PDA

View Full Version : GOP Solution to Unemployment: Don't measure it



Banned
05-03-2013, 07:36 PM
This is pure genius.

"The bill, introduced last week by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), would bar the U.S. Census Bureau from conducting nearly all surveys except for a decennial population count. Such a step that would end the government's ability to provide reliable estimates of the employment rate. Indeed, the government would not be able to produce any of the major economic indices that move markets every month, said multiple statistics experts, who were aghast at the proposal. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/gop-census-bill_n_3188043.html

The bill can be read here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1638ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr1638ih.pdf

JD2780
05-03-2013, 07:42 PM
This is pure genius.

"The bill, introduced last week by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), would bar the U.S. Census Bureau from conducting nearly all surveys except for a decennial population count. Such a step that would end the government's ability to provide reliable estimates of the employment rate. Indeed, the government would not be able to produce any of the major economic indices that move markets every month, said multiple statistics experts, who were aghast at the proposal. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/gop-census-bill_n_3188043.html

The bill can be read here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1638ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr1638ih.pdf

That's just as stupid as the one the democrats keep putting up to get rid of the limitations of terms a president can serve.

Banned
05-03-2013, 07:49 PM
That's just as stupid as the one the democrats keep putting up to get rid of the limitations of terms a president can serve.

Have to give that guy credit though.


Repealing the 22nd Amendment has been a longtime goal of Serrano’s, regardless of the sitting president’s political party. Serrano proposed similar resolutions in 1997 and 1999, during Bill Clinton’s administration, and in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007, during George W. Bush’s administration. He proposed the repeal again in 2009 after Obama took office.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/06/new-york-congressman-introduces-bill-to-abolish-presidential-term-limits/

That idea is controversial to be sure - but why do you call it "stupid"?

drc100882
05-03-2013, 08:00 PM
This is just as stupid as when the law was signed that congressional pay was to to be held in escrow until either a budget for FY14 was passed or until the end of the 113th congress. If you KNOW a budget won't pass, and you KNOW you'll eventually get your pay - why pass a bill for it?

JD2780
05-03-2013, 08:03 PM
Have to give that guy credit though.


http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/06/new-york-congressman-introduces-bill-to-abolish-presidential-term-limits/

That idea is controversial to be sure - but why do you call it "stupid"?

Just my personal opinion, is its good to have that 22nd amendment because the presidency takes a toll on the human body. Look at Bush, Obama, Clinton had a good time so he doesn't count. I think it's smart to have a way of making sure people are shown the door. After a while you got a guy coming on his 12 yr he could just stop giving a damn an d start ruining everything. Much like HYT, it's good to have a way of getting them out. Just an opinion based off how the presidents age while in office. Can't be fun.

Rusty Jones
05-03-2013, 08:04 PM
That's just as stupid as the one the democrats keep putting up to get rid of the limitations of terms a president can serve.

Not stupid at all. Term limitations put second-term incumbents in a "nothing to lose" situation, in which they'll do whatever the hell they want because they know that they're not up for reelection anyway.

Banned
05-03-2013, 08:15 PM
Regardless, we're getting off track.

This bill, I believe, is part of the overall movement aimed at attacking the role of the Federal government, with the hopes of eventually eliminating it altogether. When we have a ruling class that can literally provide for their own private transportation, schooling, security - etc - the very notion of a government with taxation seems illegitimate to them.

drc100882
05-03-2013, 09:24 PM
Regardless, we're getting off track.

This bill, I believe, is part of the overall movement aimed at attacking the role of the Federal government, with the hopes of eventually eliminating it altogether. When we have a ruling class that can literally provide for their own private transportation, schooling, security - etc - the very notion of a government with taxation seems illegitimate to them.

What? I get the first part....but what does the ruling class have to do with this bill?

JD2780
05-03-2013, 09:34 PM
What? I get the first part....but what does the ruling class have to do with this bill?

Currently the dems are the ruling class.

Banned
05-04-2013, 05:00 AM
Currently the dems are the ruling class.

How do you figure? Especially since we're talking class, not political party. That's like saying "Christianity is the dominant vegetable."


What? I get the first part....but what does the ruling class have to do with this bill?

Again... this is just the latest salvo in the attack against the federal government. Or specifically, the elements of the federal government that benefits the average joe.

Vrake
05-04-2013, 05:21 AM
Not stupid at all. Term limitations put second-term incumbents in a "nothing to lose" situation, in which they'll do whatever the hell they want because they know that they're not up for reelection anyway.

Well said Rusty! If you can't figure it out in 8 years time to go home.

sandsjames
05-04-2013, 01:48 PM
The unemployment stats are already so screwed up anyway. Not taking stats, as mentioned, is a stupid idea. Just as stupid as not counting those who no longer file and have given up looking for work.

Now that I think about it I'm not really sure how the stat really helps, though. Other than for political posturing who, and how, does it help to know if we are at 4% or 14%...other than Wall Street? (This question is NOT an argument, just an honest question seeking more knowledge of who the stat actually helps).

Banned
05-05-2013, 01:32 PM
The unemployment stats are already so screwed up anyway. Not taking stats, as mentioned, is a stupid idea. Just as stupid as not counting those who no longer file and have given up looking for work.

Now that I think about it I'm not really sure how the stat really helps, though. Other than for political posturing who, and how, does it help to know if we are at 4% or 14%...other than Wall Street? (This question is NOT an argument, just an honest question seeking more knowledge of who the stat actually helps).

Unemployment rates go up and down over time, as part of the normal economic cycle. Before keynesian economics were invented after the Great Depression, America had frequent and devastating recessions over and over again. Your unemployment rate determines what we need to do in terms of monetary policy (How much more money we need to print).

TJMAC77SP
05-06-2013, 11:20 AM
How do you figure? Especially since we're talking class, not political party. That's like saying "Christianity is the dominant vegetable."



Again... this is just the latest salvo in the attack against the federal government. Or specifically, the elements of the federal government that benefits the average joe.

Joe, without a strong central government no 'ruling class' or whatever you decide to call a minority who holds power and wealth can not sustain their control on anything. How do you figure your 'ruling class' will do so without the federal government they are trying to 'eliminate'?

Banned
05-06-2013, 01:14 PM
Joe, without a strong central government no 'ruling class' or whatever you decide to call a minority who holds power and wealth can not sustain their control on anything. How do you figure your 'ruling class' will do so without the federal government they are trying to 'eliminate'?

How do you figure? The American ruling class pre-dates the Federal government. They seemed to get along just fine without it. In fact, the Southern ruling class fought a war to try to break away from the Federal Government.

TJMAC77SP
05-06-2013, 01:35 PM
How do you figure? The American ruling class pre-dates the Federal government. They seemed to get along just fine without it. In fact, the Southern ruling class fought a war to try to break away from the Federal Government.

Both examples you cited HAD strong governments backing up the 'ruling class' (to use your terminology). I seem to be missing the point you are attempting to make.

Banned
05-06-2013, 09:42 PM
Both examples you cited HAD strong governments backing up the 'ruling class' (to use your terminology). I seem to be missing the point you are attempting to make.

Not sure what you're referring to as my second example (unless you're referring to an earlier post that I've forgotten) - but the Southern aristocracy had strong STATE and LOCAL governments - which ran like totalitarian regimes.

I'm by no means saying the Federal government isn't manipulated by the rich - it definitely is. But it has the benefit of offering at least some limited protection for the poor. We already know what this country was like before the expansion of the Federal government - it was a mess. I would suggest some extra red tape is worth not getting burned out by Pinkertons because you wouldn't sell your ranch for half its value to the large landowner down river.

TJMAC77SP
05-07-2013, 10:45 AM
Not sure what you're referring to as my second example (unless you're referring to an earlier post that I've forgotten) - but the Southern aristocracy had strong STATE and LOCAL governments - which ran like totalitarian regimes.

I'm by no means saying the Federal government isn't manipulated by the rich - it definitely is. But it has the benefit of offering at least some limited protection for the poor. We already know what this country was like before the expansion of the Federal government - it was a mess. I would suggest some extra red tape is worth not getting burned out by Pinkertons because you wouldn't sell your ranch for half its value to the large landowner down river.

You cited your ruling class prior to the federal government which would mean prior to 1787 (example one); the CSA would be example two.

Joe, your premise is flawed. No minority 'ruling class' in history has ever held power for long without a strong central government to back them up.

Banned
05-07-2013, 03:23 PM
You cited your ruling class prior to the federal government which would mean prior to 1787 (example one); the CSA would be example two.

What I meant was the CSA was an attempt to break away from a strong Federal government and go back to a system where the states held almost all of the power.


Joe, your premise is flawed. No minority 'ruling class' in history has ever held power for long without a strong central government to back them up.

What do you base this premise on? The very idea of a central government is extremely new in history. Local governments are just fine for keeping the working class subordinate.

TJMAC77SP
05-07-2013, 04:14 PM
What I meant was the CSA was an attempt to break away from a strong Federal government and go back to a system where the states held almost all of the power.



What do you base this premise on? The very idea of a central government is extremely new in history. Local governments are just fine for keeping the working class subordinate.

I will start with Rome..........................

Banned
05-07-2013, 04:36 PM
I will start with Rome..........................

Which started out as a city... not becoming an empire until hundreds of years later.

Even then, the emperor had far, far less control over his territory than the Federal government of today - mostly due to limitations on communication.

And let's also remember, Rome was in general far more organized than almost anybody else. Throughout most of history the West was a disorganized tangle of city states and fiefdoms. Its silly to say "Ah well the rich always need a strong government because ROME" - as if Rome was the only society that ever existed.

TJMAC77SP
05-07-2013, 04:37 PM
Which started out as a city... not becoming an empire until hundreds of years later.

Even then, the emperor had far, far less control over his territory than the Federal government of today - mostly due to limitations on communication.

And let's also remember, Rome was in general far more organized than almost anybody else. Throughout most of history the West was a disorganized tangle of city states and fiefdoms. Its silly to say "Ah well the rich always need a strong government because ROME" - as if Rome was the only society that ever existed.

Joe, Rome was indeed a strong central government.........yes or no ?

I said I would start with Rome. Should I go on?

Banned
05-07-2013, 07:33 PM
Joe, Rome was indeed a strong central government.........yes or no ?

By the standards of the time yes. By today's standards most certainly not.


I said I would start with Rome. Should I go on?

You're dancing around the question and intentionally confusing the issue. Rich people thrive with or without strong central government.

TJMAC77SP
05-07-2013, 07:33 PM
By the standards of the time yes. By today's standards most certainly not.



You're dancing around the question and intentionally confusing the issue. Rich people thrive with or without strong central government.

I'm dancing around the quesiton ?!?!??!?!

REALLY ?!?!?! ((said in my best SNL voice))