Civil War In America In 2010??

The banking system is on the verge of collapse. We are trillions in debt. People in this country don't want national health care, car company bailouts, high taxes, and a lower dollar. No one in Washington is listening. The next logical step is to escalate things until they get the message.

According to this article, O-bomb-a is preparing as if Civil War was going to break out, here in the US, sometime soon.

Doing a few seconds of research I was able to pull up the Wikipedia page on the military branch mentioned in that article, USNORTHCOM.

From the Wikipedia link:

"The Military Commissions Act of 2006 lifted many restrictions placed on the military to support civilian administration by the Posse Comitatus Act, however the US Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that significant portions of the MCA were unconstitutional. The "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" H.R. 5122 (2006) effectively nullified the limits of the Insurrection Act [2] when it was passed; however, the bill was amended in 2008."

(emphasis mine)

Just goes to show what a joke the Constitution is and how it is so easily ignored when it becomes convenient for the thugs in DC to do so. Also, it might be time to start stocking up on guns and ammo! Maybe it's too late!

Bookmark This And Remember It On April 15

Doing a quick Google search and some reading has led me to the conclusion that there IS NO LAW ON THE BOOKS REQUIRING ANY AMERICAN TO PAY INCOME TAX!!! Congress is authorized to pass such a law but has not as of yet passed it. Therefore, Irwin Schiff is being jailed illegally! Check out his site!

http://www.paynoincometax.com/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070802180120AAtEvrX

Also this video is great

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2208477968446177859#

Remember This The Next Time You Vote

Anytime you cast a ballot, you are, by proxy at least, authorizing someone in your hometown, state, or in DC to STEAL MONEY FROM OTHERS ON YOUR BEHALF, and then distribute it as they (or you) see fit. Don't forget that each and every politician will skim a generous sum for themselves and their friends as well. Do you really want that on your conscience?

It's A Very Fine Line Indeed

The line I'm talking about separates anarcho-capitalists from everyone else. Up until about a year, maybe 16 months ago, I was squarely on the evil, horrible side of that line.

You see, I was never a liberal. I started off as a Conservative who thought I was getting limited government (ala Reagan, or so I was told) but instead got massive wars and increased spending. Then I sort of abandoned politics altogether and gave up. Then I got back into it again and found the FairTax book and thought it was the best idea ever. Boy was I stupid. But those are the sort of tricks both Republicans and Democrats will try on you to win your support. And it worked on me, until I discovered Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Ludwig von Mises, Lew Rockwell, Jeffrey Tucker, and so many others, living and deceased. These brave men (and some women as well) have guided me and I have firmly REJECTED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND TAXATION as immoral, misguided, and, criminal.

Things like the FairTax blur the line between good (anarcho-capitalists) and evil (everyone else). But the line exists, and it feels damn good to be on the right side and be fighting for what is right and just. The hard part is trying to guide others, because without support these ideas will wither and fade away. We must not let the work of Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, and many others go to waste. We must be prepared to fight the battle and struggle against government oppression, lest we become mere slaves to the criminals in DC and elsewhere. If there's anything worth fighting for, it's not universal health care or big business bailouts, but liberty. Anything short of 100% freedom and liberty is unacceptable and should be rejected by rational men and women. We are in this mess not because of people such as Rothbard, Paul, and Rockwell, but because of men named Washington, Lincoln, Bush, and Obama. Small government is just as bad as big government, if not worse. Small government lures people in to the lie that some government intervention is OK, and that we can just leave things like national defense or currency to the leaders in Washington. At least with big government many more people see what a scam it all is. Either way, government must be roundly rejected on the grounds of theft. Theft of property, liberty, time, and money.

There are many excellent resources for anyone who is new to the world of anarcho-capitalism, or AC for short. LewRockwell.com and Mises.org are excellent starting points. They will lead to other interesting finds via the links and archives they provide. There are also some good forums for political discussion such as the one at TwoPlusTwo.com.

"We Own AIG"

I have heard this quote, or very close variations on it, often. It also extends to GM and other bailed out institutions. Of course it's a huge fallacy to claim that "we" own anything as taxpayers. If "we" actually owned it, "we" could sell it at any time. And that can't happen. Any time someone claims they are "paying back TARP money to the taxpayers" I want to stand up and ask where the hell my check is. Of course no check is coming, and if it did, it might very well bounce.

Criminal Obama's Speech

Last night was the big announcement concerning the additional troops that are "necessary" to "win" the war in Afghanistan. What a joke.

This whole "war on terror" makes no sense to any rational observer. First, you can't go to war with terror. Terror is like drugs, guns, rape, theft, or loaves of bread in the sense that they will always exist, at least in our lifetimes. You can't "win" a war on rape or drugs or guns by attacking innocent people. The only way to properly allocate drugs, guns, theft, rape, etc is to allow the free market to dictate the proper price and hence quantity of each, according to what each person will pay. No, this doesn't mean if you have enough money you can rape and steal as you please, but it will more efficiently punish and deter crimes such as those. It's the same with terror.

Anyone who wants to practice terror (and I'm talking real, harmful stuff here like killing innocents, and not making a wisecrack in the line at the airport) would be subject to the laws and penalties of the court system in a free market. Those penalties would likely be very high, and unlike our current system of torture or permanent lockup, they would be paid directly to the victim(s).

The lack of private property rights also plays a huge role in this "war on terror" along with our occupation in Iraq. "We were attacked" was the common rallying point after 9/11/01. However, I was not attacked. I do not feel threatened by Afghanistan, Iraq, al Qaeda, the Taliban (or Tolly Bon as Barack calls them) or really any other foreigners. I wish to opt out of any "protection" from these made up threats to me.

However, I do feel that the real victims of 9/11 should be free to pursue justice and receive compensation for their losses. They have a legitimate reason for attack and if the 9/11 hijackers and/or plotters/enablers can be found they should be prosecuted. The only problem is, the US (Criminal) Government is probably the biggest culprit in 9/11. The FAA did nothing to stop the attacks, and Federal law prohibited passengers from being able to defend themselves with guns, knives, or other weapons of their own. So you know real justice will never be handed down, at least as long as the criminals in DC have their way.

Does This Guy Ever Tell The Truth?

THEY ARE ALL CRIMINALS AND LIARS!!!

More Obama Lies

I love Youtube.

Surprise, Surprise...President Obama Is A Liar

Here's the video.

And of course if you haven't heard, sometime next week, Obama is set to authorize the deployment of 30,000+ more troops to Afghanistan.

Surprise, Surprise...The NY Times Wants More Taxes And More Government

I'm shocked, just shocked at these two stories from The New York Times...

The first story is an attack on online retailers for not having to pay taxes to the thugs in DC, or the thugs in the various states. Instead of simply cutting sales taxes across the board (and not replacing it with any other tax), the NYT wants to "level the playing field" by stealing from everyone. How about we start cutting taxes across the board, in every state, online and offline, always and everywhere? More taxes is simply more money gone to waste down in DC.

The second article comes from the Great Paul Krugman. He is calling for a tax on speculators to curb what he calls "socially useless" speculation. Of course it is of great use to people like Krugman who want to invade other people's business and steal some money. How about we End The Fed instead, and CUT TAXES instead of digging ourselves deeper and deeper into slavery to the goons in Washington DC.

Ignore At Your Own Peril

John Galt has a very interesting article posted today on LewRockwell.com. Here's a link.

Obviously most people would find the events described in the article as unlikely, absurd, or even impossible. That just shows how gullible the public is. Even if there's a 95% chance of this article being complete fiction, the fact is, 5% of the time you are completely wiped out and ruined if he's right. Why take that chance? Given his timeline of next February I would say he's being a bit pessimistic, but give it 5-7 years and the chances of his predictions unfolding are well above 50%.

WASHINGTON DC AND THE FED ARE DESTROYING THE US DOLLAR!!!! GET INTO SILVER, GOLD, OIL, OR OTHER HARD ASSETS WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!

Why You Should Feel More Threatened By Homeland Security and TSA Than Al Qaeda

Take a listen to this 25 minute and change recording. It gets pretty interesting and heated at points.

Basically, a 25 year old who is working for Campaign for Liberty (and Ron Paul) is stopped by TSA because he is carrying a box with $4,710 in campaign contributions. He is deemed "suspicious" and is taken to be questioned. When asked about his employment, reasons for being in the city, and other non-relevant facts, he simply asks if he is required by law to answer, and gets shouted at and called a child by the very law enforcement officers who are supposed to protect and serve him (and us).

I thought it was funny when the officer mentions the $4,710 and calls it a "large sum of money." When the thugs in DC are done destroying our dollar we will look back and simply chuckle at $4,710 being a large sum of money. Considering that's what a gallon of gas might cost in 5 years. See my other post today for more on that.

A more complete summary of events can be found here and here.

Thanks for being on the right side of this battle, Steve.

Why you should own gold

Gold is sound money. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, "the truth will set you free." Gold, silver, and other precious metals will most likely win out over the paper dollar in the end. The only question is when. The only way gold and precious metals won't win out is if another, better alternative is discovered that serves the main functions of money in a more effective manner. But a paper dollar is doomed to become worthless, especially with folks like Obama, Bernanke, Greenspan, and Bush at the wheel.

The United States, and the world economy at large, is based on a house a flimsy cards that is set to collapse within the next 5 years. We are on an unsustainable path that is going to lead to worldwide fighting, death, struggle, hunger, and poverty if we do not reverse course immediately. Of course, the politicians don't care because they are well connected and protected from such a doomsday sceneario. They can always blame someone else, which is basically how Obama chooses to play his hand.

Every day we run up a higher debt, both as individuals and as a nation, we are digging ourselves deeper into the pits of future poverty. It is inevitable. Gold will help protect your assets when the collapse of the dollar hits hard and fast. Might want to pick up some guns and ammo as well, lest the criminals in the government swoop in and try to seize more of your hard earned assets.

Thank you, Ron Paul

Honestly he is the single most important person in politics right now. Way more important than Obama. He opened my eyes to the fraud that is the United States government. And now with his movement to audit the Fed gaining steam more and more people are being exposed to the theives who run our country.

Reading this article from LewRockwell.com made me reconsider my recent views on being an American citizen. I have recently been embarassed to be an American. The politicians are ruining our country. But now there is renewed hope thanks to Dr. Paul.

As long as Ron Paul is an American, I am damn proud to be an American as well.

Dr. Paul stands for all the core values this country was built on in the late 1770s. Freedom. Liberty. Individual responsibility and choice.

His Republican colleagues and people like Shawn Hannity are fooling themselves if they think they stand on the side of the American people. Ron Paul is our champion. Ron Paul is my hero.

I hope this post and my blog somehow gets to your screen, Dr. Paul, just so that you know your couragous fighting on my behalf (as a freedom loving American) has stirred great emotion in my body and made me once again proud to know that someone out there is fighting for what's right.

Paul Krugman Is A Joke: Volume 2

Well, I predicted $10 a gallon gas and Paul Krugman lowering the bar to a fresh, new low when it comes to rational thought. One of those predictions came true today. And I just filled up for $2.53/gallon. Which means Paul has won more than just a Nobel Prize and the adoring fan mail from those on the left. He wins another appearance here. Enjoy!

Krugman's latest article is titled "Health Care Realities." So you know it's going to be a side splitter since Krugman's idea of reality is government=good. And this article doesn't disappoint in the least. Krugman starts off...

At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program — but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, “wasn’t having any of it.” It’s a funny story — but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation.

That story isn't funny as much as it is sad. The man has no idea what he's talking about really. Government run schools will do that to people. Krugman is dead on with his last sentence, though. Health care reform has a long, tough road ahead, and one that only gets longer and tougher the more people listen to Krugman himself spew nonsense on the topic and treat it as gospel truth.

It’s not just that many Americans don’t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people don’t understand the way American health care works right now. They don’t understand, in particular, that getting the government involved in health care wouldn’t be a radical step: the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance.

The reason most people don't understand what Obama is proposing is because there are about 534205920359 different versions of the same bill floating around the hill so nothing is finalized yet. There are still special interests looking to be taken care of. And another reason no one understands anything is because they get most of their news from rags such as the New York Times. Here's where the article gets good.

And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all.

Ummmm, what? Doesn't Krugman realize he's undermining his own argument here? Only in Paul Krugman's world does government get 100% of the credit for things that go well, and 0% of the blame. Only this time he's saying we need reform but the system works, it just needs tweaked a bit. Without government's watchful eye, we would all have AIDS and a toothache at the same time and no way out.

The key thing you need to know about health care is that it depends crucially on insurance. You don’t know when or whether you’ll need treatment — but if you do, treatment can be extremely expensive, well beyond what most people can pay out of pocket. Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctor’s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.

This part sort of makes sense, but then again you can replace "car care" with health care and the same reasoning applies. For some reason my car insurance isn't going through the roof. Here comes a doozy...

Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly:

Here's where I almost lost it and gave up. Someone answer me one question. When have private markets for health insurance EVER BEEN LEFT TO THEIR OWN *%*%#*%* DEVICES??????? How about NEVER!!!! Taxes, regulations, restrictions, licenses, rules, red tape, etc etc have been around for as long as anyone on this Earth has been alive. So how can we possibly know for sure that private markets don't work? This is a prime example of why Paul Krugman Is A Joke. No one should take him seriously.

insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care.

Why would any company insure someone who is sick or likely to become sick for the same price as someone who is healthy? Don't people like Krugman realize it's MORE EXPENSIVE to test for cancer, to have special doctors in to diagnose it, to house them, to care for them, to give them medicines, and to put effort into new ways of fighting it? That's reality, Paul. It's more expensive to treat someone who is sick than someone who is healthy. Like it or not, that's the way it is. You can't shift costs onto healthy people and claim you "saved" money. Someone WILL end up paying the higher cost. Unfortunately, that's the world we live in. If you are sick you will be more expensive to care for. Shifting costs around does not change this fact, nor can Krugman (or anyone else) alter the laws of supply and demand.

Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient’s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend.

The companies have to cover all bases and cut costs where possible. After taxes and all necessary federal compliance costs are paid, there isn't much to go around for the employees.

And in their efforts to avoid “medical losses,” the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on “underwriting” — screening out people likely to make insurance claims. In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar
actually goes to care.

That's funny, I just got paid today. And lo and behold I only got around 70 cents of each dollar for the hours I worked! Where did the rest go? Hmmm...

Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention. Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs.

Governments cannot directly provide anything. They must first steal it from a group of people and then "spread the wealth around" to others. If governments could directly provide something there would be no need for taxes.

Before Medicare was established, more than 40 percent of elderly Americans lacked any kind of health insurance. Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older. And surveys show that Medicare recipients are much more satisfied with their coverage than Americans with private insurance.

Surveys also show that Medicare is going broke, fast. Which is why...

Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance.

Smart move by those folks. Don't rely on Uncle Sam for anything but a nice pleasant visit to get his money.

The vast majority, however, don’t buy it directly: they get it through their employers. There’s a big tax advantage to doing it that way, since employer contributions to health care aren’t considered taxable income. But to get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they can’t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.

No surprise here. People demand more of something the less it costs. Less taxes means more money for health care.

And it’s thanks to these rules that employment-based insurance more or less works, at least in the sense that horror stories are a lot less common than they are in the individual insurance market. So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government.

Yes, because without government we can't have decent car insurance, decent food, clothing, homes, electronics, haircuts, cars, salt shakers, or jobs.

It’s true that if you’re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.

Again, where would we be without government? They are our provider and our main source of happiness. They know what's best. So what if they bankrupt us, their hearts are always in the right place, right?

Which brings us to the current debate over reform. Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don’t work for health care — never have, never will.

Obama isn't just a wild-eyed socialist, he's the ring leader of a criminal orginization. Obama certainly is not, however, attacking the free market, because there is no free market currently. You can't attack what doesn't exist, Mr. Krugman. Again, making the claim that unregulated markets don't work is foolish, ignorant, and irrelevant in the context of American politics circa 2009.

To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it’s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage. Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That’s not radical; it’s as American as, well, Medicare

The government does not cover the elderly. They steal money from people and then shift it to companies who provide this care.

Join us next week as Krugman looks to hit yet another all time low in rational thought!

Sadly, we aren't far from this

With all the talk of various "czars" floating about in the papers and on the tube, I think it's time for a new, specially appointed "czar czar." His/her duties could include looking over the shoulders of all the existing czars to make sure they are actually doing something instead of playing Tetris on their cell phone all day. But this could be viewed as a conflict of interest, so we must make sure the pay czar keeps close tabs on his income, lest he become "too big to fail."

The Real "Cash For Clunkers" Should Have Been This

Let me be the first to propose a new spin on the "Cash For Clunkers" program that is or isn't and now is still running. (Again, everyone in the media misses the fact that it is irrelevant if the program is still running or not, it should have never existed in the first place.)

Anyway... my proposal is fairly simple. A bit of background first.

I live in Pennsylvania. I don't know much about my "representatives" other than PA's governor is "Fast" Eddie Rendell (or Swindell if you prefer). Arlen Specter investigated Bill Belichik and switched parties. I think I read somewhere that John Murtha is corrupt. The mayor of Pittsburgh is Luke Ravenstahl, or Steelerstahl if we are making another Super Bowl run. (Yes, he actually changed his name last year before the AFC Championship game.)

So with that backdrop, I am proposing that we initiate a new "Cash For Clunkers" program that deals with politicians. I'll take 50 cents and a promise that none of my "representatives" ever get involved in my life again. I also propose extending this program all the way to Washington DC (home of the biggest criminal racket the world has known). Hell, I'll donate to the fund that has them all shipped overseas, never to return or be heard from again. But I figure I might as well get some cash in the deal.

"If you don't like it, you can leave"

Cracks me up every time I hear someone say this. I guess these same people won't mind if I stop by tonight with an army and demand $100 cash. Remember, if they don't like what I'm doing they can always leave.

Somehow people's brains freeze up when it comes to thinking about the government. For example, most people realize you should save money when times are tough. But these same people turn around and support and vote for people who are doing the polar opposite in government!

Anyway, see you around 8 pm tonight for that $100, right?

(The funny part is I just destroyed this argument, which is a staple of virtually every big government cheerleader, without even mentioning that there are plenty of taxes, restrictions, and regulations if you do get fed up and just leave. In short, you can not "just leave" without first paying the government and staying within their massive worldwide criminal network's reach. Also, where the hell is anyone going to go to avoid government? Mars? Better hurry, NASA is on their way there to claim it in their name for our own good. Luckily for me, I can "just leave," if only temporarily, when I turn my computer on and read sites like Mises.org, LewRockwell and others.)

Marijuana Mumbo Jumbo

From http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_635704.html:

"Marijuana sales should be taxed. (But not at a level that discourages its commerce.)

Use by minors should be prohibited. (Let the debate begin whether that should be under 21 or under 18.)

And the same under-the-influence laws that apply to alcohol and driving should be applied to marijuana.

We're off our conservative rocker, you say?"

Actually I just say you're a bunch of fools.

Marijuana should be openly available to anyone who wants to purchase it. Taxes, rules, regulations, and age restrictions are a step in the wrong direction for people who want real drug law and government reform/elimination.

Finally, the Democrats get something right

From http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_634567.html:

"Census counts are used to determine how to distribute $435 billion a year and how legislative districts are drawn. The fewer people counted in an area, the fewer representatives that area gets. Segments of the population where census officials have the most trouble getting responses — urban, low-income, and minority, for example — tend to vote Democratic."

I for one am glad the urban, low-income, and minority folks are resisting government reaches into their privacy. Too bad they are doing it for all the wrong reasons, but it's a step in the right direction.

Peter Schiff For The Win

Peter has been so dead on throughout this whole mess that he deserves more recognition. Of course the fact that all the morons in the mainstream still fight him on his views is probably a good thing since he makes a lot of money exploiting people's ignorance as far as fiat money, credit, etc are concerned. If you haven't checked it out YouTube "Peter Schiff was right" and be prepared to be blown away. Good stuff Peter.

Crappy layout

Sorry for the layout on that Krugman article. I'm just getting used to the site and will fix it in future posts.

Paul Krugman Is A Joke: Volume 1

Since this is a new blog, let's not waste our time on stupid issues like whether Obama is a legal citizen. Who cares? He's a criminal. Instead, let's have some fun at Paul Krugman's expense. Volume 1 in a series.

In his recent article, "An Incoherent Truth," Paul Krugman once again sets a new low for rational and coherent thought. (I think the Times should change the title to "An Incoherent Columnist," but that's just me.) I see that Krugman's articles are published on Mondays and Fridays, so there's not much time before the bar is once again lowered! We better hurry before Paul sets a new standard that we must live down to! I'll quote Paul's article and interject my own, rational thoughts to make you realize what an idiot he really is. This is going to be fun.

Krugman starts off with this:

Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of
relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog
Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President
Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want. But he can’t — because the
Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.

Right Paul, no one is making sense but you,
Obama, Pelosi, and Steve
Liesman.

He continues:

To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform
(all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)

Phew! Thank God all the plans on the table agree on the "essentials!" For a second there I thought omeone in Washington might have their own self interest ahead of us, the "American People (tm)!" So now that Krugman has established that it's "essential" to steal from person A to fund something person B may or may not want, we can move on to this:

Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates,
subsidies and competition. By regulation I mean the nationwide imposition
of rules that would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on
your medical history, or dropping your coverage when you get sick. This would
stop insurers from gaming the system by covering only healthy people. On
the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system:
Americans would be required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy,
rather than signing up only when they need care.

Wow. Where do I even start? Ignore the fact that Washington has been in "reform" mode since about 1800. Krugman is just ignoring reality here. It's a sad fact of life, but insuring people with pre-existing conditions, such as cancer or diabetes, is more expensive than insuring healthy people. Bad luck, bad genes, bad habits can all play a role but the fact remains. It is what it is. If you are in a car accident your insurance company can charge you for this "pre-existing" wreck because you are riskier to insure. If companies aren't being properly compensated for risk, prosperity is threatened. And then he goes on to say that insurance companies "game the system" as if politicans aren't DESIGNING AND MODIFYING THE SYSTEM on their own whims and at our expense. There is no "system" without government setting it up and then changing the rules and charging everyone more so they can benefit. Paul seems to think no one wants to insure people who have breast cancer or a clogged artery. Actually, companies would love to, but they would also love to be able to pay for all the procedures, medicines, staff, and risk of a huge malpractice suit (only made possible because of the government's backward legal system that tilts things heavily in favor of the plaintiff.) Paul also takes it upon himself to remind me that he, and our overlords in Washington, really do know what's best for me and my money. So he calls for me to spend my hard earned money (which is taxed) on health care that I don't even want or need. It's almost like requiring me to buy a new car just in case mine breaks down, lest the evil car companies jack up prices and then I'm stuck on my bike because I spent all my money on DVDs. Why can't Krugman and the government just mind their own damn business and let me decide if and when I need an eye exam, physical, or prescription. Moving on...

And all but the smallest businesses would be required either to provide their
employees with insurance, or to pay fees that help cover the cost of subsidies —
subsidies that would make insurance affordable for lower-income American
families.

Gee, won't employers be excited to be paying out even more money in the current depression (yes, it's a depression) to comply with more layers of government. First the minimum wage hike and now mandatory health benefits. The cost of labor is going sky high and people wonder why the unemployment rate is soaring. Krugman gets bonus points for using the tried-and-true "making it affordable" claim that hasn't actually made anything "affordable," ever. A+ work there Paul.

Finally, there would be a public option: a government-run insurance plan
competing with private insurers, which would help hold down costs.

If anyone holds down costs it would be the private sector. Since when does more government=less cost?

The subsidy portion of health reform would cost around a trillion dollars over
the next decade. In all the plans currently on the table, this expense would be
offset with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes, so
that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit.

Nice sleight of hand at work here. Basically the government is going to steal all or part of $1 trillion (which will inevitably end up being much higher because that's how Washington DC rolls) and then chalk it up as "savings." Sure, there won't be an effect on the federal deficit, but the American people will be looted for a few trillion. Meh, it's all for a good cause I suppose. After all, what's a few trillion between friends? Plus Krugman and others can easily trot out the whole "it would have been worse!" line by simply making up numbers and claiming that we "saved" a few billion if it somehow comes in under cost. We were going to steal more, but look at how much we saved you! Gee thanks!! Back to the article...

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs? Well, they talk a lot about fiscal
responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those
subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul.

I actually agree 100% here. I am going to cry foul. What the hell is going on in Washington when people are worrying about the cost of something? Something fishy is going on here. Better get someone from Newsweek on this, pronto. Krugman continues:

After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001,
when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush
tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

Ahh, Krugman really brought his whole liberal playbook to work for this one. This is from the "well, you Republicans got to spend a few trillion on wars, so why can't we waste a few trillion on stuff we want?" category. The Big Bad Bold Bush tax cut didn't add to the deficit. What added to the deficit is that no one stopped spending the $1.35 trillion that wasn't coming in.

But it’s actually much worse than that —

God, I hope this article never ends.

because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making
demands that would greatly increase that cost. There has been a lot of
publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan
without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers
more than a plan with such an option.

Why not just write a law that all healthcare costs can't exceed $1,000 per year, per family? Unlimited doctor visits, prescriptions, and coverage for all! That sure seems like a good way to clamp down on costs to me. What could go wrong?

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is
even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional
Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate,
health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing
insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of
subsidies to balloon.

So instead of working without health insurance people will just be laid off instead. Cool. Krugman's tactics are so transparent. All he knows how to do is blame companies and people who act in their own self-interest and do things like save money. Companies are made up of people, they want to make money so they can live a decent life. Why do you have to constantly promote those that interfere and make everyone worse off? Almost at the end now...

It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same
time oppose an employer mandate. So what do the Blue Dogs want? Maybe
they’re just being complete hypocrites.

Since they are politicians, Krugman is probably right here.

It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders:
former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the
Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through
the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included
huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to
become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry
lobby.

Oops, forgot to mention that Krugman also knows how to demonize Republicans and anyone who is lavishly paid.

One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr.
Tauzin’s footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re
nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for
Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies
have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers. But I guess I’m not
quite that cynical. After all, today’s Blue Dogs are politicians who didn’t go
the Tauzin route — they didn’t switch parties even when the G.O.P. seemed to
hold all the cards and pundits were declaring the Republican majority permanent.

News flash! The pundits were wrong!!!!

So these are Democrats who, despite their relative conservatism, have shown
some commitment to their party and its values. Now, however, they face
their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of
health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four
main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take
the Obama presidency down with it.

One can only hope

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find
out.

Oh boy!! I'm on the edge of my seat here. How soon will we find out, Mr. Nobel Prize winner? Hopefully by next Monday at 8 pm because I have plans after that. Also Paul, if you could please be sure to comment on how the upcoming health care bill "was good, but not enough"once they ram it through and then demand action in the form of a 2nd health care bill. After all I need material here. Thanks.

$10 A Gallon???

You heard it here first. $10+ per gallon by the end of Obama's first term. Too much debt, too much inflation coming down the road. It's inevitable.

Why Social Security Doesn't Work

June 7, 2008

How will history judge Social Security in America? I predict Social Security will be viewed as a “program that helped many older Americans offset the high cost of living, provided important supplemental income for many Americans, and generally was a success”.
And that can’t be further from the truth.

In reality, Social Security is…

Morally questionable at best (forced labor)

Unaccountable, as there is no clear separation between Social Security funds and other government expenditures

Unsustainable, with the proportion of payees and recipients dwindling due to people living longer, illegal immigrants, and other factors

Social Security is Morally Questionable
Is there any reason I can’t save for retirement and old age on my own? Of course not. People did it for centuries before Social Security came about. Secondly, is there a legitimate reason why I could be forced to save for someone else’s “Social Security?” Again, no. The truth about Social Security is that it robs and enslaves Americans, and hinders economic growth while stifling freedom and liberty both now and in the future.

Social Security is Unaccountable and Unsustainable
Now, in the year 2008, the Social Security system is both morally and economically bankrupt. We are still forcing working Americans to fund the “golden years” for other Americans, with no real choice in the matter. However, not only is there no specific fund for Social Security, there isn’t even money to fund it beyond the next 15-20 years!

It is possible (although certainly not moral or economic), for 3 or 4 working Americans to support 1 or 2 retired people. Possible does not make it morally acceptable or desirous, but possible nonetheless. However, can you expect those same 3 or 4 working Americans to support an ever growing number of retirees? These working Americans have their own bills to pay, their own families to support, and now we are burdening them with an ever growing number of dependents?

And Then There’s Inflation…
This doesn’t even take into account the role inflation has on the Social Security scam (has a nifty ring to it, doesn’t it?) If we factor in inflation, we get this not so rosy picture of the future of Social Security:

Say I pay in $20,000 in my lifetime into Social Security. Not only do I not know where this money is going or if I will even get it back, if I ever do get paid, my money will purchase less and less than it would if I just took the cash I earned and stuffed it in my mattress. God forbid I put it in a low risk investment such as a CD, or (shhh!) my own personal 401k or Roth IRA.
So if you are under 50 and working in this country, you are looking at the following scenario: Forced labor, no transparency as to where your money is going, a broken system, and a repayment of your money that is less than what you paid in (in real terms).

The Government’s “Solution” Perpetuates The Problem
This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad and true: There is no real push to eliminate Social Security! Some in the government actually want to increase the earnings cap and thus tax earnings even more to make up for the shortfall!

Only in government would this fly: We’re facing a huge shortfall, we have trillions in unfunded liabilities, so instead of even considering a different direction, let’s just tax and tax and tax and throw more and more money at the problem. Don’t even give people the option (there’s that pesky freedom thing again) of opting out of Social Security, just tax them some more and see where it gets us.

America's Stance on Gambling

June 10, 2008

All around me, whether I’m going to the store to buy groceries, watching a baseball game, or listening to my favorite radio station, I hear Gus. Who, you ask, is Gus? Well, he’s the “Second Most Famous Groundhog in Pennsylvania” (Trailing only Puxatony Phil and just ahead of, well, who knows?). What in the world is a groundhog doing on TV, at the store, and all over the Commonwealth? Gus is the Pennsylvania Lottery’s mascot, who urges PA residents to “keep on scratchin’!”

Most people who hear Gus, and virtually everyone who actually plays the lottery, has no idea of how bad a bet the lottery is. I’ve heard estimates that for every $1 you spend on the lottery, you expect back between 50-65 cents. Big jackpots, fancy scratch off gimmicks, mid-day drawings, and Millionaire raffles don’t change this fact: For every $1 you spend, expect back about half.
However, as a Ron Paul supporter and, more importantly, a supporter of liberty and freedom, I really don’t mind when people spend $20 on a lottery ticket. What I do have a problem with is this double, and sometimes triple standard that the government has when it comes to gambling.
For now, let’s stick to lotteries such as the PA lottery. Why is the government promoting gambling at all? Well, the PA lottery “benefits older Pennsylvanians.” Really? So, taking money from one group of people (lotteries that have such poor odds will attract the low income crowd), and redistributing it to older citizens is a “benefit?” (Don’t forget the cut that the state invariably takes.)

Why is one form of gambling pushed and promoted, while others are illegal and kept underground? I can’t bet on an NFL game legally in PA or any other state, save Nevada. If you start a card game you are at risk of being shut down and tried. Then we have horse racing. I can go to the track and legally bet on tomorrow’s Belmont Stakes.

But if I come home and want to play a few hands of online poker, I have to jump through hoops just to fund an account due to the poorly written, unenforceable UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act). This act, tacked onto a must-pass port security bill, attempts to outlaw gambling on the Internet. There was no real debate on the bill, and it is questionable whether the bill is even enforceable.

The reality of the situation is this: Gambling is not going away. With government pushing it onto us (but only in certain forms), why would they want it to evaporate? Why are we making some forms legal, some illegal, some legal but only in certain states, some legal but only if state run, etc etc? We are wasting valuable time and resources that could be better spent advancing freedom and liberty across the country.

In closing, I will cite an article by Donald J Boudreaux, chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University. The article deals with the politics of prohibition, or in this case semi-prohibition that can’t really be enforced. This reasoning also applies to the war on drugs or other assaults (or attempted assaults) on personal freedoms.
In the article, Boudreaux, referring to the end of alcohol prohibition, writes:

“With no end of the Depression in sight, Washington got anxious for a substitute source of revenue.

That source was liquor sales.”

Fast forward a few years, and replace “liquor sales” with “all forms of gambling” and you just might have a recipe for legalized gambling nationwide.

Big Government and the Status Quo

June 12, 2008

Incentives. They are everywhere, affecting everything we say and do, from shopping for groceries to what kind of car we drive to where we live and so many more. Incentives provoke thought and progress and keep us moving forward as individuals, small communities, and a country as a whole.

Sadly, the federal government today has no incentive to do anything but grow larger and larger. More taxpayer money means more cushy, bureaucratic jobs and less accountability for everyone involved. Every mistake matters a little less, at least relatively speaking, when there are so many mistakes to be found. Social Security is going broke? Don’t blame me, I’m busy trying to get “Big Oil” to stop hurting our environment (another mistake). And on and on it goes, one mistake masking another, the proverbial “buck” stopping nowhere, as long as the taxes just keep flowing in.

We must remember, in the words of Judge Andrew Napolitano, who the government works for. That would be us. We are the ones paying their inflated, monopolized salaries, and it is us who should stand up and demand accountability, at the very least. My plan is to start small, and then maybe get some actual results for our money down the line.

I wish the government would actually do something productive and at least let some intelligent debate clear the issues from all the spin and hype surrounding us. Any time a productive, or potentially productive use of the government’s (make that our) money comes up, it gets lost in the clutter of big government. We should be reviewing our laws and statutes every so often for two primary reasons:

Some laws get outdated. Politicians love to talk down to those who love and hold fast to the Constitution, claiming we are “in a new age.” Well, new ages do require new laws, although the Constitution is so well written that the principals held within are timeless. But while we are in so-called new times, why not review the nation’s laws every few years? Laws that deal with prohibition would fall by the wayside when an argument is made for personal freedom that is backed up by facts and common sense. Other outdated statutes, such as ones banning sex toys, or alcohol sales on Sundays, would also (most likely) be dropped as the country evolves.
People change, but our principles should not. We can’t rationalize away the Founding Fathers. I can no longer in good conscience sit here and see it happen, especially after reading the works of Ron Paul. He has really opened my eyes to the problems in our country and how to fix them. People are going online, eating fast food, driving fast cars, and many other things they didn’t do in the 1700s and 1800s. But the same fundamental building blocks are to be used as guidelines to our laws. Government does not need to be involved in energy reform, “SpyGate”, steroids in baseball, fast food, the Internet, health care, or even roads. Maybe that’s why they’re so opposed to change; they simply aren’t needed.

Every four years we get another presidential election, but more and more it is just one form of big(ger) government vs. the other. Everyone in favor of a smaller, more sensible federal government is effectively shut out of the entire process, for fear of unmasking the big politicians and exposing them for what they really stand for. Take Barack Obama. He is a pretty well educated man, speaks eloquently, and caters to his party’s main base of voters. But he has a critical flaw that also haunts John McCain. It can be one of two things.

Either:

Obama and McCain really do believe their big promises will make our country better off. The next time more government makes the population better off as a whole will be the first. So they are maybe just ignorant, or catering to their illogical, irrational voters to gain support.
Or perhaps Obama and McCain know these programs and policies, such as a “windfall profits tax” and staying in Iraq and other countries for as long as it takes (whatever that means) are just a sham meant to fatten the government and further rob the American public.
Both scenarios do nothing to benefit the people funding them, and should be averted. This election has nothing to do with black, white, old, Democrat, Republican, or anything else superficial. I could care less if a candidate came along who was crippled, obese, 95 years old and of Asian or Mexican descent, if that person held fast to the values of Ron Paul and others in favor of a smaller, more sensible government, I would be supporting them from Day 1.

Unfortunately, with all the spin and propaganda flying in from all directions, it’s hard for such a candidate to ever rise up. But whatever is worth doing is usually worth doing right, so, hard or not, it must be attempted and done if we are to again rise up among the world’s best countries.

Let The Markets Run Free

June 19, 2008

Subsidies, tax breaks, tax hikes, government run monopolies, the list goes on and on. It seems like the government simply doesn’t want people to prosper, given that (partial) list of disincentives towards growth they constantly are pushing for and enforcing every day.

The real reason the government hates free markets is that, unlike most voting Americans (who, it should again be noted, PAY THEIR SALARIES), free markets cannot be fooled for any real period of time. You might get someone with insider information who makes a quick hit, but that practice is illegal and subject to penalties. Or you might get the occasional “speculative” run up in stocks, commodities, housing, or any other product or service for purchase. But in the end, things tend to settle as they should.

This “markets can’t be fooled” approach works better as the market in question gets deeper and deeper. The more money moving around between investors and buyers and sellers, the more accurate the reading (price) will be. Take the sports betting market. Anyone who thinks they can do better than the point spread at picking winners over any significant period of time is on another planet. The reason is simple: a whole lot of knowledgeable people are risking lots of money on the outcome. Every detail is analyzed impartially, and any mistake can be capitalized on by someone else, be it a rival bettor or the sportsbook itself. Same with the stock market. Do you really think Exxon or General Electric stock is priced very far from its “true value?” Of course not. The price of widely held stocks is very accurate, taking into account all relevant information about the company’s history, current and future profits, potential for buyout, etc etc.

Basically, it boils down to: Do you really think you can outsmart thousands and thousands of other people (and entire institutions) who have more knowledge, information, money, guts, and history than you? For some odd reason, the government thinks it can. It tries to set prices, manipulate entire industries, and basically defy the laws of supply and demand. This can work for short periods of time, but eventually the cream rises and we find out the true value of whatever we have in question, be it an asset, a service, a stock, a sports team, or anything else.
How does this relate to the politics of today? Well, let’s take the price of commodities. Gold and oil are soaring to new highs it seems every day. Is this a coincidence or something else? I would tend to trust the markets and what they are telling us, namely that the US dollar is heading for steeper and steeper lows, and thus there is a “flight to quality,” or assets with actual value beyond paper currency backed by nothing more than empty promises.

The government cannot stop the huge demand for such goods and services as “illegal” drugs, gambling, prostitution, guns, alcohol, pornography, and cigarettes. People demand these things the same as they demand baseball tickets, hamburgers, books, and new tires. If anyone bothers to notice, there is no “street crime” or violence associated with buying cigarettes or pornography or alcohol. Honestly, to me it looks like the government wants underground crime to flourish. How else can you explain it? If we simply make drugs, prostitution, and gambling legal, the underground demand for these would disappear immediately. Do you see people in Las Vegas calling their bookie to place a bet? Why would you, with the risk of getting killed or stiffed on a payment, when you can do it legally in a state run, licensed casino?

It’s the exact same logic with drugs and prostitution. Why would someone buy heroin or marijuana from a shady person on the street when they could get something that at least is safe from potentially fatal added ingredients at the store? Why would anyone shoot anyone else over a drug deal when you can just do it in a store? Why are we wasting billions every year when we could be taxing these products and bringing in more money to the government?

Common arguments in favor of the “war on drugs” are that everyone would start using drugs and it would legitimize the activity. Also “drugs are dangerous.” That is precisely why we need (limited) government regulation of them! Anyone who wants to use drugs now certainly can do so. Any high school or college student who wants marijuana, heroin, pills, cocaine, etc. can get it fairly easily if they want it. I would also tend to strongly disagree that all drugs are as dangerous as the feds would have you believe. Long term, marijuana is no more harmful than smoking cigarettes. Cocaine and heroin are addictive, but so are cigarettes. Where exactly do we draw the line between what is “too dangerous?” And when did the government all of the sudden become a de facto God, able to decide your lifestyle just because it deems it “dangerous?” If people want to use heroin, they are going to do it, and the system as it is set up will not stop them. So why don’t we look at other alternatives? Maybe because that would involve a rational, full debate of the issue?

Ending addictive drug habits is a noble goal to be sure. Drugs can ruin entire families. They are potent and have a dangerous allure to them. But the way we are going about the so called “war” on drugs just isn’t working. We need to make up our mind, and it comes down to a choice of personal freedom or complete knowledge. If we really want to get rid of all illegal drugs, we should simply test everyone in the country once a week. That would end it once and for all, right? Of course not, which is why a plan like that is absurd. It’s just another case of the government lying to the people. “Drugs are a horrible problem and need to be stamped out completely” really means no such thing. Fact is, drugs can’t be stamped out completely.
A quick aside, today I realized that Barack Obama actually does have a leg up on John McCain, but not for the reason anyone is mentioning. I think Obama’s lack of government experience is actually a huge plus, given the way the federal government operates. Less time around it would maybe make Obama a bit immune to its perils. Alas, he won’t take advantage of this blissful ignorance, as he is proposing all sorts of tax hikes, health care reforms, and who knows what else, all in the name of an ever expanding government.

A Call For Transparency

June 29, 2008

From “The Revolution: A Manifesto” by Ron Paul:
Judge Andrew Napolitano recently asked, ‘Why should government agents spy on us? They work for us. How about we spy on them? On cops when they arrest and interrogate people or contemplate suspending freedom; on prosecutors when they decide whom to prosecute and what evidence to use; on judges when they rationalize away our guaranteed rights; and on members of Congress whenever they meet with a lobbyist, mark up a piece of legislation, or conspire to assault our liberties or our pocketbooks.’

That quote sums up what this country needs: Transparency. But what we need and what we get are two vastly divergent things these days. The federal government already has the guts to give us “economic stimulus refund” checks that amount to taking a $50 bill and making you change but leaving you with two $20 bills. They are also suspending the release of M3, which is a report that was used to monitor currency and money in the country based on the Fed’s actions. And the list goes on and on and on.

Why do we need transparency? Because it will help the American people realize what the government is really doing to them, and, more importantly, what it is not doing for them. The federal government is not designed to take care of you and feed you and clothe you throughout your life. And the government does not do those things, although lately it seems people are under the impression that it is their right to receive such items as “free” health care or to have the government bail them out of a risky loan. In short, the government is not a provider of economic growth, all the government really can do is stifle economic growth and development.
There is no incentive for anyone in government to do anything except maintain and push the status quo to new levels of big government. Take the war on drugs. For years we have been fighting this uphill battle with little to no success. We have spent and spent and spent and drug use has not seen any real drop, nor is there any reason to believe such a drop is forthcoming. But try telling that to a DEA officer, cop, probation officer, jail guard, or coroner. They need illegal, underground drugs or they are basically out of a (well paying, taxpayer funded) job. So the status quo remains.

Same with education. For all the talk of “No Child Left Behind” and improving test scores, students are failing miserably. Most high schoolers can’t add or subtract, let alone balance a checkbook or figure out simple mortgage payments. I myself never learned any basic life skills in 12 years of government education.

But for all the money we spend on education, the war on drugs, Social Security, etc etc, why don’t we at least get some kind of report on where exactly this money is going? And not just “old people” or “schools.” The American people deserve to know where every dollar is spent, and what goal it accomplished or is working towards. Of course this can never happen, because, similar to the illegal drug example above, the entire government as we know it today depends on being shady and mysterious with regard to our money. That’s right, our money. The people’s money. Remember, in the words of Napolitano, who “they” work for.

Freedom Starts At Home

July 20, 2008

Ron Paul’s writings and speeches have assisted me in finding faults with myself and my own logical processes, and maybe a way to fix them and make myself a better person. So today I’ll take a break from bashing the government – instead, I’ll spend some my energy on what each and everyone of us can do to increase the degree of freedom we enjoy.

For all the complaining I hear around me, I see a disproportional amount of action being taken to offset what is going on all throughout the country. For example, everyone loves to moan about “high gas prices.”

While I will agree that gas prices are much higher than they were a few years (even months) ago, I really don’t see the problem. The higher prices are just a signal that we need to consume less gasoline. This can mean carpooling, riding a bike, walking, taking less trips out, or buying a more fuel efficient vehicle. It can also mean an investment in oil and/or gas companies such as Exxon may be called for, to hedge against higher prices at the pump.

But who among us is doing any such thing? All we get are excuses, such as “I just bought this new truck” or “I work too far away” or (although no one says this) “I’m lazy.”

There are consequences to every action we take. Buying a gas guzzling truck means you will pay more for gas. Taking a trip out to eat twice a week raises your gas consumption. I’m not trying to deny anyone that choice, but don’t come running for help when you can’t cut back on the non-necessities.

Also, I always wonder why people who complain about “price gouging” don’t get in on the alleged gouging. They can do this easily by purchasing Exxon stock, which is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). That way, they can profit from everyone else’s gas purchases! Funny how, if anyone actually looked into this idea, they would find out that gasoline isn’t the exorbitant business proposition that it’s made out to be in the “Big Media.”

Gas companies such as Exxon only make around 8% on each dollar in sales as profit, which is well below many other industries. If there was “price gouging” going on, why wouldn’t people want to get in on it? You have the chance, go buy Exxon stock and let us know how much gouging you can do!

Then we have housing. There is word from Philadelphia that the mayor isn’t enforcing foreclosures. Basically, everyone is looking for a bailout because they couldn’t be bothered to read the “fine print” on their mortgage.

Either that or they agreed to an exotic loan that they didn’t understand, and now they need someone to help them sort it out. Funny how no one was complaining a few years ago when things were going well. Now that the tides have turned, people are outraged. That’s part of the price we pay for everything, from a car to a bagel to a house. If we are misinformed or simply ignorant about the product itself or its financing terms, we will lose in the long term and end up with a situation that we didn’t foresee.

In other words, do your homework before running to someone else for a bailout. This goes for businesses too, such as Bear Stearns. Get your act together before coming to us (the taxpayers) for help.

What’s worse than people looking for help out of a tough situation is the fact that those same people will gladly fork over $1 or more for a bottle of water, $5+ for a pack of cigarettes, and who knows how much for unnecessary extra clothing and knick knacks such as toys, dolls, cell phones and basically anything else.

If you can’t budget your own money, you don’t deserve to run to anyone else for help. Stop smoking 3 packs a day. Start drinking tap water, or at least buy pitcher with a filter for much cheaper than $1/ bottle. You would be amazed at how much money you can save by foregoing dessert and brewing your own coffee. Check your cable bill, maybe you can cut back there.
After you have done your own due diligence, then you might be in need and can look to other individuals for guidance and perhaps a helping hand. But too many in this country are simply looking to “big brother” to help us with all of our shortcomings, regardless of who caused them. It’s time to look within to fix some (if not all) of our everyday problems.

We can do this by being more sensible. Who can support a smaller government while blowing their entire budget on Starbucks, needless trips to the mall, and other non-essentials? If you can’t save for yourself, don’t expect the government to do it for you.

Also, educate yourself. Read political and historical books and other publications. Browse the Internet and get your news from various sources. Basically, be well read and always skeptical towards what you are reading.

I’m all for freedom, and that’s why we need to either tailor our actions to line up with the expected consequences, or continue to face problems with basics such as filling up our gas tank or making our mortgage payment. Government intervention cannot be relied upon to “bail out” anyone who ignores the consequences of their actions.

Wow, I've changed since last year

I've been copy/pasting my older articles from RonPaul.com and have found out that, since reading Dr. Paul's marvelous Manifesto, I have really changed for the better. I was originally clueless about politics, only going by what I was taught (spoon fed) in the public school system. Then I decided that Republicans made more sense than Democrats. Finally I realized that neither party deserves any credibility or support. It was a pretty quick process and I'm glad I went through my "support your government!" phase earlier than most, and it's thankfully over and out of my system. Just reading some of the older articles and seeing I wrote things like "phase in the FairTax" sort of makes me sick, but at least I have learned my lesson. I'm going to leave the articles as I originally wrote them. I want to keep making sure I am 100% anti government and I need to see the contrast between myself in early and mid 2008 and then after I read Manifesto by Dr. Paul. I just wanted to clarify that, because I'm sure some will accuse me of being unfair or inconsistent, but it's more like my eyes were finally opened and now I can see through all the clutter and fog of the mainstream media, the politicians, and their paid loyalists. It's a wonderful thing.

How to fix America

October 9, 2008

Whether you think we are in a recession, depression, contraction, correction, or whatever, the key point is, our economy is headed for a complete and utter collapse in 5-7 years if we don’t act now. Bailing out companies that are built on worthless assets might stave off the trouble for a little while but it can’t fix the root problem. There are a whole host of things we should do as a country to restore our status as the best country on Earth.

1. Get back on a gold standard. This is essential to many of the other ideas, simply because it puts a limit on how much the government can spend (and waste). The government should be run like any other business, and at least attempt to spend within its means. Going to a gold standard would be a solid step in that direction.

2. Phase in the FairTax/phase out the IRS. There are several benefits to doing this. People traveling here from other countries (illegal aliens included) would contribute to our country. So would most, if not all, of the underground economy. Workers earning tips would contribute their fair share. Rich businessmen who shelter their money offshore would contribute. This is the best way to close all tax “loopholes” and to reduce the burden on honest taxpayers. It’s also very transparent, and allows savings and investment to grow faster. Plus it saves compliance costs and could allow us to eliminate the IRS and replace it with a smaller agency in charge of collecting the tax from retailers.

3. End the war on drugs. Clearly all the billions we are spending trying to decrease drug use is not working. People have a strong desire to use chemicals and substances to get high, buzzed, or just escape reality. The suppliers will always be at least a step ahead of regulation. Ending this war on drugs and legalizing them would clean up the streets and it could be treated similarly to cigarettes.

4. Privatize Social Security. People always get this one wrong, claiming that they don’t want to “gamble” with their life savings. The fact is, over a 30 year timeframe the markets have shown great returns. Anyone who can’t survive because their investments have gone down 15% in a year is too heavily invested in risky vehicles. As of now, there is no guarantee that you will get your money back if you pay into the system, so for younger generations, the better option would be simply investing their Social Security money in a simple savings account. The real “gambling” goes on when you allow the government to take your payments and use the money however the hell they see fit, which is what goes on now.

5. Eliminate the Department of Education. Our schools are a joke. We spend billions and the results are horrible. That’s what you get without competition. Funny how the government tries to break up monopolies in the private sector, but can’t survive without being one.
6. Privatize roads/jails/bridges. Our infrastructure is crumbling. We can’t afford to fix it, so maybe we should hand it over to private companies. There’s no sound reason the government builds our roads and bridges and there’s no reason they should manage the jails. All we get is waste.

7. End the Iraq/Afghanistan etc wars. Can someone tell me why we are in these areas, and who we are at war with? There will always be countries that don’t like us, but we can’t afford to just go to war with them for that reason. There’s no credible threat of another 9/11 style attack, and being at war with these countries might actually make us more vulnerable.

8. Get out of the UN. We don’t listen to them anyway, so what’s the point of belonging?

9. Eliminate the Federal Reserve. Clearly, free markets can set interest rates on their own. We don’t need rates set to protect us from inflation, deflation, recession, etc. by anyone except the market itself. When the Fed sets rates based on often faulty assumptions, it distorts the market and the economy as a whole.

10. Allow at least one other party besides Republican and Democrat at the debates. Setting the bar at 15% of the votes is insane. We need some fresh ideas and candidates to be heard. Without exposure, smaller candidates don’t have a chance.

11. Every citizen should be entitled to a report showing where their money goes. Any government spending over, say, $5m should be accounted for and listed on this report. Somewhere along the line we forgot that government works for us, that without OUR money they wouldn’t have any power at all. All the extra money the government would save by adopting the steps above would more than pay for such a report.

Questions for the Candidates

October 14, 2008

While more than 90% of Americans know who John McCain and Barack Obama are, third-party candidates like Chuck Baldwin, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr are virtually ignored by the mainstream media and prohibited from participating in the televised Presidential debates.

The current election is falling into the same old routine. There are two candidates with very few real differences from each other. They answer the same meaningless questions at the debates, each side calls the other a liar and hypocrite, there’s class warfare, fear is planted in everyone’s mind, and so on.

Would it really hurt us to ask some of the below mentioned questions of both candidates, along with some follow ups so they can clarify their answer? And then ask 2-4 smaller party candidates the same questions, and give them some national exposure as well?
These questions are the ones I would ask, based on my ideas of what we should do to fix our once great country.

1. What are some advantages / disadvantages of our current fiat money system?

2. Would you be in favor of a simpler, easier to understand tax code, where money is only taxed once?

3. Do you think we are getting our money’s worth in the war on drugs? What tangible benefits does this war on drugs have?

4. Which would be more beneficial to an individual, a properly managed mix of 401k, Roth IRA, CDs, bonds, money market funds, etc. or government run Social Security?

5. Are we getting fair value for the money we spend on education? Why are some schools falling apart? What benefits do teachers unions provide to our children?

6. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that our infrastructure is crumbling? If yes, why is this the case? Could private companies handle the roads, bridges, and jails without as much waste?

7. Are the wars we are involved in constitutional, and why exactly are we at war right now? To capture Osama Bin Laden? Secure our oil supplies? Promote our way of life?

8. Why are we in the United Nations and what purpose does a UN declaration serve if we ignore it?

9. Do you think free markets could set interest rates, or do we need the Fed to set these rates?
In your opinion, has the Fed played any negative role in the current economic situation?

10. Is it a good idea to let third-party candidates participate in the Presidential debates?

Can you think of other important questions that should be asked but are very unlikely to be asked in tomorrow’s televised debate?

"Change" or More of the Same?

October 21, 2008

Senators Obama and McCain have completed a series of “debates” and the election is fast approaching.

The buzzword of the campaigns has been “change”. Obama wants to enact change to help the middle class, McCain wants to change the Republican party back into what it once was, and both candidates vow to change the greed and excess on Wall Street and in Washington.

It’s troubling that McCain now supports a lot of socialistic policies, such as spending $300b of the $700b bailout package on rescuing homeowners, thus giving a reward for a horrible decision. But what about the topics neither candidate has addressed? What about the policies and programs that won’t be touched under either campaign? Such as…

The Federal Reserve. A growing number of voters are starting to recognize the perils of allowing the Fed to manipulate our currency. But there’s still a lot of work to make everyone aware of the dangers the Fed poses to our country.

There is a real threat to our very dollar as inflation continues to eat away at the average American’s purchasing power. Let’s let the market decide when it comes to money. If people want to trade in gold, we must allow them to. We need to take back the power of the people in this country.

Allowing the Fed to increase the money supply just saps more and more power from the millions of Americans who make our country what it is. We need a real debate on whether the Fed is necessary (it isn’t), and how its actions directly relate to our current economic crisis. (More on that here.)

War on Drugs. No one even mentions this anymore, it’s pretty much a given that your tax dollars are going to be spent housing “criminals” who get caught using and/or selling drugs, sometimes in laughably small quantities that are less dangerous than a pack of cigarettes.

Education. Competition is what drives people to do great things. It gives incentives to produce and go above and beyond the basics. Right now our broken system simply feeds more money to schools and teachers unions, many of which are underperforming. Let’s cut them out and become more efficient, which is what the market demands.

That’s just a partial list. We could also go in depth about restrictions on gambling, foreign policy, the IRS, and many other topics. The bottom line is that instead of looking at the differences between the candidates, we should be examining the similarities. It’s counterintuitive, but effective. By recognizing these similarities, we can get a clearer picture of where we are headed as a country: the status quo will remain intact and citizens will continue to see their choices and freedoms erode.

The bailout is another great example of how Americans don’t really have a choice in the upcoming election. No matter who gets elected, they both supported the bailout. So it’s now a given that we will simply save companies that make risky, bad decisions? Where does it all end? Do we bail out homeless people with government sponsored food? What about the precedent we are setting?

Unemployment is a topic that many Americans have misconceptions about. In most people’s minds, jobs going overseas is a horrible tragedy. Never mind the fact that most economists agree that jobs don’t belong to the employee but rather to the employer, who by cutting his costs will save his company, and ultimately society as a whole, valuable resources. There are always new jobs and opportunities.

In the 1800s, most Americans were employed simply to bring food to the tables of the country. With improved farming technology, that number is down to something close to 3/100 people. What did the other 60/100 people do when faced with a job loss? They now work maintaining websites, trading stocks, researching medicine, designing new fashions, testing video games, and on and on. So there is both a cost (lost job here in America) and a benefit (frees up valuable resources and saves money) to this situation. But both candidates only want to focus on the cost side, which is troubling.

A “reliance on foreign oil” is also discussed by both candidates. Don’t they realize that people are choosing to spend their income on this oil? The oil only flows here because there are dollars waiting for it, in other words, people are voting with their money that yes, they want oil. And it doesn’t matter where the oil comes from. People are demanding it, they want to power their cars and SUVs with oil and don’t mind sending money overseas if that’s what has to happen. There is no difference between a barrel of oil from Canada and one from Russia.

If we want to reduce the amount of money we send to these other countries (some of whom, apparently, “do not like us” which is just buttering us up for the next great American war), we should develop our own energy technologies and/or drill here. But the people (who comprise the market) have decided they will risk the energy efficiency and environmentalism for something more convenient.

And that’s fine. Eventually there’s a point where preferences will shift. If oil hits $250/barrel, people will shift to something else. We already saw it earlier this year when gasoline was around $4/gallon. Miles driven plummeted. People switched to less bulky vehicles, etc. So the market is the best way to get us “on” or “off” of oil (foreign and domestic oil are both the same product, a fact that escaped McCain in the last debate when he said oil from Canada was “fine” but foreign oil wasn’t. Tell that to someone who wants to fill up his tank but can’t because we restricted “foreign” oil).

Taxes are a hot topic that both candidates will go into. Unfortunately, neither is in favor of fixing the broken system. We might lower taxes on one group of people, but raise them on corporations (I always wanted to ask Obama who runs these “evil corporations” and if he thinks robots are in charge or do real live people benefit when corporations get tax cuts? CEOs are people, too. And they spread their capital around very efficiently. That’s how they got to the top, by making smart choices.)

But neither candidate wants to simplify our tax code. No one knows their true tax rate. It’s basically impossible to figure out how much of your salary you actually get to spend how you see fit, without the government reaching its hands into it. Gas taxes, “sin” taxes, income taxes, and the list is basically endless. Let’s look into something simpler that encourages people to make choices with their money.

Corporate Greed vs Political Greed

November 12, 2008

I honestly am worried about our country as are many others on this site and nationwide. The difference is that the masses are leading us towards more of the same if not worse, while the smart sensible opinions rooted in logic and sound theories that can be applied to real life situations are being ignored, just like all the fundamentals were ignored during the dotcom bubble.

The results of the current crisis will be much worse. The bad news is easy to find, just turn on your TV or read your newspaper’s letters section to see the bad logic flowing from Democrats, Republicans, old, young, black, white, poor, and rich. So many are worried about bankrupting Social Security due to Wall Street “greed,” high gas prices due to corporate “greed,” and on and on. Why don’t we ever mention the real American killer: political greed?

Otherwise smart and logical people get caught in the same trap every day. They are fed the same headlines and spin anywhere they turn. Exxon Mobile reports record profit! No one goes into the details of the situation, such as what was the price of oil? How much demand was there for the product? What was their profit margin? And you could ask hundreds of other questions, but no one even bothers to ask the easiest few. If one does somehow get asked, “greed” is blamed.

However, the fundamentals of economics cannot be altered. Only supply and demand can control prices, not some far-fetched notion of “greed.” So we are not only by and large ignoring the situation’s core lesson but also misunderstanding it whenever we do delve into it a little deeper.
What about politicians’ greed? They run up huge expense accounts, build up their pensions, furnish lavish offices, wear expensive suits and ties (sort of like Palin, right?!), and some (probably more than we suspect) outright steal money to hand it to friends and family in the form of cushy jobs protected by the government run monopoly.

Who pays for this? The taxpayers, of course, else they will be rounded up by the IRS and jailed, so that other taxpayers can then fund their existence.

What is a better example of greed: A company selling its product for a market price, or a politician taking money that he has no real claim to other than “pay up or else” and doling it out as he sees fit?

One option rewards hard work, good ideas, and smart planning, while the other rewards knowing someone higher up, criminal activity, or even sexual favors in some cases. There is a glaring double standard going on right under our noses. Yet we continuously blame the corporations instead of the real culprit, which in turn emboldens the real culprit to ever larger and more glaring offenses.

The key thing to realize is that private individuals or groups, corporations, and small businesses are risking their own capital to serve others. This is the only way a company or individual can make money under a real free market system with no government intervention. You must bring to market something that serves your fellow man, something he finds worthy of allocating some of his scarce capital to so that you might be able to sustain yourself.

If these private individuals fail, which many of them do, they must find other work and might suffer. But they are taking the risk because the payoff can be so great, not only for them individually but for society as a whole.

Government, meanwhile, is risking our capital, without our consent (I never consented to any bailout), even if we oppose what they are doing with it.

Notice there are two things at play here.

They are risking our capital as they see fit, which is immoral, wrong, and outright stealing.

Two, they are doing it even as there is vocal opposition to their plans.

Note that the plans don’t really matter, stealing the money in the first place is wrong, but that just makes it all the worse. You wouldn’t steal a $20 bill from a man if he only had $20 to eat, so why would we steal $20 from someone as a “reward” for being a millionaire?

Stealing is wrong, period. No matter what you are using the money for, and no matter how much wealth the individual or corporation has accumulated.

The government could start small and get our budget balanced, or even run a slight surplus. That would at least stop the bleeding for a bit while we straighten things out. One way to do that would be to bring in more money while holding spending steady. Instead of keeping gambling and marijuana illegal, we could quite easily pass a bill to legalize and tax both, bringing in billions.
Please note that we can also end the warfare state (or at least greatly reduce it) and/or cut spending by slashing the IRS, dept of education, etc. But a small step would be to bring the budget into balance using some of those means.

Again, we see the stark contrast between corporations and politicians. Any corporation with huge debt loads and questionable ability to pay either has to slash costs or increase revenue to stay viable.

A good example is SiriusXM radio. Their stock is in the 25-50 cent range and yet they are in more and more cars and homes every day. The reason is they might not survive long term, and they are drowning in debt.

On the other hand, the government brings in $100b and wants to spend $300b or more, so we will never get out of the hole as long as this is allowed to continue. The reason being that government can simply print up more money to use for their purposes while devaluing our hard earned funds, or they can simply borrow more (at least for now).

Has the federal government become “too big to fail?” It seems like it has, at least to most people. But just like AIG was not in truth too big to fail, there really is no such limit on the size of an entity that determines its success or failure.

Sadly, we are about to find out what happens when a federal government really isn’t too big to fail, only too big to wipe out some or all of the gains of the past 250 years in human history.
I think if even 25% of America could pick up on some of these points, act on them, and then pass along the message, we would go a long long way to cleaning up Washington for real and getting our nation back on track.

Just Say NO To Obamacare

By Mike Cuneo (written July 25, 2009)

With all the "debate" going on right now over the details of what is likely to become socialized healthcare, the free market perspective championed by Ron Paul has gone largely unnoticed, as well as the root cause of the significant problems Americans face today regarding healthcare. This article attempts to give an overview of the problem, how we got here, and what we can do as freedom loving people to fix the problem and avoid seceding even more control, power, and money to the fatcats in Washington DC.

Overview of the "Healthcare problem" in America

It's funny, with all the so-called debate going on in Washington, I haven't heard one doctor, lawyer, politician, or news anchor define "healthcare." Is it free medicine for cancer patients? Some Neosporin to a child who falls in the park? Glasses and contacts for college students? Comprehensive coverage for every health-related problem every American faces, including emergencies? Emergency room-only coverage? Mandatory wellness checkups? And so on. No one has yet to define healthcare, and there certainly isn't a consensus on what "healthcare" actually means when we are discussing this problem. So how can we fix a problem we haven't diagnosed? That's my first problem with this "debate" on healthcare. There are many more, as you will find out if you keep reading. What you have heard on the news or read in the (propaganda spewing) newspapers is that millions of Americans are uninsured. I've heard numbers as low as 20 million up to 48 million today from someone on Fox News. This is all just more of the propaganda, lies, and distortions that have become all too familiar in Washington. No one bothers to look into the actual number of people without health insurance. And again, how are we defining health insurance? I know someone who has a basic plan that works fine for him, while my grandparents have more coverage as they are in their 80s. So first we would have to get a definition of health insurance, which hasn't been done, and then an accurate count of those uninsured. Neither has been accomplished to my knowledge. So I just assume that the politicians are lying or bending the truth at best to get more power, which usually yields good results for me because following that plan of skepticism towards Washington has been dead on again and again and again. But even if we do somehow define health insurance and get an accurate count on the number of uninsured, all that work would have been for nothing. Because it ignores the people who could have insurance, just choose not to. It also ignores people who rely on friends and family for basic medical help and just pay out of pocket for things like glasses and dental care. So any numbers coming out of Washington DC are, as usual, not only inaccurate but largely irrelevant to the real problem. Another thing you will hear a lot of is people harping on the "big insurance companies" who rack up "huge profits" as "costs soar." These healthcare suits smoke fat cigars all day while your dying mother with cancer is denied coverage because of the entity known as a "preexisting condition." If you read the paragraph above you will see why this is just another game to get more support for socializing our medicine. But the whole preexisting condition line of argument ignores the fact that it is more expensive to treat someone who is already sick, be it from years of smoking or just bad luck (genes). Regardless, there is no way around the fact that yes, it does cost more to insure someone with terminal cancer as opposed to someone young and healthy. Just like there is no way around the fact that we all must eat and drink water to survive, and there is also no way around the laws of supply and demand, although the pols in Washington think they can skirt them from time to time. Someone must pay to insure the person or group with a preexisting condition. This whole national healthcare premise masks this cost, and just transfers it to a large group of healthy people. Everyone totally ignores that the cost must be paid or no coverage can be rendered. It's very similar to the moaning about companies who "charge $50 for a $2 pill." Well, not only are they charging for the pill itself, but also the other 7 or 8 pills that went to the FDA and were deemed too dangerous so they had to be scrapped. Also all the other drugs and treatments that were tried but never made it to the FDA for review. All that research and development must be accounted for, yet the talking heads on TV love to ignore it and just paint the picture of a rich CEO living the high life while you suffer. Give me a break.

How We Got Here

If you've been paying any attention or have read my previous articles, you already know the answer. Government is to blame for this current situation. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. (Hint: if there is a massive problem in our country, or anywhere in the world really, you can guess who caused it: Government. And you would be right almost 100% of the time.) But how did the government cause this problem, you might ask? And if it was indeed government, can't we just blame George Bush and move on to hope and change and free medicine already? Glad you asked. Government caused, and continues to exarcebate, the healthcare problem on several fronts. First of all, they have massive rules and regulations regarding who can and can't practice medicine. So this limits competition. A "public option" won't fix this because people will still be shut out of offering help and medical care without being licensed or registered with the state. So I can't go next door and see my neighbor who might be able to fix my earache without one of us (or both) being subject to taxes, lawsuits, or other nonsense. So most people don't bother offering up advice or real help because there is such a high cost and risk that you can be penalized by the government who claims to be doing it "for our own good." All drugs must be cleared by the FDA which is your standard government racket that is bloated, inefficient, and costly. This causes delays and errors that cost lives. There are rules and regulations and taxes that stipulate who can and can't offer and receive health care. The law, which is run by a separate government racket (courts and judges and police etc), also contriutes. Why would anyone risk a lawsuit where they have to waste time and effort defending themselves and then not get reinbursed for their time and lost productivity? Government laws are what cause this. You can't recoup 100% of your lost time and money if someone sues you and they lose. So it tilts things in favor of people who just sue and hope to catch a crooked judge or just a bad defense lawyer, because they have very little to lose by just suing over and over and trying to gain. The president, congress, and other government employees are so skeptical of their own plan that they won't even take the first step and enroll themselves and their families in the very plan they are concocting for us! How about we give the plan a trial run, and only the politicians and government employees must be in the plan for, say, 5 years, just to see how it goes. Wouldn't that be amazing? The reality is that they will likely never enroll in the plan and we will be stuck with it. And finally the government inflates our money and prints/creates out of thin air all sorts of new currency, which is a huge factor in costs going up, not just in healthcare but in all aspects of life. There are other ways the government interferes but these are a few of the main ones that are not getting adequate coverage in the papers or on TV, which is why I've turned to the internet for most of my news (I watch MSNBC and CNBC for market quotes and the comedy that insues every time Steve Liesman opens his mouth.)

What Freedom Loving People Can (And Should) Do To Fix The Problem First of all we must say no before it's too late, but in reality it probably already is too late to stop this train labeled "health reform" from leaving the station. What can we do then? Well, we can continue the fight for freedom by supporting people like Ron Paul, and spreading the word to as many people as possible about the evils of government run healthcare (and everything else they run). We can help ourselves and others by exercising and taking our health into our own hands. Encourage a friend or family member to stop smoking. Eat healthier. Eat less. Voice your opposition to government sponsored health care whenever and wherever you can. Print this article and pass it around to everyone you see. Hell, tell them you wrote it, I don't really care. Just get the message out that we cannot afford more government red tape and control over our lives. We must join Ron Paul and resist these efforts. We must also take matters into our own hands as much as possible and be healthy on our own, because God knows what will happen when we must turn to Uncle Sam when our health is in danger.