Why is it that the people who recommend "tough decisions" are never personally affected either way?
Rand Paul, but it could be any Versailles politico, D or R, including Obama, El Presidente*, whose contribution to solving the unemployment can be summed up in two words: Jack, and squat:
"As bad as it sounds, ultimately we [who?] do have to sometimes accept a wage that's less than we had at our previous job in order to get back to work and allow the economy to get started again," Paul said. "Nobody likes that [really? Nobody at all?] , but it may be one of the tough love [that is, hate] things that has to happen." ...
Right. Do it for "the economy." And whose economy would that be, exactly?
Paul was responding to a question from Wylie about Thursday's Senate Republican filibuster of a $120 billion package of additional jobless benefits and state aid. Tens of thousands of Americans will have exhausted their unemployment benefits this month without that extension.
Paul said he supports the filibuster. If the Senate thinks the bill is necessary, it needs to find the money to pay for it elsewhere in the federal budget rather than add to the $13 trillion national debt, he said.
Why don't we claw back the money the banksters stole? That would help. Or end the wars the country can't afford. Or save at least $350 billion a year with single payer. There are plenty of ways to "pay for it elsewhere in the Federal budget."
And that's before we even get to the idea treating unemployment as a market failure and fixing it with a jobs guarantee. Or treating deficits as the investments they are.
"It's all a matter of making priorities," Paul said. "Some tough decisions will have to be made."
Yeah, he's right about the priorities. After all, it's expedient that some peasants die for the good of the rentiers (cf John 11:50). And again, note the lack of agency in "tough decisions will have to be made." Who's making those decisions? And for whom are they tough?
NOTE * That asshole.
UPDATE Of course, the argument could be made that the Rs threatened a filibuster, and then the Ds whimpered "Please don't hurt me," and that proves there's some essential difference between the legacy parties. And no doubt some in the dwindling band of pathetic and delusional Obama fans make that argument. Whatever, dude. Why don't you go normalize Bush's torture policies, or something, like El Presidente did? If there were such a thing as the D party of yore -- you know, the one with F.... FD.... FDR -- we'd be talking about a Jobs Guarantee, instead of all this "But we really, really tried" bushwa.