New Rand "Controversy"

[Adrock]

Now the AP is out with their new Rand Paul bombshell controversy. Wait for it...... He said that the poor in America are "enormously better off than the rest of the world". Looks like they are trying to increase that latest PPP poll finding that the media isn't treating him fairly.

LINK (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_KENTUCKY_SENATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

[TheDriver]

That reporter appears to have major bias toward Rand according to this guy (http://capitalistbanner.com/2010/07/12/ap-writer-bruce-schreiner-creates-constant-backlash-against-rand-paul/).

[low preference guy]

That reporter appears to have major bias toward Rand according to this guy (http://capitalistbanner.com/2010/07/12/ap-writer-bruce-schreiner-creates-constant-backlash-against-rand-paul/).

That guy... is you, right?

[low preference guy]

If I had a lot of money, I would pay every newspaper double what they pay to AP with the condition that they don't renew their contract with AP and hire an alternative agency, like Reuters, etc.

[TheDriver]

That guy... is you, right?

Whoever it is ...... I like his style. :D

[Justinjj1]

It doesn't matter if you offend poor people, or blacks, or environmentalists....just whatever you do Rand, don't say anything that might offend the pro-war neocons or the Jews. Tread lightly around those sacred creatures. :rolleyes:

[low preference guy]

It doesn't matter if you offend poor people, or blacks, or environmentalists....just whatever you do Rand, don't offend the pro-war neocons or the Jews. Tread lightly around those sacred creatures. :rolleyes:

Yeah, tread much more lightly so that something like having Dick Cheney, Guiliani, David Frum and others coming hard after you doesn't happen again.

[sailingaway]

He wasn't even talking about the poor per se but the comparative machines of communism and capitalism and saying capitalism at least generates the plenty that can be given away -- and when was the last time Cuba gave money to Haiti, for example?

[Adrock]

Looks like WBKO out of Bowling Green picked it up. Their write up sounds pretty lame. Could use some comments. I already did and they said it was "under review".

LINK (http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/98287764.html)

[Justinjj1]

The problem with that statement is that the poor live relatively well off because of government provided saftey nets, such as welfare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc.

[low preference guy]

The problem with that statement, is that the poor live relatively well off because of government provided saftey nets, such as welfare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc.

No, the reason is the increased productivity here. That productivity allows for more goods to be produced, which increases the price of labor in relation to goods. Thus, wage earners have more purchasing power in the U.S. than in those other countries, and this would be true even if there were no safety nets.

[silverhandorder]

The problem with that statement is that the poor live relatively well off because of government provided saftey nets, such as welfare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc.

You have to understand that the reason we can provide such drains on us is because we have a relatively free system. So yeah we have a safety net that provides help, it also hurts many. On the net it is a drain and a negative for the poor.

[low preference guy]

You have to understand that the reason we can provide such drains on us is because we have a relatively free system. So yeah we have a safety net that provides help, it also hurts many. On the net it is a drain and a negative for the poor.

The other problem with Justin's statement is that if safety nets were what allowed the poor to be better off, well, why other countries don't just have safety nets? Because they don't have enough wealth to give away! And the reason we have wealth to give away is because of the relatively freer market.

It's obvious Justin is a troll giving Democrat talking points to attack Rand.

[silverhandorder]

I am agreeing with you here. I just find it difficult to explain the concept in few words.

I guess a good illustration would be socialist Ukraine and Russia. They promise many social goods and boast of a bigger social safety net then us. Yet they utterly fail to provide all of those promises. So wishing to care for the poor through government does not help. Otherwise it would have helped in those countries.

Where is the study that shows our poor live the life styles of middle class Europeans? Someone needs to drop a link to that here.

[Adrock]

The problem with that statement is that the poor live relatively well off because of government provided saftey nets, such as welfare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc.

Is that why the people from Cuba risk their lives to come over to Florida on rafts? The poor are so well off there with their government run healthcare and other awesome state programs that they leave their families and risk their lives to come to a place with less safety nets?

[trey4sports]

if we had a TRUE free enterprise system, the poor would be living like the middle class do today

[Justinjj1]

No, the reason is the increased productivity here. That productivity allows for more goods to be produced, which increases the price of labor in relation to goods. Thus, wage earners have more purchasing power in the U.S. than in those other countries, and this would be true even if there were no safety nets.

A lot of the poor in this country do not earn any wage and solely rely on government handouts.

[low preference guy]

A lot of the poor in this country do not earn any wage and solely rely on government handouts.

If there were no governments handouts, those people would still be getting the products, because when people are not paid to not work, the culture of the population is one of hard work. The bottom line is that it is the relatively freer economic system what allows the poor to be better off. Even in your scenario, it's the relatively freer market what created enough wealth to give away. If those other countries give handouts, the poor wouldn't be able to buy much with it just because of the low level of production of their economies.

[Adrock]

if we had a TRUE free enterprise system, the poor would be living like the middle class do today

You are right. The current middle class would be elevated too. There would still be a relative class of poor though. The liberals could still use the class warfare argument. All ships rise with the free market, all sink with centralized planning.

[libertybrewcity]

the poor in this country are a lot better off than the rest of the world. most have heating, air conditioning, a decent house, education, tv, electricity, water, food stamps...peter schiff mentioned this in his interview with NPR today.

[Justinjj1]

The bottom line is that it is the relatively freer economic system what allows the poor to be better off.

I disagree with this premise. Just look at the United States during the Gilded Age, we had a much freer economic system, albeit nowhere near completely laissez-faire, and a much worse standard of living for poor people.

[low preference guy]

I disagree with this premise.

I see. Are you a democrat? What are you doing here? Have you heard of the Democratic Underground? You might like it better to post there.

As for your point, let me be brief to try to help you see your error. The question is, what was the situation before the gilded age? Did free market policies improve or make it worse?

It's not useful to compare to times without looking at the past. You would see for instance today that the U.S. dollar, although depreciating, still has great value. If people think like you, they would conclude that printing a lot of money is what makes currency valuable, because that's what is happening right now. But you need to look at the whole context and the surrounding history, which is what you don't do, i.e., you think like a statist liberal who gets everything wrong.

[Justinjj1]

I see. Are you a democrat? What are you doing here? Have you heard of the Democratic Underground? You might like it better to post there.

As for your point, let me be brief to try to help you see your error. The question is, what was the situation before the gilded age? Did free market policies improve or make it worse?

It's not useful to compare to times without looking at the past. You would see for instance today that the U.S. dollar, although depreciating, still has great value. If people think like you, they would conclude that printing a lot of money is what makes currency valuable, because that's what is happening right now. But you need to look at the whole context and the surrounding history, which is what you don't do, i.e., you think like a statist liberal who gets everything wrong.

I think Ive been mistaken, perhaps it's my own fault. (Ive had a few beers.) I am not a Democratic troll and Im not even a leftist. I believe in a free market and capitalism. Although I believe that in a completly free market that poor people will probably suffer a lot more, which is the notion of social darwinism. Given a laissez-faire economy, then the hardworking, smart, productive members of society will flourish. But given human nature, not everyone is going to succeed and without safety nets those people will sink to the bottom (which is a natural and good thing IMO). The reason why so many of those people have such a high standard of living today is because of wealth redistribution (which I am against). I just thought it was odd that Rand Paul would use that example, when it is because of policies that he is presumably against that the poor continue to flourish in this country.

[Adrock]

I disagree with this premise. Just look at the United States during the Gilded Age, we had a much freer economic system, albeit nowhere near completely laissez-faire, and a much worse standard of living for poor people.

Your right, the poor had a terrible standard of living compared to the rest of the world. This statement is definitely supported by the exodus of immigrants from Europe and China to the US. They must have heard the horror stories.

[low preference guy]

I think Ive been mistaken, perhaps it's my own fault. (Ive had a few beers.) I am not a Democratic troll and Im not even a leftist. I believe in a free market and capitalism. Although I believe that in a completly free market that poor people will probably suffer a lot more, which is the notion of social darwinism. Given a laissez-faire economy, then the hardworking, smart, productive members of society will flourish. But given human nature, not everyone is going to succeed and without safety nets those people will sink to the bottom (which is a natural and good thing IMO). The reason why so many of those people have such a high standard of living today is because of wealth redistribution (which I am against). I just thought it was odd that Rand Paul would use that example, when it is because of policies that he is presumably against that the poor continue to flourish in this country.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think there is one thing you're not aware of.

What happens to the poor people when there is massive increase in production that pure capitalism brings about?

When there is an explosion in the amount of goods available, and the amount of labor stays constant or increases only a little, labor is relatively scarce in comparison to goods in general. Thus, the real value of labor increases in relation to goods. That's why someone who works in McDonald's in Bolivia can buy with his wages a lot less that an American worker in McDonald's in the United States who does the exact same thing.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/US-Kentucky-Senate/2010/07/12/id/364431

[Bman]

The problem with that statement is that the poor live relatively well off because of government provided saftey nets, such as welfare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc.

All made possible because of the strength of free market Capitalism. However, the writing is on the wall. Such programs will not last forever. To assume they'd be worse off if government never made those programs is a leap of faith.


I disagree with this premise. Just look at the United States during the Gilded Age, we had a much freer economic system, albeit nowhere near completely laissez-faire, and a much worse standard of living for poor people.

And poor caveman had an even worse standard!

Apples and oranges.

[jct74]

Wow. MSNBC attacked Rand on 2 different fronts today. First it was Rand making "Psycho Talk" over his poverty comments:

YouTube - Psycho Talk! - Rand Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ol_lHZZOyI)


Then it was Rand making "Worst Person in the World" (3rd place) for saying Social Security is a ponzi scheme:

YouTube - Rand Paul Makes 'Worst Person In The World!!!' List (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV32zkNVLeE)

[0zzy]

I hate MSNBC.

[Dreamofunity]

My god, Ed is so fucking annoying.

[sailingaway]

Not clicking. Those two have nothing to say.

[Matt Collins]

Wow. MSNBC attacked Rand on 2 different fronts today.

I hate MSNBC.Fortunately very few people watch MSNBC. And even less people in KY watch it. :)





Then it was Rand making "Worst Person in the World" (3rd place) for saying Social Security is a ponzi scheme:Admitting a straight ahead fact places one on the "worst person in the world" list :confused: :rolleyes:

[Mahkato]

How to ensure that poverty is never eliminated: Define poverty as the lowest XX% of earners.