September 15, 2010
U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul cited several ideas for cutting federal spending at a news conference Tuesday, but he said it would be impossible for him to spell out a specific proposal to balance the federal budget before Nov. 2.
Paul, a Republican, has made the federal debt a centerpiece of his campaign, criticizing his party and Democrats for the sea of red ink.
In an interview on WHAS radio last month, Paul said that if elected, he would introduce a plan to balance the budget in one year, as well as multi-year plans.
“But I will stay on the floor until I’ve introduced five different proposals†to balance the budget in one to five years, Paul said. “If you’re not willing to balance it in five years, you’re not a serious person.
Asked on Tuesday if he would release specifics on the various proposals before the election, Paul said a candidate couldn’t write a federal budget, which covers thousands of pages and trillions in spending.
“It’s impossible for a candidate to write a budget,†he said.
Read More: Lexington Herald Leader
Tea Party & Republican's
Tax cuts do have to be paid for if those tax cuts create a deficit.
IE: GWB's borrowed Iraqi War.
Tax Cuts do have to be paid for when those tax cuts promote the permanent loss of jobs (Data show that lowering the Short run Capital gains tax decreases jobs by making Mergers more profitable producing more permanent jobs looses=jobs gone from our economy forever), which reduce tax rolls & demand, which further reduce tax rolls and create deficits (if nothing changes) or creates a need to increase the taxes of those folks who are unaffected or a need to reduced services.
Think of this as you getting sick and what does the doctor do is to take leaches to you and the doctor bleeds you. You respond by getting weaker and the doctors then say well this means we need to bleed you even more.
That is Republican plan!!! Win=Loose Economic Ploicies
Â
Obama:
Tax Cuts for pushing investment forward (We want demand to increase Today instead of Tomorrow) = improved more efficient processes = better product & services at lower costs =greater demand for our goods = greater demand for jobs.
1.5 labor demand multiplier here
Tax Cuts for R&D produce investment, which produces demand for engineers and Micro-biologists = $60K+ = good paying jobs = new products & more efficient products.
New product lines create demand for jobs more then expanding old product lines.
Think of a factory: If I have increased demand for an existing product I just need to add a second or third shift. If I have demand for a new product I have to create a new line = Construction Jobs. I have to buy new equipment = Increased Durable Goods Demand =New jobs there. I have to then man that line and being a new product initial demand could be much greater then an old product.
3.+ labor demand multiplier there.
Wealthy = Capitalists = Capital Manipulators = Bad and Providers = good, but they are not job creators. Inventors and Innovators are really job creators = new and better products. It is Human Capitalist models, Not supply side Capital models that are correct.
We use to give tax breaks for result oriented activities, which produced a far more stable economy for like 30 years. Higher GDP growth and a continuously higher standard of living for 98% of the population. Win=Win Economic Policies
Obama gives tax cuts to produce jobs.
Republican's give tax cuts to reduce jobs.
Â
Considering Middle Class pays on average 21% in taxes
Wall Street pays on average 15% currently in taxes and are exempt from SSI and Medicare
Who is paying their fair share? Bringing short term capital gains taxes to what that socialist Ronald Reagan had them is not a radical leftist item at all, but a necessary first step towards keeping the bleeding of jobs down and balancing our budgets. Federal and State!
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 39
Where's the meat? Paul!
As for Paul -- if anyone doesn't know what his plan is to balance the budget they'd best push for getting an answer as it appears to be the elimination of all national government funding except for the national defense and big business.
Perhaps that information would persuade some voters that they need more education before casting those ballots for such an intellectually dishonest candidate -- he knows what he will do, he's been thinking about it for a long time.
I see a new button coming on:
Where's the Meat? Paul!
Anyone who is so curious about what Rand Paul believes the federal government should and should not be doing, can easily find out by visiting his website.
If anyone's being intellectually dishonest here, then it's you and some of the others commenting here.
(Data show that lowering the Short run Capital gains tax decreases jobs by making Mergers more profitable producing more permanent jobs looses=jobs gone from our economy forever),
I'd like to see that data, if it's all the same to you.
I'd like to know how companies involved in a merger could possibly either satisy every human want and need conceivable, or else somehow manage to prevent everyone else in the country from setting out to allocate available resources toward satisfying the most urgent not-yet-satisfied demands of the public -- which are the only conceivable ways that a merger can result in "jobs lost from the economy forever." And since neither of those situations are possible, then I think it stands to reason that whoever you got that "data" from is pretty well full of it.
Rand Paul's whole candidacy is Balancing the Budget. Paul has ready said he won't cut the military's budget SSI or Medicare. Sir that is 80% of the budget that is a Holy Cow. That leaves just twenty percent that can be cut.
Is he going to cut the budgets of the new consumer protection agencies?
Is he going to cut the road and airport update work?
Rand Paul has said he would get rid of the Department of Energy!
Just as many of its programs are about to start producing result!
Great for the oil & coal industry. His campaign has excepted 1mil from them.
Directly and indirectly remember Corporations have an unlimited right to say anything!
How repealing the SBA loan program?
How about education Oh he would get rid of that I forgot.
Both you and I know that Rand Paul has made "Balancing the Budget" his center piece, his adds hammer on this over and over, but he seems to get more and more vague about how he is going to do that.
Both you and I know that the devil is in the details and the past when details have come out they aren't what everyone wants to happen.
First off,(Data show that lowering the Short run Capital gains tax decreases jobs by making Mergers more profitable producing more permanent jobs looses=jobs gone from our economy forever),
I wasn't the first one to come to this conclusion, Department of Labor Stat's. Use your head 2 companies mergered you now have redundancy, so folks are let go. Does the redundancy go away? Less need for labor = less jobs and less future demand for jobs and lower wages. After 30 years of stat's showing this happening over and over. Just happened in 2009 with Humana 2600 jobs loss in Customer Service (folks to OK your claims), but 900 needed in claims review (folks to deny your claims). Net 1700 jobs loss. Outsourcing is another, which produce permanent job loss.
Bachman, that is why the 99+ haven't gotten new jobs their jobs are gone,
end of story!
Between mergers and outsourcing the loss of jobs = good paying jobs, more jobs were loss to those 2! then low paying jobs were taken from by Illegals, but it is easy to make poor folks who can't speak our language and therefore unable to defend themselves the escape goats to why we don't a job.
Quite, honestly our trade programs must include ILO provisions in them, between the US and Mexico for the immigration problem to be solved. Both US and Mexican citizen's are negatively effected by not having ILO rules in NAFTA and Panama Treaties. CBO There good things in NAFTA, but....
As part of the Merger traded companies must retrain duplicated personnel to new positions or retrain them to a new field and paid them while they are in betweens, just like they do in Germany.
Instead the American taxpayer and American citizen has to bare this cost and Wall Street and Corporate heads get the profits.
If a merger was such a great idea, then why doesn't companies that did the merger and eliminate jobs (permanently) pay all the costs of that merger, but until then I am all for increasing the Short Run Capital gains taxes to help pay for those cost. That is only fair to the Citizen's of this country. Too bad the traders have to pay for this greed too!
There is enough data out there that says I am correct, sorry not backing down.
What is it the Christian thing to do? What you do to the least of your brothers you do unto me! or See ya hate to be ya!
It is not. If there's any discernible "centerpiece" to his campaign, it is bringing the federal government back within the boundaries set by the Constitution, both explicit and implied. Balancing the budget is just an accessory to that goal; an important one no doubt, but an accessory nonetheless.
Abolishing (or at least reining in) the Federal Reserve cartel, eliminating unconstitutional and destructive forms of taxation, squashing the federal police state and rampant welfare/warfare statism; all of these are issues that occupy as much room on the Rand Paul platform as balancing the budget. Cherry-picking that one issue and and mounting a hyperbolic attack because he won't offer sufficient minutia of detail to satisfy yourself and others who honestly wouldn't be satisfied with anything he says, probably ever, reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
Trust me, I'm no big supporter of Rand Paul. I view some aspects of his platform as very much intellectually dishonest as well. But for God's sakes, attack it on its merits; don't invent straw men to throw stones at.
Paul has ready said he won't cut the military's budget
I can't find anything to corroborate that statement. Are you sure he really said that? Not saying I know for sure he didn't; but I do know that his foreign policy platform calls for using the US military to defend the US as opposed to policing the world, which implies a massive reduction in military spending.
Is he going to cut the budgets of the new consumer protection agencies?
Since the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to act as "consumer protection agency," then it would certainly be inconsistent with his professed beliefs if he didn't just work to eliminate the agency altogether. And since its a wasteful endeavor at any rate, then we should be rooting for him to do so (except perhaps for those few who stand to gain a salaried position in bureaucracy, and those interested rent-seekers who stand to gain privileges and advantages that the market does not bestow them).
Rand Paul has said he would get rid of the Department of Energy!
Kudos to him! One can only hope he's successful.
I wasn't the first one to come to this conclusion, Department of Labor Stat's.
Still no link or even reference. At any rate, even if the statement's accurate, this is a federal bureaucracy's stat's were talking about here. 99 out of 100 times you can safely bet they've been padded, manipulated, or stripped of context in order to support or rationalize some political agenda or another.
Being well-read in economic theory, I can tell you with absolute certainty, that it is not capital gains tax cuts which alone make mergers economically sensible (i.e. profitable), and it is not mergers which cause permanent or long-term unemployment. These are irrefutable facts; any so-called "data" attempting to show otherwise is necessarily flawed.
Use your head
That's precisely what I do. I can only recommend that others try it as well.
2 companies mergered you now have redundancy, so folks are let go. Does the redundancy go away?
No, it does not. That only means that production in that area has now become more efficient and streamlined. It now requires less expenditure of time, labor and capital to produce the same result as before. It means that scarce productive resources have now been freed up and are available to serve to alleviate yet-unsatisfied wants and needs of the masses.
Less need for labor = less jobs and less future demand for jobs and lower wages.
That statement implies the impossibilities that I mentioned in my previous comment; to wit:
See, just because there is less need for labor to produce one particular product or service, does not mean that there is then less need for labor in general. Just because one particular need or desire can now be satisfied using less expenditure of labor than before, does not means that every conceivable human need and desire has now been effectively alleviated.
If the logic implied in your assertion were true, then it stands to reason that every labor-saving device or machine ever brought forth by human ingenuity would have meant permanent increase in the ranks of the unemployed. Your thinking is based primarily on two fallacious assumptions: One is that work is performed just for the sake of performing work (as opposed to a means of satisfying particular wants and needs), and that there is only a finite, limited amount of work to be done. This is the logic from whence springs the rationalizations of protectionists and of technophobes; the people who insist that we forsake wealth under the pretext of encouraging the means of attaining it.
After 30 years of stat's showing this happening over and over.
I guess the possibility that stats may be misinterpreted or taken out of context hasn't occurred to you?
Have you ever heard of the fallacy of association? Because two separate sets of phenomena occur at the same time, they must therefore be necessarily interdependent and/or cause and effect?
In fact, what causes permanent mass unemployment is not mergers or outsourcing or imported goods, it is government intervention in the economy. Wage-fixing policies must create permanent unemployment, to the degree which wages are fixed above the equilibrium point of supply and demand for labor. If they are not fixed above that point, then they are superfluous and pointless; of they are, then the results must be the same as minimum price-fixing schemes for any other product or service: there will not be sufficient demand to clear the market of the available supply. The fundamental laws of economics cannot be altered or abolished by political fiat. Government is not magic.
Beyond that, there is the massive federal regulatory apparatus, which imposes higher costs at the same time as imposing restrictive measures across all levels and constellations of industry, the inevitable and unavoidable result being less jobs (and what is just as bad, less satisfaction of the needs and desires of the consuming public); there is punitive taxation; there is uncertainty created by the ever-shifting winds of interventionism and especially the effects of state-sanctioned inflation and credit manipulation upon capital markets.
The interventionist effects upon production (and hence job-creation) are legion. But it is not true that increasing productivity and streamlining productive processes causes institutionalized unemployment, and neither does free trade or outsourcing.
Mr. Bachman his Ads on TV and radio and TV say something else. They are one dimensional and since that is to many voters what he is all about that is what he has made a center piece. I was a soccer coach for years actions tell the truth. His ads are his public face and his public face is "Balancing the Budget." Sorry not backing down.
In fact, what causes permanent mass unemployment is not mergers or outsourcing or imported goods, it is government intervention in the economy.
Google: Merger loses Jobs: 301,000 articles
Tool titans Black & Decker, Stanley Works to merge - Baltimore Sun
Nov 3, 2009 ... Tool titans Black & Decker, Stanley Works to merge. Companies join in $4.5 billion deal. local jobs, prestige to take a hit as state loses ...
articles.baltimoresun.com/.../bal-bz.merger03nov03_1_power-tools-division-stanley-black-decker-decker-shareholders - Cached - Similar
www.dot.gov 1140 articles first page
[PDF] STB Ex Parte No. 582 (Sub-No. 1) however, that Canadian National ...
... for employees to relocate in order to retain their jobs.”82 (1 ... bottleneck rates for
shippers that might otherwise lose the exception ... Transcontinental mergers. ...
www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/UNID/A61B4059046BBC1B85256A55004D6D97/$file/31881-03.pdf - 2009-07-10 - Text Version
[PDF] 31369 SERVICE DATE - OCTOBER 3, 2000 EB SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ...
... as modification of collective bargaining agreements, loss of jobs, and the ... rail labor,
expressed concern about various implications of international mergers. ...
www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/UNID/1609984DABA21B408525696D00749715/$file/31369.pdf - 2009-07-09 - Text Version
[ More results from www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/UNID ]
31881 - Decision
... a record, allow for full public participation, and complete the necessary environmental
documentation for the large, transcontinental mergers that we may ... Jobs. ...
www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/0/a61b4059046bbc1b85256a55004d6d97?OpenDocument - 300k - 2010-09-04 - Cached
31369 - Decision
... as modification of collective bargaining agreements, loss of jobs, and the ... rail labor,
expressed concern about various implications of international mergers. ...
www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/0/1609984daba21b408525696d00749715?OpenDocument - 300k - 2010-09-04 - Cached
[ More results from www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/0/1609984daba21b408525696d00749715 ]
[PDF] SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD REPORTS
... recent mergers that we approved. Rail labor parties expressed concern about issues
such as modification of collective bargaining agreements, loss of jobs, and ...
www.stb.dot.gov/boundvolumes5.nsf/0/6450957eb0cb581b85257085006d44c1/$FILE/vol5-1.pdf - 2009-07-09 - Text Version
[PDF] 31369 SERVICE DATE - OCTOBER 3, 2000 EB SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ...
... as modification of collective bargaining agreements, loss of jobs, and the ... rail labor,
expressed concern about various implications of international mergers. ...
www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/UNID/1609984DABA21B408525696D00749715/$file/31369.pdf - 2009-07-09 - Text Version
[ More results from www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/UNID ]
[PDF] 31369 SERVICE DATE - OCTOBER 3, 2000 EB SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ...
... as modification of collective bargaining agreements, loss of jobs, and the ... rail labor,
expressed concern about various implications of international mergers. ...
www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID/1609984DABA21B408525696D00749715/$file/31369.pdf - 2009-07-09 - Text Version
[ More results from www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID ]
Advisory committee to seek a brighter future for US aviation ...
... a staggering $53 billion (accounts for mergers; American/TWA ... forced airline employees
to lose pensions and ... As these jobs disappeared, remaining employees became ...
fastlane.dot.gov/2009/11/yesterday-we-hosted-the-administrations-first-forum-on-the-future-of-the-us... - 64k - Cached
[PDF] HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE ...
... The miles of track sought to be abandoned or to lose service also ... conditions were
discussed earlier specifically in connection with Class I rail mergers. ... jobs. ...
stb.dot.gov/testandspeech.nsf/0/5cbf5c532e0fb3fb852565fc005e5b88/$FILE/HOUSE981.pdf - 2006-01-23 - Text Version
[PDF] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
... of the Clayton Act which prohibits acquisitions, including mergers, "where in ... lose
the most sales ... for competitors and consequent losses (over 70 jobs) in motor ...
www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/Rulemaking/NissanPetition2004.pdf
www.usa.gov mergers lose jobs permanently = 1000 about articles
Results 1-10 of about 1,000 for 'mergers lose jobs permenantly'
The 2000-10 job outlook in brief
... for financial expertise will be offset by corporate mergers ... employing mining engineers are expected to lose jobs. ... permanently for other reasons.
http://www.bls.gov/.../art01.pdf - Cached
Display News Releases
... due to new job creation and people permanently leaving occupations. ... of Wisconsin jobs. Despite ongoing mergers, ... which is expected to lose about 89,000 net jobs ...
http://acc.dwd.wisconsin.gov/.../38ca_536.htm - Cached
United States Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security ...
... mergers, acquisitions, and other similar transactions ... this allows employees to switch jobs without permanently losing health coverage for a preexisting condition.
http://www.dol.gov/.../ERISAATL.pdf - Cached
DAVID R. ROSS PRESIDENT, AIRLINE PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION ...
... that never had a losing year ... competition in the air express industry will be gone forever and the express package delivery market will be permanently changed. ... According to Mergers ...
http://judiciary.house.gov/.../Ross080909.pdf - Cached
Pulp Friction - fedgazette - Publications & Papers | The Federal ...
... permanently—this is what great companies do," remarked Bear Stearns analyst Linda Lieberman. ... is that people lose their jobs, ... prior to the mergers, ...
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/.../pub_display.cfm - Cached
Trends in Merger Enforcement and Litigation
Jobs ... The FTC has initiated a Part III proceeding seeking to enjoin permanently the proposed acquisition, ... Mergers that might have raised competitive concerns ...
http://www.ftc.gov/.../parker.shtm - Cached
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
... a certain number of NIPSCO employees would also lose their jobs. ... in the trial court seeking to preliminarily and permanently enjoin NIPSCO ... and stock-purchase mergers ...
http://www.in.gov/.../07150302.cld.doc - Cached
Peter C. Hutchinson, President, Public Strategies Group, Inc ...
... that way. ♦Government is broken - losing the competition ... Elected's job Justification for needs/ costs - plus a little extra Submission ... Consolidating: Smart Mergers 3.
http://bsalhc.ca.gov/.../HutchinsonMar04.pdf - Cached
CWI - The Commissioners
Her client experience spans mergers ... She was a "Today" substitute co-anchor from February 1991 until taking over the job permanently two months later. ... After losing her husband, ...
http://www.nyc.gov/.../commissioners_bio.shtml - Cached
budget.illinois.gov : Public Comments
... he is not worried about all of us that may lose our jobs come July 1st! ... termporarily or permanently. ... & protecting these mergers & acqusitions our government ...
http://www2.illinois.gov/.../PublicComments.aspx - Cached
Does this help!
No, it does not. That only means that production in that area has now become more efficient and streamlined. It now requires less expenditure of time, labor and capital to produce the same result as before. It means that scarce productive resources have now been freed up and are available to serve to alleviate yet-unsatisfied wants and needs of the masses.
That is called Economies of Scale and I am well aware of economies of scale, Teddy Roosevelt was well aware of Economies of Scale, but the folks that is now without a job, facing low or no demand for their jobs. Spent their life doing a good job for that company. And now that they are older, and let's be honest it is today more likely to be an older person 40 to 50+ person, because of the wage savings who doesn't have twenty to thirty years to recover who is now unemployed.
Well it is for the best the company is better off because of economies of scale. First, off a lot of these companies are beyond the efficiency effects of economy of scale and in the diminishing returns area or even the negative returns area, ie: Citigroup. 80million is economies of scale max point any point over doesn't make Citigroup any more efficient. These companies become less able to change and respond and less well managed. You forget I use to watch companies during and after mergers, real world, if those merging companies faced competition, I watched more merging companies end-up loosing market share, because Top management now has a new toy and what do you do with a new toy. You play with that new toy. Do you read the manual on how the toy works? NO. So, top management ends up breaking the new toy.
How many folks out here know of at least one company that has done that! You forget I worked on the Corporate flight line for 10 years and watched this same thing happen.
In fact, what causes permanent mass unemployment is not mergers or outsourcing or imported goods, it is government intervention in the economy. Wage-fixing policies must create permanent unemployment, to the degree which wages are fixed above the equilibrium point of supply and demand for labor. If they are not fixed above that point, then they are superfluous and pointless; of they are, then the results must be the same as minimum price-fixing schemes for any other product or service: there will not be sufficient demand to clear the market of the available supply. The fundamental laws of economics cannot be altered or abolished by political fiat.
That is Called Minimum Wage! Funny in 1980's there was now MW increases. Finally, in 1994? we get a MW increase, before MW went into effect there was all sorts of claims that this would kill jobs, funny thing is that a MW increase actually increased jobs as the BIBLE predicted it would!!! Remember, the farmer who paid everyone the same day's wages. That dumb farmer! Dumb as a Fox! See the next day everyone had money and the demand for food was up. And just then the farmer comes in and sells his crop. Do you think he got a good price for his crop? Increasing the minimum wage increases demand and increased demand = if resources remain the same = increased prices = increased profits. The Bible was written by stupid people = NOT. That fact is the Bible teaches US Win=Win Economics and leads US to Salvation, but Wall Street's greed leads US to Win=Lose Economics and leads US to Ruin Nation. I put more faith in God's wisdom then Wall Streets.
If we follow your thesis to its logical conclusion, then we have to conclude that what is best for economic progress in society is to be as inefficient and unproductive as possible.
We'd have to say that the Luddites of 19th Century England had the right idea when they began rioting and destroying property in response to the advent of the early spinning machines; because they were "destroying jobs." Yours is the same logic of the technophobes and protectionists which has been so thoroughly exploded over the last century that it ought to be ridiculous to have to work to disprove it any further; however dressed in a new disguise. But it still is based on the same underlying fallacious assumptions: work is performed for the sake of work, and there is only a fixed, finite list of jobs to be done. It still teaches us to forsake wealth under the pretext of encouraging the means of attaining it.
Yes, it sucks when someone who has devoted their life to mastering a particular trade or industry one day finds that their skills have become obsolete or have fallen out of demand. But the answer should not be to preclude economic progress for the whole of society in order not to inconvenience a particular interested fraction of society.
Progress necessitates change. That's just a fact of life. You cannot have progress without change. In economic life, progress oftentimes means that particular jobs, skills, or even entire industries become obsolete, and must step aside to make room for new methods or products which better satisfy the most urgent demands of the masses.
The thing is, with the change that comes with the downside of progress, comes new opportunities and jobs to be filled. The spinning jenny may have obliterated demand for a certain skill set in the old textile industry, but it created demand for jobs and new skills in a thousandfold others. The same principle is present where ever economic progress increases productivity and efficiency at the expense of a given skill or trade; it brings about demand for new skills and increases demand in other trades more than enough to offset the merely superficial "losses."
80million is economies of scale max point any point over doesn't make Citigroup any more efficient. These companies become less able to change and respond and less well managed.
If it makes them less efficient, then it makes them less profitable. It ultimately takes the factors of production out of their hands and into the hands of more efficient managers. There is no need to have some political or bureaucratic "czar" dictating to market actors. The consumers do that best; and without any immoral coercive force such as is implied in all arbitrary government intervention.
funny thing is that a MW increase actually increased jobs as the BIBLE predicted it would!!
What you are asserting is that increasing the price of something above the supply and demand equilibrium point actually increases demand. Its absolute, utter nonsense. Your nonsensical assertion is based on the association fallacy; x happened at the same as y, therefore x and y must necessarily have a cause and effect relationship.
It is not a defiance of apodictic economic law that total jobs may increase at the same time as government-imposed minimum wage fixing. Economic science teaches us only that the number of jobs available is less than it otherwise would have been in the absence of such mandates.
That dumb farmer! Dumb as a Fox! See the next day everyone had money and the demand for food was up.
False comparison. In the first place, I'm assuming the farmer paid the wages out of his own voluntary will, and did not have some compulsory mandate issued by some king dictating that he was not permitted to offer them any less?
Look, its supply and demand. Wages are a price just like any other market price, they are subject to the same fundamental laws of human action.
At a given price (wage), x amount of people will offer their labor on the market =, and x amount of people will be willing to pay for it. The market wage in any given industry will be determined by the equilibrium point; the price at which everyone willing to sell at that price meets with someone who is willing to buy at that price. Its called the "market clearing price." The government cannot make more people willing to buy at that price, by making it illegal for them to offer less. It only prevents the market from establishing a market-clearing price. It results in unsold surplus; or in the case of wages and labor, permanent unemployment.
Increasing the minimum wage increases demand and increased demand = if resources remain the same = increased prices = increased profits.
Increasing minimum wage does not increase aggregate demand. It only transfers demand away from those who would otherwise be able to find work, to those fortunate enough to still be working.
See by Law Governor's can hold all Federal moneys for up to six months. Those same Governors can then make add restrictions to the payout of those Federal moneys. If you going to blame some-one blame those "State Right" Republican's who insisted that everything goes through the State instead directly to you of the city and county. Save you money too, paying for less Bureaucrats. I had a chance to see just what a scam that was. We were being Court ordered to update our septic system. Funny the addition was approved back in 1998 we bought it in 2003 no problems, so went for a grant to pay for this update. Federal I was qualified to get, but the State of County had restricted this grant water way grant to just 1 county and it had no water ways. Scam!!!!
Obama isn't the Idionomics it is all the folks that set this up that way.
So this is how the Bailout has gone:
1) TBTF Banks got bailed out first, thanks to Paulson and Bush. By the time Obama got on board those banks had that money with no strings attached. All he could do is watch and yell. = TARP
2) States Got Bailed out =Stimulus money ended up keeping them afloat, did save some jobs though.
3) Finally Main Stream is getting some help and are you standing with the Wall Street Sharks(Looking to pick off the weak) or with Main Street (please don't feed me to the sharks)?
BTW, what a bogus title. Who is the TEA party leader you intended to write about? As you well know, there is no one TEA party leader. And Rand Paul? Certainly not even close.
Oh, thanks for coming by.
Daddy isn't or the Koch brother's who are paying for a lot of it? They turned your Tea Party into the ME PARTY to protect their gold at the price of your souls. Trialing times are the best time to see what you are made of?
Tea Party started by a meeting like 1 week after Obama was elected. Give me a break "1 week!!!" 500 people showed up in a NY college to talk about stopping Obama!!! Like UTube.
The Tea Party may have started there, but the Tea Party was grabbed by the Koch brothers who paid folks and bus them in so there would be a TV event. Sorry, wasn't planned at the local level.
You are talking to a guy who plans these things at the local level for 10 years and most of these events aren't Televised at all. Like the event I participated in this Saturday. If I didn't know the gal at the newspaper it wouldn't have been in there. Remember 911, I had both of the area's fire departments,we talking about antique fire trucks, mascots and Fire chief caps for one and the other had a fire smoke trailer to learn how to escape out of a burning building along with helmet and car seat checks. The city's police department, had the DARE DOG there and hand outs the on that. the health department signing folks up for shots and their outreach programs. We had Hospice there for elderly care.
We had around 300 to 400 people and estimated 123+ children there over the 4 hours of the event. To the vender's there PD, FD's, HD & H it was a great turn out! Best most remember. Considering that we were up against a College football game and the Equestrian Games.
Like the Terry Jones = I'm going to burn the Koran = 50 member church= national news = Rush Limbaugh's high school buddy. All that scam did was raise gas prices up a week.
So I know about planning events at the local level and because I do plan events I am usually called on.
If you look at the TEA party movement page at Wikipedia, the first 2 events mentioned were in Seattle and Chicago in February 2009. One was organized by Keli Carender, the other by Zack Christenson.
There are a few large TEA party groups:
The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, a loose national coalition of several dozen local tea party groups;
Tea Party Express
Tea Party Nation
Tea Party Patriots
The National Tea Party Federation
But many local groups do not belong to any of these. The Cincinnati TEA Party, for instance only belongs to one larger group - The Ohio Liberty Council - which includes all kinds of conservative grassroots groups, like TEA party groups, 9/12 groups, Americans for Prosperity, and others.
We have speakers too, Rory, and we don't pay them. They come because they are passionate about the causes. Sometimes we allow politicians to speak, but at our invitation and for a very short time.
What you need to realize, Rory, is that conservatives do give of their time and talents for the right causes. We're not like that orchestrated rally that's being planned in Washington for this weekend, where SEIU has paid members to protest and will be providing 500 buses for them.
Here in Cincinnati, with only about a week's notice, about 5,000 people showed up to protest in Fountain Square. When we marched on City Hall, trying to get the Dem mayor to refuse funds for a streetcar that no one wants or needs, we had 4,000 people show up during the day. (Some, like my hubby had to take a vacation day to be there.)
When we demonstrated at the local ABC affiliate, there were at least 400 people who showed up after work to protest.
It's not hard to get people out, Rory, when they are concerned about the government taking over their lives.
Why would you be surprised that there could be huge groups amassed only a week after Obama took office? Didn't you listen to our internet protests all during the campaign? We understood the Obama agenda and didn't want it. And we still do not.
Korean data is there too.
Brain thanks for coming by and commenting.
What it seems like you don't understand is that any jobs created or sustained by inflation are doomed to collapse at some inevitable point.
It is true that there is pain involved in balancing the budget and allowing the necessary liquidations and corrections that comprise the recession to run their course uninterrupted. But that pain cannot be avoided. It can be postponed through further inflationary and interventionist measures, but it will then be exacerbated, made all the more intense and prolonged, because of it.
If you don't like that pain, then demand your government abolish fractional-reserve central banking and general economic interventionism. The seeds of the chaos and impoverishment of the recession are sowed at the time the illusory, inflationary boom is begun and during its process. It is not the fault of those of us who oppose further doses of the poison that ails us that the necessary corrective period called "recession" occurs. We only recognize that inflation and interventionism bring that pain in its wake; and the sooner the market is permitted to function properly and purge itself of the malinvestment and disequilibrium, the sooner we can rebuild a prosperous economy on firm ground based on economic reality. You cannot heal the patient by larger more concentrated doses of the poison that sickens him; you do not make a heroin addicts life more stable by giving him a fix whenever he demands it; you do not help the economy and job growth by continuing and expanding the very policies that lead to the instability and destructiveness that have created the present circumstances.
How about making government spending more direct by getting rid of a lot of the "States Rights" laws that say funds ultimately going to cities and counties or individuals must first go to States, which just adds on more bureaucratic costs, adds up 18 months of lag to programs and an opportunity for graph at the state level.
The money multiplier on costs is like 50 or doubles the cost of programs. If you really want to save US taxpayers some money. A 50% reduction of cost is a considerable savings!!! Ms. Nora, Mr. Bachman.
I remember the days when we did things that way and our taxes were much lower back then! And we still had a big Federal Government which didn't let the banking system become a PONZI SCHEME! GDP was also higher and we could afford to put a MAN ON THE MOON and not have to worry about bankrupting our country!
You want lower taxes and less government, but point to wrong to get the savings. God is in the details if we get this right or the devil is in the details if we get it wrong.
I'm sticking with what I say:
Tea Party is going towards the wrong way.
I actually want a smaller more efficient government, but not at the expense of keeping the Train Wreck from happening again!!! = More Regulations = More Government oversight & I believe that a light touch can do much if that touch is focused.
I actually agree we should work back towards a balanced budget, but not at the expense of main street small businesses and folks who are struggling to just get by; or taking advantage of the lower interest rates to fund big project infra-structure programs, which will lead to a more efficient transportation system, knowing how close businesses run their inventories to keep their cost's down and their profit's up; I also know being an inventor that it is innovation and invention that drives new demand and that R&D is the bottom line for this! I also would like to retire when I want to and not when I die and I know that both my 401k which took a hit, but not as bad as most, I know of folks my age who lost 90% of their retirement in 2008, they don't have the luxury of time to recover! But I also know that theirs and mine retirement whether it is in the form of a 401K or SSI which looks to US older folks to be what we will live off of is SSI thanks to the greed of a few folks. Ponzi scheme economics! Our kid's earnings stream will determine that either way (401K or SSI). So I better make sure that is working too. So an investment in their education makes sense.
What in the hell makes you think you have the right to "cap" anyone else's earnings, by any means other than by not doing business with them?
Want to know why Wall St. CEO's are making such exorbitant salaries? Because they are the beneficiaries of a scam, in which society as a whole is the victim. How was this scam (called "fractional-reserve central banking") established and perpetuated? By government!
If government would do the one damn thing that it even has any legitimate excuse for existing to do in the first place, and that is prohibit fraud and protect personal and property rights, then they would outlaw fractional-reserve banking as the fraud that it is.
Instead, they go out of their way to preserve and protect the scam; because it is so conducive to enhancing the size, scope and power of government.
Meanwhile, bankers get the privilege of being able to charge interest on what they are pleased to call "money" which they themselves create from out of the ether. Not a bad gig, right?
How about making government spending more direct by getting rid of a lot of the "States Rights" laws that say funds ultimately going to cities and counties or individuals must first go to States, which just adds on more bureaucratic costs, adds up 18 months of lag to programs and an opportunity for graph at the state level.
How about not. How about not everyone agrees that all states, counties and cities should be regarded as mere wards of the central government.
How about instead of worrying about more efficient ways of perpetrating government largesse, we first discern whether or not government largesse itself is responsible for much of our troubles?
I actually want a smaller more efficient government, but not at the expense of keeping the Train Wreck from happening again!!!
Oh, and you think I do want train wrecks?
If you really care about these issues, then you'd better start getting to work learning about why these train wrecks happen.
-- Murray Rothbard
Tea Party's way will compress our economy which is already in a heterolskedastic growth pattern created over the last 30 years, of government tax and trade programs that promoted job killing mergers and outsourcing jobs to slave labor countries, which was just confirmed today by the Census Bureaus data
From the information in the book "13 Bankers" what the Tea Party proposes at best would give US a reduced GDP growth jobless recovery, but we can and must do better.
We first need to address the Heterolskedasticity in our economy and deliver the middle class from the evil of Corporate greed. Just as the Bible tells US too (Lead US not into temptation, but deliver US from all evil!) It is time to protect folks from the evil of greed! And that means folks! Government oversight! No sugar coat there = putting back the safe guards we once had.
Protecting US labor from corporations that don't value the folks that make them their money.
Protecting US labor, Small Businesses and Farmers from countries with unfair labor practices = Slave Nations.
Promoting fair labor practices between our trading partners as the first thing we negotiate and not the thing we forget to do! So we don't uncut our labor, farmers and small businesses.
Do you think we would have an immigration problem if Mexico's businesses paid and treated their labor better?
The fact is a faster more vibrant growing Economy solves a deficit, solves unemployment, solves SSI, solves Medicare. Solves just about everything.
There is a very real difference between what I want to do and the Tea Party
Tea Party would place austerity measures to contract government to the new economic reality that these austerity measures would create. Much harder to balance a budget this way.
I would cut out a lot of the "State Rights" everything must go through the state (middleman). Why pay for a middleman when you don't have too to make the Government smaller, faster, more efficient, less corrupt. In business don't you cut out the middleman to do just that!!! That way I can expand Federal Government oversight of the Corporations that acted in bad faith. To move our economy from the Wall Street Win=Lose Economics
To
Win=Win Economics we once had!!! For thirty years we had higher GDP growth. Higher wage to inflation growth = wage growth = productivity growth and has nothing to do with inflation. Unfortunately over these last 30 years many of the corporate CEO's have pocketed this productivity growth for themselves!!! In real dollars US labor had only a 1% growth in wages. During the same 30 years CEO's income increased 145%, sorry today's! Census info 157%. I got the 145% from the book "13 Bankers."
God Bless you all, and have a good week.