before you can get a job. Now how are you supposed to pay for school costs and rent costs without any freaking money? This is why we have so many homeless people in this Country. This stuff isn't easy.
The purpose of Unemployment is to help people with that transition, and keep as many people productive, and in the workforce, and from just slipping down through the cracks into poverty .. without hope.
But it's always the rich who want and get the real big $$ welfare $$ (and that's okay with alleged "conservatives"), but then they want to screw over the poor all the time....who don't even have two cents to rub together.
Makes no sense.
First of all Rand Paul is NOT against unemployment benefits. He's against very long term unemployment benefits. (it has been 5 years now!)
That's the first correction. Second unemployment statistics don't go down simply because people no longer receive benefits. People are still counted as unemployed, just without benefits. The only time the statistics go down without people finding a job is when they give up and leave the work force entirely, and are no longer counted. That's what we face now. Unemployment has been going down, but only because people are leaving the workforce altogether (it's really double digit).
The second point is that government handouts absolutely do create a dependency. I have first hand knowledge of people abusing the system, and people that simply didn't want to work. In fact I was a store manager and had a guy fill out an application, when I asked what his availability was he said he didn't really want the job but was required to show he was looking for work.
Last people have a warped sense of "poor and struggling". Not having money left over to buy entertaining items is not poor. I was reading a story of an Argentinian woman who made a soup broth from bones of a dead cow her husband found for her family. Now that's poor. If someone like that received ANY government check she would feel rich. It's all about perspective. Yeah it's true people may not get the job they want right away and would rather receive benefits, but when it's a choice between starving then ANY income suddenly becomes highly appreciated.
I don't think a lot of poor bashers have any clue on what it is actually like to be poor (like Reagan, Limbaugh, etc.). I'm not talking about "entertainment items" here.
I'm talking about paying for basic housing costs (very expensive), food, the utilities, gas for your car (expensive), Internet access, car repairs, etc.
But how do you do that with no money coming in? Try surviving for 8 - 14 months, in a bad economy, with no money.
Let me just put it this way. I'm not ever worried about the poor in this Country getting some assistence. I worry about Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Wall Street, Foreign Banks, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobile, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, etc. all getting unnecessary government handouts of billions and billions of dollars.
That's where the real problem is...
We have a system of welfare for the rich, and economic darwinism for the poor. The tables need to be turned....
you know what it means to be USA poor not third world country poor where just eating day to day can be questionable. It's not the same.
What I'm saying is since we've had the Fed pumping money in to produce a false economy for so many decades people have lost the sense of what true poverty means.
Try surviving 8-14 months in a bad economy? How about surviving in Argentina with no clean water or electricity for that long and 18% annual inflation. Like I said everything is relative and even the "poorest" in the U.S. is still fairly rich globally.
The problem is the entire monetary system is screwed up/lopsided so you do get crazy riches at the higher levels (Reagan, Haliburton, Wall St. execs etc.) that are far disproportionate to the lower part of the economic pyramid. That's due to the inflationary effect which basically shifts money from the poor to the rich automatically. Add in crony capitalism and you really have an unfair system. Yet that's what we have.
We agree on the point that the monetary system (which was conceived by, and operated & controlled by private interests in secret) is corrupt, and a sham.
But poor is poor ... no matter what Country you're in.
Homeless ... is homeless.
Lack of food ... is lack of food.
Having no money (no job)...is having no ability to do anything.
Also...the USA is becoming a 3rd world country too, because the gap between who holds all the wealth has tipped massive into the hands of the top 1%. The middle class is dying, and the poor are truly impovished.
There are many places in the budget to cut.
But to focus on the poor people, is just morally wrong ... especially with all the big time banking corruption.
I'd love to see what's on Mr. King's VISA bill, wouldn't you?
where he made a correlation between the US and an aircraft carrier. Not quoting him here but the crux of his comment was to convey to his supporters that like a giant aircraft carrier ,the US can't just be turned around on a dime. I think that a lot of the people here that get frustrated with Rand forget this message. Especially with Rands "economic Freedom Zones".
when the interviewer was talking about Rand's demeanor and his ability to not take Peter King's comments personally, but to address the real issue and explain what he believes in a calm manner...I was waiting for him to credit his Dad. That is something about Ron Paul that always amazed me, his ability (for the most part) to not get too riled up or over-emotional during an interview or debate. From my point of view Ron Paul never abandons logic. I hope Rand continues with his emulation of his father. That was a good interview.
I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
The interviewer would rather address Rand's demeanor than address the real issues.
Typical MSM policy:
Look over here! Don't look over there.
Live in Liberty
That's where the big money is.
Then price levels will come down dramatically. Which will increase our standard of living, then cut off subsidies for the people.
Doing it the other way around is wrong and ill advised.
First cutting unemployment benefits will corner people in and give them less ways to get out and extending them will uphold the unemployment problem. However, cutting unemployment benefits in places like Rand's proposed "Economic Freedom Zones" may allow people to get around that problem. Economic freedom from the federal government would be the ideal solution, but these zones could be a good start.
Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
member, Gov Scott Walker, believes unemployment benefits should be extended with reforms. Of course, being a Corporatist, he believes in trading one statist position for another. When are people going to start realizing both parties sell them on statist government slavery? They fail to realize this is why we have ended up in the dire straits our Republic now faces. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scott-walker-unemployment-r...
Rand's idea about 'economic freedom zones' is a crock of sh!t! It's like giving a type of 'affirmative action' to certain areas, while everybody else pays more. Didn't he learn anything from his father? This is a Corporatist inspired position, because the big corporations, like Walmart, will take advantage of this type of situation, by buying up property, building their big box stores and forcing all the 'mom and pops' out of business. Somebody needs to send Rand some Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard books to educate him on free markets.
It is a beginning, a foot in the door,the first step be taken, etc....
An introduction or way in to something, made in order that progress may be made later.
the NSA and the unemployment benefits.
The NSA is an easy political winner for Rand and political suicide for the Zionist tool Penis King.
As far as the politics of going against extending unemployment benefits, that is very tricky.
One thing for sure, Rand is a master politician...as good as I have ever seen.
fliping through the news on tv i just saw that yellen was confirmed.
Not down-voting you. Down-voting our "politicians" for being so short-sighted.
Small Brains, Boom.
I've seen it first hand among people of all ages.
Who the hell is going to go get a job when you can sit at home for $300/wk?
It IS a disincentive, no doubt. I have witnessed this too. And all the smug looks from him and his sycophants make my skin crawl...
If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle
Do you know why we will lose the election? Because too many people want their handouts.thry don't even need to rig the elections.
It will be because of all the idiots who turned their backs on him, simply because they don't understand that his game plan is different than his dads and they refuse to acknowledge his accomplishments are already far greater than Ron's.
Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)
losing? Took a beating on the boards for that one too. Even though Ron Paul WASN'T ON OUR BALLOT and there is NO PROVISION FOR COUNTING WRITE INS IN MY STATE. But hey, it was MY FAULT at that time too.
Maybe one vote really can make a difference eh? I really pissed some people off. Huge difference. Despite the fact that we know it's the ELECTORAL COLLEGE THAT SELECTS THE POTUS PER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW...
somehow it's gonna be our fault. The he "loses".
Well we won with Ron Paul in my estimation, possibly because my objectives might be just a bit different than yours. See my objectives for Ron running were:
1. Educate the masses using the partisan tools for our agenda.
2. Gut the GOP like a fish and leave the entrails on the shore for crows to pick at.
Number 1 we got. Number 2? We get another chance.
See ya in 2016!
There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.
I've criticized Rand quite a bit and based on many people's opinions, I'm an anti-Rander, but I can see voting for him. If he doesn't get the nomination, it's because mainstream voters don't find him appealing, not us.
Oh please, the few to the libertarian side of Rand Paul AND who won't vote for him aren't numerous enough to make any difference. What are they, 1% of the population? Probably less?
If Rand loses it will be because those to the statist side of his positions are far too numerous. They number what, at least 80%?
I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein
Part of the problem with the anti-Rand people is that they tend to fall into what the Gospel account of Jesus said as "Gagging at a gnat while swallowing a camel". There is a certain fanaticism to these people, many of them particularly at a few choice votes on foreign policy matters that were guaranteed losers from the get go, and to a lesser but still significant extent, people whining because Rand is a bit more open about his socially conservative views than Ron Paul was (though they aren't too far apart in terms of overall policy, though Rand is rhetorically a bit less pro-gay).
But the most off-putting part about the anti-Rand people is that there just isn't any talking to them. They've already got the whole thing figured out (though very few of them even attempt to run for office themselves) and are convinced that a single compromise is tantamount to complete betrayal. They literally don't distinguish between Peter King and Rand Paul, that's how out of their minds their ideological views have driven them.
“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: