Ayn Rand has ruined Paul Ryan

Again, why not hire people to dig holes? Why not ban bulldozers so more people can get jobs as diggers? If you think the true end of the economy is jobs, you need to answer that.

 

I like this thing we call "the Standard of Living". Does the USA have only one? Who's standard are we talking about. It appears that I had a higher standard than the old couple that lived next ti us as they were taken from their home when they could not make the mortgage payments or taxes, It was the week before. he had come down with cancer and I guess the medical payments had them living in 1 room as they had electric heat. I spoke with them two or three times a week and they never let on that they had a problem. They would open the door only a little so I didn't see that there was no sign of life on the main level. I found out more after they were gone and only wish they had said something to me. What about the family that is in tears because they may have to miss out on their trip to Disney Land this year? Not quite the same standard is it?
It is also possible to have a high standard of living but have no frills. Never going to Orlando, FL is not important, not going skiing during is an extra and should not be included, going out to dinner really isn't something I miss. Tonight we had "Bangers and Mash" with apple sauce and cheddar and we'll eat the other half that was cooked in two days, The bread we eat cost twice that on the supermarket shelves so we only eat half as much bread as we did years ago. I'm a student again, working on a Masters in architecture which I probably won't live long enough to complete, but then I'm not doing it for the degree, its for the structured learning.

I would say I have a high standard of living but others may say we don't. Sunday I drove to Center Harbor, NH which I consider a dream location. The large lake to the south and the mountains on 3 sides an hour away is Mt. Washington, I can't hike anymore let alone climb limiting myself to sitting in a location with a view of the valley running north to the base of Washington. When I arrived home my wife was practicing the cello. She started taking lessons a couple of years ago at the age of 73. You don't learn as fast as a teen ager; but she is getting quite good at it and I find myself encouraging her when she is having a problem getting things right. "I guess you'll have to wait until next year to join the string quartet,"

Your standard of living might be high or it might be low, it is what you make it.

 

More like you yourself don't know what your own article is overlooking. Between 2000 and 2007, plenty of jobs were created, it's just most were lost between 2008-2009.

For an unbiased source, here's Politifact, when Checking Boehner's "8 million" figure, confirming this.

6 million they said. Of 132 million that's 4%. So the question isn't "why weren't jobs created?" They were created, the question is, why and where did they go?

 

Something along those lines may have to happen eventually if there will be no welfare and not enough valid, market generated jobs. Unless you have another suggestion for what to do with all those people who will not have work? And maybe what you'll need to do is not restrict farming and hunting, you'll have to allow all out farming and hunting all year -everywhere, so that even if there are no jobs at least you can shoot squirrels in a public park or raise chickens and corn behind your apartment complex so you don't starve.

 

If there was an mechanism to keep it equal, that might be fine, but the trouble is, they tend instead to be paid more.

The other problem is that, while it is at times done for wages, it's certainly not done for benefits.

[/QUOTE]

That's a new phenomenon, private sector wages ALWAYS PAID MORE than govt. wages for the same job until about 2008. Nobody complained then, so FUKkK 'EM now! And those private sector workers want benefits? Then they can get off their asssses and ORGANIZE, start a UNION and demand something and quit giving in to the capitalists and quit sukkking the dikkk of the market!

 

No, you're sidestepping the question, you're not answering, though you are hinting this is a bad idea.

Why is it a bad idea? Can you even explain that to yourself, much less me?

 

Ayn Rand was just Wolfchen Hitler sans talent.

 

No, YOU have been sidestepping the question all along. If you cut welfare and then don't PURPOSELY create jobs, even if the market doesn't NEED those particular jobs, what do you do with those people that can't figure out how to survive? If you're thinking "let them die", then have the balls to say it!

Doing what you said, is a bad idea, but in reality there are enough GOOD ideas out there to PURPOSELY create jobs that don't need to make a profit in the market for decades if you wanted to do it. For instance, how about update the sewer systems, roads, bridges, subways of every major city where those systems are archaic and obsolete? That would take decades, and is something that will be vital eventually.

 

Good, but why? Why is it a bad idea?

 

Because you don't need to, there is enough valid, needed work to be done the most modern way available. But you have to admit, that we DESPARETLY NEED a lot of things done that won't necessarilly create profit for a private entity.

 

Apparently you don't read your own article all the way through. Boehner was not just off he was way off. Sort of figures. He wouldn't know how to create a job if his life depended on it. According to CES numbers, employment fell 1 million jobs over 10 years. And according to CPS it rose 2.8 million jobs over 10 years. And you want to go by what Boehner says about job numbers. What a joke.

 

To me, Ryan's only ruination comes from his stance on immigration. And I'm not even SURE that he's wrong there.

Outside that, Ryan is hugely qualified to be the President of the United States, I believe.

 

Ryan was once a big time Randwanker, but renounced the pulp fiction writer that vamped so many callow male adolescents.

Her eviscerating every vestige of Christian values from her make-believe world makes her noxious to conservative Roman Catholic adults such as Ryan.

 

... I wasn't quoting Boehner. Read my post again.

Or just this part "6 million they said. "

 

Good for you it's only a belief. For me, I am 100% positive he would not. Why? Because he wants to play God with everyone's lives. That, does not equal the qualifications to be president.

 

I have read your post just fine. I have also read the entire article you posted. And your question about the jobs being created with where did they go, does in no way match up with the information given in that article. You are trying to spin the article yourself in trying to create some false premise that those jobs were actually created, when in fact the article goes on to say they did not, and that Boehner's two cent comment ended up being totally false about the 8 million at the last sentence of that article. The CES numbers said jobs fell by 1 million.

If there were 6 million jobs created like you said and where did they go, is still not a good enough excuse to give tax cuts to the rich to create jobs that you assume were created but those tax cuts, only to be lost into thin air.

Tax cuts for the wealthy with the idea of creating jobs for the middle class with no strings attached is a recipe for disaster. And it has already been proven. The sugar coating of your own article has been noted as well..

 

That's entirely possible. Maturity can be faked.

... his 2005 speech to the Atlas Society, a Rand-loving group that “promotes open Objectivism: the philosophy or reason, achievement, individualism, and freedom,” according to its website:

Ryan’s speech outlined his fascination with Rand – whose novels preach personal accountability and a rejection of altruism— while growing up, recalling how it impacted him so much that he required his interns and staff to read both of her iconic novels. ​

Then, as the GOP VP candidate, he exhibited his ticketmate's constancy:

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pa...an-renounces-former-fascination-with-ayn-rand​

(Of course, Aquinas recognized that a viable person develops, not at conception, but during gestation - the "quickening", typically at 16-20 weeks, so Ryan will need to renounce him to placate the fanatical homunculus theory advocates.)

 

Why isn't this "needed work"? People do need ditches dug, so why not get rid of Bulldozers so more people can be employed doing it?

 

Uh, yes it does:

June 2001: 132,047,000 people employed
January 2008: 137,996,000 people employed
Increase during that six-and-a-half-year period: 5,949,000 people

So it increased 2001 to 2008.

January 2008: 137,996,000 people employed
February 2010: 129,246,000 people employed
Decrease during the roughly two-year period: 8,750,000 people

And so they were lost 2008-2009.

What about this doesn't add up to what I said? The article's equal mention of the CPS data? Because it was the BLS data they held to be authoritative, which is what I just posted above.

Either way, I still wasn't quoting Beohner, you're confused.

They were lost because the economy crashed. The crash was not caused by the tax rates, but rather the Federal Reserve stuffing the economy with cheap credit. The moment they started posting <1% interest rates, they guaranteed there would be a crash, the only question was where. It happened to feed into Housing, due to the incentives the Government put into the mortgage market to encourage home ownership.

Worked under Reagan, the economy expanded, no crash. It also worked under Bush, as we see, the crash however reversed the progress.

 

I think you and I along with many others are on to his game. I've been watching him real close for a long time. He's clever, but he sure doesn't fool the lot of us. Like you said, after being selected as the VP nominee, he had to play like a fish out of water then, and back peddle what he had said earlier on. Except his flippers back peddled him too far back in the direction of the same sedimentation pond from whence he came.

 

People like you never cease to amaze me. Twist and spin anyway you can to sugar coat something that was never there to start with.

Bush after his term had a net job gain according to those studies during 10 years that was less than 3 million jobs gained. But no, you want to paint another scenario. First of all in the six year study, they couldn't agree whether it was 6 or 8 million jobs created. What does that tell you? But here's what it tells most reasonable human beings who know how to read between the BS. Those jobs were never real jobs after Bush started the two wars that should have never been started. He created his fabricated propped up economy with a housing fiasco that destroyed millions of lives with faulty loans.And he continued on with it creating a false sense of employment for a short period of time until those bank loans started to go south. So those so-called "6 million jobs" weren't really jobs at all. And you can bet none of those jobs came with a stamp from the tax break thieves who try to get the credit. But there's always someone out there that will keep milking that lie.

By the way, Reagan raised taxes some 16 times. A tax cutter he was not.

 

The funny thing about Reagan is that today, his name is used as a marketing tool, but if he was actually running for something today, he'd be "primaried" from the Right by the Tea Party! He was to the left of Chris Christie and Obama too!

 

Yeah... kind of went over that already in the first exchange.

Oh, I'm disappointed, you speak to Net jobs, but you didn't consider Net Tax?

The taxes he "Raised" were like the Highway gas tax from 4 to 9 cents, the ones he lowered, were like income tax... from 70 to about 28%.