I just do not understand how the mainstream GOP Foreign Policy is acceptable to anybody. Rick Santorum was speaking on Meet The Press, about Iran and how to deal with it. No wonder our world is such a mess.
First he discusses his legislation which literally took American Dollars, and paid for the Pro Democracy Iran movement to OVERTHROW the current regime. Explain to me how this in its self isn’t an Act of War?
Second, his plan is to prevent war by going to war? By bombing them strategically and destroying their capabilities of creating a nuclear weapon. The only problem is that Iran is a member of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, has inspections being done, and isn’t even close to having a bomb, yet we should go to war, risking thousands to millions of lives and what is left of the wealth of our country to stop them?
src=”http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/271557391″ bgcolor=”#FFFFFF” flashVars=”videoId=1359013156001&linkBaseURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Farticles%2F2012%2F01%2F01%2Frick-santorum-ron-paul-and-more-sunday-talk.html&playerId=271557391&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&domain=embed&autoStart=false&” base=”http://admin.brightcove.com” name=”flashObj” width=”486″ height=”412″ seamlesstabbing=”false” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” swLiveConnect=”true” pluginspage=”http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash”>
Wake up America, get your country back.
I am sick of seeing the news of these Marxist students protesting against the man. They talk about how they are the 99%, and speak with evil violent rhetoric about the things that made this country great, and want more of the policies that have killed the American Dream.
Here is a simple explanation as to why this country is broken, and how to fix it. It all starts with the Federal Reserve, and it’s banking policies. For some reason, liberal thinkers believe lower prices are bad, and need to be fought tooth and nail. Prices like the goods us 99% purchase fall as better productivity gains are made. Consider the price of a plasma TV, there are few on sale for under $400 dollars for black Friday, just ten years ago, I remember 5 grand. Every American is ecstatic they can actually afford to have one or a few of these great items in their home, yet liberal thinkers and those on Occupy Wallstreet say no way, we need inflation targeting of 2% or more, prices have fallen for the last few years (probably because the 99% can’t afford higher prices) yet they think this is great.
Why is inflation so evil for the 99% and so beneficial to the so called one percent, simple, it is the 99% that has no pricing power in this economy. A business can simply raise prices by 2% or 3% percent to cover the cost increases caused by inflation, that doesn’t hurt them, they just pass it along.
The Banksters, are on the receiving end of this printed money, hey someone has to get the difference in what was destroyed, in this case, two percent of the currency of the world, that’s right they get the delta. Why, because they with help of the Federal Reserve, are the ones creating money out of thin air, with the policies of this government.
Let’s see how Grandma is doing, well the last couple of years gas, food, and other key expenses have increased in cost, does anyone remember $3.30 a gallon for gas as normal? Unfortunately grandma has no pricing power as mentioned above, the Fed has made her CD pay .000001 % for all those years of hard work and saving, and her SSI is indexed to the fake government inflation stats that guarantees lower payouts.
Joe the employee, well he has not gotten a raise in the last 10 years, it is tough to watch your raise never come and gas prices rise.
Now let’s step back and imagine a world with an honest currency, that didn’t debase, it actually just held it’s value. Prices would naturally be going down on items we use.
Joe the employee, has not gotten a raise in ten years still, however every item he purchases costs less, so Joe doesn’t need a raise, because the money he is paid in has gained in value for him.
Grandma, well her CD is paying much better since banks wouldn’t be able to print money, they would actually have to pay those who let them use it. Her SSI benefit stays the same every year, and every year she actually buys more with it than she could of the year before.
Wow, such an easy solution, end the fed, and end unsound money, wake up Occupy, you advocate the enemy of the people.
I have been considering ways to get this country back on track, and I have come up the “the libertarian slippery slope”. The idea is that as a Libertarian leaning person, I generally think of things in idealist terms. I have a hard time thinking of compromises that are possible with government. It is easy to be too idealistic with things, such as health care reform. My world would have free markets unmolested by the hands of government. However how would ever get from the social engineered system we have now, to that level of freedom.
I think we need to adopt a slippery slope concept for any idea. Our
slippery slope needs open doors and lead to more and more freedom from government. How we can do this? Here is my idea, we need to accept incremental wins towards freedom. Every time we pass a new law or regulation, it needs to move us along closer to being independent.
Circle back to health care. How do we inject this slippery slope idea into it, we need to move towards taking back our freedom? The first step is opening up the availability of access to different policy choices, and hand the keys back to a consumer. Allowing to shop across state lines, while giving tax credits for purchasing your own insurance, and giving individuals a subsidy of tax dollars into a health savings account.
Now most purists like myself would say, no way government should not be involved, we put our foot down, and just vote no because it is not constitutional. Giving tax subsidies to others to fund their health savings accounts, is Socialism. Though I agree with that premise, it forces us into an all or nothing mode, while progressives are always glad to take small wins, knowing their slippery slope will lead to more government intervention. As I see it, it would be constitutional in the sense that we have reduced the level government is involved in our system, opening the door for its eventual exit. This creates the necessary condition for freedom, and eventual free market, since subsidies can simply be rolled back, now that the market is functioning closer to how it would under free market conditions. If we were to take small wins, and begin creating the conditions of freedom, chunk by chunk, one day we may actually have our country back.
We simply need a Libertarian Slippery Slope Policy
There is only one man to be trusted with our country, Ron Paul, and he has put out a new Ad that really sums it all up, and is amazing.
Every day I watch Ben talking out his ass, speaking about ways he will lubricate the economy with more credit easing. What he has done instead is kill the middle class. For some reason conservatives hate the idea of Dictatorships, Fascism, Communism, and oh ya, Socialism, yet when it comes to having the free market setting interest rates for the free world, we have a dictator, and the Republicans rally behind him.
The biggest problem I see as I read comments everywhere, is the lack of understanding of what Ben’s policies are giving us. Let’s start with the simple assumption that Government is always wrong, and to find the solution, let’s consider the opposite of what is happening. This is usually the easiest way to finding a practical solution to most problems created by Government.
The number one complaint I hear from people is that the Middle Class Wages are not keeping up with prices. This is true, and over time if prices rise at 5% and wages grow at 3%, the truth is, you didn’t really get a raise at all. Your 3% actually lost you 2% of your income that year. In order to consider it a raise, it would have to be over the real inflation level. Imagine I want my career to grow, I would have to ask the boss for a raise every single year for a raise more than inflation, at some point my luck will run out, I won’t get my raise. This means each year I am highly likely to lose money every year I work. Well this has a very chilling affect on the middle class. This is what is happening to the middle class on a grand scale. Every year the treadmill we all walk on is moving, and our raise just never is enough, eventually the treadmill wins, you can’t watch it forever.
What would the opposite of this policy be, deflation. This sends shivers down old Ben’s spine. The world may end is what we hear. First of all what causes deflation, there are two forces at play, the first is the good type, and that is productivity gains. Consider a plasma tv once cost 5000 dollars, now it only costs 500. This is because of gains in productivity, this is a very good thing. Another example would be a farm, what once took thousands of men months in a field, can be done by machines at a fraction of the time and cost. The second type of deflation which is bad, and what Ben worries about is credit deflation. This is entirely different. Credit deflation comes because Ben blew a massive credit bubble, and as Fractional Reserve Banking Fails, as it always does because it is a Ponzi scheme, it destroys money at an exponential rate. We can get into this another post.
Now consider what the good deflation would be like for our workers and middle class. Falling prices would mean that I never need to ask for a raise. Prices would fall relative to my income, and that would be the same as me actually getting a raise. Over time, prices are much lower than what I make, this gives me buying power, this creates the middle class of our country. We need to get back to a Money Standard where it can’t be printed out of thin air. Inflation is a wealth transfer to those who can get a return greater than inflation, while the average working class has no chance. We need Fire BEN, and bring back free market principles to our monetary policy. We need deflation not inflation as the Academic idiots will have you think.
How much debt is too much debt? We are beginning to find out. The dollar has been collapsing recently. Today Gold and Silver are shooting through the roof. As the debate over government shutting down heats up, many will point to these events as proof of what will happen if government shuts down. This is merely kicking the can down the road. The dollar is collapsing, and whether it happens fast or continues its slide into irrelevant slowly, the end game is the same. We need to jump on this ASAP, and cut the debt fast. The US will not lead if it has no money.
Liberal policies and conservative war mongering has come home to roost, spending what you don’t have by definition comes to an end. I am not an expert, but it doesn’t take an expert to open your eyes, and realize things we buy everyday cost far more than any raise any of us have received the last 10 years.
People need to realize a dollar is only worth what it buys, and as the Fed prints and Government spends, our savings is being destroyed. Once the real wealth is wiped out, just like in a household, the standard of living will drop next. We need to wake up quick and stop this madness.
I am watching and laughing to myself at the thought of a Government shutdown. CNN was saying that if government shuts down, national parks will have to close. Now maybe some parks are different than I am thinking, but why do we need government to keep a park open? Are they serious? Do they really think we are only able to see the Grand Canyon because government opens that gate? The gate is the only thing that makes them relevant at all, take away the gate, and you just removed every reason to have a government running a park.
Government Waste
I have a park near me in which you can hike up a mountain, it is really nice. It is raw nature, with very little improvements from any human, however at the entrance of it, I have to pay 5 dollars to a Park Ranger, who collects money to fund this very expensive building guarding the forest. It serves no purpose, nor does the Park Ranger. I literally am paying him for nothing. If this is what will be shut down, I say bring it on.
Recently John Stossel aired a special show about freeloaders. Now, I am a huge fan of Stossel and consider myself a fellow Libertarian as well. During his segment he brought up the freeloaders who take advantage of the program www.youwalkaway.com where individuals strategically default. Stossel calls this “immoral” and calls those doing it “freeloaders”. Normally I agree with John, however he has gone back to his liberal ways worrying about the greater good and moral obligations to society.
Lets consider what obligations a home owner has, morally. When a mortgage is signed, it is a contract. Now to a libertarian, a contract is sacred and crucial to property rights. By agreeing to a contract, two parties agree to terms. Now consider a home mortgage contract, basically the buyer of the home agrees to paying back the loan or risk damaging his/her credit and potentially having a deficiency judgment placed against them in the event of defaulting. They also agree that if they default, there is a formal process that will be adhered to and eventually they will vacate the property. Nowhere in this agreement, is there any place that says “you have a moral obligation to pay as a debt slave for life” nor does the contract state “you must pay in order to keep the neighborhoods value from falling”.
Stossel notes that there is a moral claim on society to be a debt slave and to pay a mortgage regardless of how poor of an investment it could be. This is liberal hogwash. A home owner is only expected to do what is morally best for themselves and their family. Ayn Rand would never expect a home owner who has lost 150k in a losing bet, to not walk away. Why would an individual not have a greater moral obligation to their best interest, not societies? A real libertarian view would be to look at this as any other business decision and a SWOT (Strength Weakness Opportunities Threats) analysis would be done. Consider if a business opened a new location, purchasing the land and building a property. If it threatened to be a very bad long term investment, wouldn’t the business simply analyze the situation and make a smart decision?
The moral hazard in this situation is the Lender and Investor. Lets consider a scenario; assume we have an investor who is willing to give $1,000 dollars to a lender. The investor must perform the due diligence to ensure the investment they are making matches the return they expect. Now the lender is responsible for making a loan that meets the investors guidelines. They must morally make an honest loan that meets the investors criteria. So then finally we have a borrower, who must meet the criteria of the investor who will be risking their capital.
So finally, let’s assume the investor says, “you can lend my $1,000 dollars to anyone you want, I am unconcerned about my investment”. So the lender finds a borrower, who just so happens to be highly addicted to crack. The lender warns this “highly addicted to crack” individual that if they do not repay this loan, their credit will be negatively impacted. The lender also agrees to lend the entire $1,000 dollars at a very low interest rate of 6%. Even better is the investor agrees to this term in addition to the crack user and the lender both agreeing. So not much time goes by and the crack user defaults. Is this a shock? No; we expected it. This should never happen in the real world, but is an example that helps to support my conclusion, where the real “moral” hazard is found.
The problem with the scenario above is that the investor did not perform the due dilegence. In a free market driven society that would never happen. Investors would never risk so much money on very risky loans. The real moral problem however, is that investor is the US taxpayer. However, this “true” investor has no say in the risk level. It is Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac as well as other federal loan programs that determine the risk tolerance they will purchase. They have a moral obligation to defend the investors assets. The real problem here is that those agencies are quasi government agencies. The investor that funds them is the taxpayer who have no choice but to say “yes” to it’s terms of lending. A GSE can simply demand more from taxpayers and the Federal Reserve, never worrying about the quality of the investment or borrower because it is not their money at risk.
In conclusion, homeowners walking away represent a completely logical approach. Rather than being a debt slave for life, they choose a wise business decision to cut their losses and follow the contract for which they agreed. Sorry John, I love your work and would work for you in a heartbeat, but I think you missed this one by a bit.
