Monday, December 9, 2013

Rand Supports Unemployment Benefits

Kyle Beck emails:
For those few stubborn Libertarian Rand Paul supporters still left:
"I do support 26 weeks of unemployment that they're paid for, if you extend it beyond that you do a disservice to these workers"
Link to original article- http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/192405-rand-paul-opposes-extending-jobless-benefits
Rand is clearly a government  micro-manager and not an advocate of true liberty. It's really gaining power over advocating principle for him. He knows better.


21 comments:

  1. Not a big Rand fan, but how does opposing extended benefits make him a micro manager?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rand said he supports 6 months of unemployment benefits.

      Delete
    2. He says supports it because it is being paid for by UI taxes on employers. As long as we are taxing people to pay for it then yeah of course people should get these benefits they are being taxed for. Get rid of the taxes and then get rid of the benefits though.

      Delete
  2. Someone should ask the senator to cite the clause in the Constitution that permits the federal government to steal my property to fund someone else's unemployment. If he cops out and resorts to using the general welfare clause as a rationale, then how can he object to the entire welfare state?

    Once one cedes principle, it's a slippery slope indeed.

    We desperately need someone willing to run for high office based on a coherent and moral political philosophy, not one who compromises based on a political calculation. If Rand needs guidance, maybe he should chat with his father.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is quoting the Constitution a cop out? The general welfare and necessary and proper clause give Congress the power to tax you and use the proceeds for unemployment insurance. This is settled law and beyond dispute. Failing to accept this is the same as failing to accept that the Earth is not 6000 years old. Just because you do not like the answer, that does not mean it is wrong.

      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

      To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

      Delete
    2. If the Constitution allows Congress to directly tax income, why was the 16th Amendment necessary? Revisit basic American history and you'll learn. Do it before posting more errors.

      Delete
  3. 26 weeks is precisely the right amount then. Who needs markets when we've got Rand? Perhaps he could also tell us the ideal minimum wage.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course he knows better! He has had a wonderful teacher (his father) and has read (and absorbed) all of the same books and principles that most of the rest of us have. BUT Rand is not a Professor or teacher (or a blog entrepreneurer) whose mission is to educate the unwashed in the pure theory of a free society. He is a practicing politician who aims, perhaps, to be one of the most powerful politicians (President?) in our existing system. He has calculated, correctly perhaps, that a political message of pure, principled liberty will not allow him to advance liberty given the current political culture; he and his "principles" would simply be dismissed. You constantly take him to woodshed for this calculation but I am not at all sure that he is wrong and that you are correct. We will just have to wait and see, won't we. In the area of libertarian strategy, as Murray Rothbard used to say to me, things are not as clear cut and obvious as they appear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That Rand Paul seeks this powerful position and, unlike his father, is willing to compromise his principles to attain it represents something he should be taken to the woodshed about. The danger with accepting compromise in exchange for power is that it becomes increasingly easier the more it's done.

      I didn't know Murray Rothbard, but LRC posted an essay called "The Heresy of Prudence", the opening of which stuck with me and I often find myself quoting. It's appropriate in this instance too:

      "For some time, he [Frank Meyer] has endeavored to square the circle and simultaneously integrate liberty and statism, reason and tradition, radicalism and conservatism. It has been a noble course, but I'm afraid it must be as futile as any attempt to reconcile mutually contradictory propositions."

      Delete
    2. Why do you say his father is a wonderful teacher? His father said the govt does not include food and fuel when reporting inflation. Headline inflation includes food and fuel. His father claims to be an expert on monetary policy and sat on the banking committee but does not know this basic fact. What other basic facts does he not know? Lots.

      Delete
    3. He knows why we needed the 16th Amendment, which you apparently don't.

      Delete
    4. "His father said the govt does not include food and fuel when reporting inflation."

      Ron Paul specifically referenced the CPI is saying such, which is correct.

      What you are referencing is WPI. Let's us both be honest with each other, how often in gov't press releases of inflation as reported by their MSM lapdogs do you see "WPI" listed instead of "CPI"?

      Nice try though.

      Delete
  5. Rand says he's opposed to extending the federal extended benefits. How does this make Rand bad again?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He says he supports 6 months of unemployment benefits. Libertarians prefer an unemployed person to suffer so that they accept a job for low pay. That increase corporate profits and helps rich people which is the goal of libertarian economics.

      Delete
    2. Separating for a moment your labeling of "libertarian economics" to reflect only libertarian philosophy, you should really consider that libertarian thinking is concerned with the NAP and property rights....not more.

      It is not favoritism towards one class segment or another. You may FEEL the goal is to help rich people, but in the end the "goal" is to further humanity via the above principles in the belief they are the most effective is helping man.

      The demagoguery distracts you from focusing on logic, you should discard it.

      Delete
  6. It depends on whether or not the money actually is in an account somewhere or not. I think we know that it isn't, and that we've all been lied to about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How have you been lied to? Because you expect the federal govt park surplus dollars in a vault to collect dust. The world does not operate that way. Money is lent and it earns a return. The govt trusts are owed 5 trillion dollars. Perhaps you do not understand what a trust is. The trusts lend money to the federal govt and get bonds in return. If you are not familiar with the concept of a trust the transaction seems nonsensical. Learn what a trust is. You have not bee lied to.

      Delete
  7. Again, not a fan of Rand. But nobody seems to want to explain to me how this makes him a micro-manager.

    I get that UI is unconstitutional and theft and we all would prefer that he had called for abolishing it instead. But it seems to me that he's just recommending the law be followed as it was originally written.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with Rand. When the Unemployment insurance was of 26 weeks, the unemployment rate = 2%

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good GOD-

    If Wolgang von Retardo ever offered a well- reasoned argument, or didn't shift all his arguments to "well you say this" kind of bullshit--- I REALLY want you to interview him for a RWenzel show, so he can be exposed as a total economically ignorant fraud!

    Rossini- have you tried to contact him? PLEASE get him on the show!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with Rand. When Unemployment insurance was of 26 weeks, the unemployment rate = 2%

    ReplyDelete