Romney with Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax

There was a time in which Mitt Romney ran for the Republican party nominee for President of the United States of America. During some of this time during the campaign there was one narrative taken against Mitt Romney about him showing his tax returns. In showing these tax returns they would see where he got his money, since Romney is said to be a wealthy person, and also to see how much of his money was taken by the federal government or state governments and at what rate he was taxed by these agencies.

It was found that Mitt Romney had no income for an income tax to apply to, but he did have a capital gains for a capital gains tax to apply. These are both taxes, but they are not one and the same type of taxes. Like Baltimore and Annapolis are in the state of Maryland & Baltimore and Annapolis are different from one another, so too are Income and Capital Gains both Taxes, Income and Capital Gains are different from one another. Income Taxes and Capital Gains Taxes are categorically different from one another. They specifically apply to things that meet certain criterion, and these criterion differentiate on where they apply and where they do not apply. It would be similar to how you have a fork and a spoon, and they come in a set of silverware. They are both equal in being silverware, but the fork is not the spoon and the spoon is not the fork, but silverware fork and silverware spoon are silverware.

So what is the problem? Here is one article talking about the difference from an economist. Here is a reply, in some sense, to the first article.

The first point, and most important point, which the Supreme Court has said itself, which is that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The first article points out the difference between an income tax and a capital gains tax. So these are different powers of destruction being applied to two different sub groups.

“What is a capital gain, and how can we distinguish it from ordinary income? The answer seems simple. If you have a job, the money you are paid for your work is ordinary income. If you buy an asset at one time and sell it later for a higher price, the profit you made from holding it is a capital gain.”

These are two different types of actions that individuals have with one another. One person works for another and gets paid for this work and gets taxed for their work. Another person sells a property for more than it was previously worth and makes a profit that is taxed. So we notice two different types of activity and how the government is taxing these activities. What is noticed is that those people who partake in the activity of capital gains get taxed at a percentage of 15%, and those who partake in the activity of income activity are getting taxed at a percentage of 35%.

Now some of the issues that people had were that Mitt Romney did not pay the income tax rate, but he payed the capital gains tax rate. One of these rates was lower than the other. This does not exactly appear to be what people were upset itself, since it appeared that people were upset about the first but that Mitt Romney is also a wealthy person who is considered to be part of the 1%. It was both of these conditions that made it so that people looked down upon Romney for not being forced to give up 35% of his property by being forced to give up 15% of his property, based on his activities with other people. Mitt Romney followed the law by paying the taxes his taxes based on his activities, which were not in the category of income but in the category of capital gains, even though either which way he would have been taxed. He just didn’t have to be taxed in one way over another, in which one happened to be less than another.

Now let me ask you, does it appear to be wrong that certain activities should be taxed less than other activities? For example, say that we have someone who partakes in activities which harm 49 people out of 50 people, and we have someone who partakes in activities which harm 1 person out of 50 people. Which activity, if both of these activities are legal, would you think one should be taxed more than another? Remember, the ability to tax some activity is the ability to destroy that activity.

The question becomes which activity do we want to be taxed, and how much do we want to tax that activity? Either income has a higher tax rate than capital gains, or income has a lower tax rate than capital gains, or income tax rate is equal to capital gains. If income has higher rate than capital gains, then government is giving less incentive for income activities. If income has a lower tax rate than capital rates, then government is giving more incentive for income activities. If income tax rate is equal to capital gains, then government is giving equal incentive for both activities Thus, either government is giving less incentive for income activities, or government is given more incentive for income activities, or government is giving equal incentive for both activities.

The question becomes, which tax bracket do you want to destroy? Do you want to destroy the activity of capital gains or income? When people ask for a tax increase, they want to destroy people or prevent the activities of people. So those people who are considered to be wealthy are people we want to destroy by making them give up more of their property. But this also holds with those people who are not wealthy.

Now if we want to treat people equally, give them all the same shot, have the same rules apply, then make them equal in their activities. A person gets a shot at either income activity or capital gains activity. Not everyone is built for income activity or capital gains activity. You might not be good at a 9-5 job for 5 days a week in a year. You might not like that job, and not just good at that type of activity. Maybe you are better at having some property and being able to sell it for more than you obtained it for. People have different talents, and so some people are more aligned with either one or the other, and some people are of both sides. We would be telling those who are better at capital gains activity that we don’t like that and we think they should be punished for their ability (if not outright luck). Same would hold with those who do income activities.

Slavery And Involuntary Servitude in America

It is a common conception in the US that slavery is outlawed in the US with the passing of the 13th amendment. It was, after all, what the Civil War and Republicans were supposedly fighting over. But there is something interesting that comes about when we look at the 13th amendment and the 5th amendment.

The 13th Amendment says:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The 5th Amendment says:

No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

It should be clear that if due processes of law is being applied to you, then the outcome of it could be of you become a slave, or involuntary servant, of the federal government. But this would also, by the  14th amendments application, hold with the states. Thus, both the federal government and state governments still allow for slavery or involuntary servitude, but this applies only to the class of people who were convicted under due process of law. This means that those people in jails are the slaves or servants of the government. You do what the government tells you, when the government tells you,  and how the government tells you. The government is now their master and they are now the governments slave or servant.

Those shows on MSNBC about what happens in some jails in the US, those prisoner guards are looking after and keeping in line the slaves of either the Federal governments slaves or servants or the State governments slaves or servants. The US has also risen to one of the countries with the most prisoners, i.e. slaves, in the world. We even, it appears, have more slaves than a communist nation like China or former communist nation like Russia.

Now say what you want, it is interesting whether you look at it as the people in jail, i.e. prisoners, are slaves/servants of the government or if you look at it as the people in jail, i.e. prisoners, are slaves/servants of the American people. Since it is “We the People” who run the government or are in charge of the government, then those are our slaves or servants. Which of these stands out more, that American Citizens become property of the government or the American Citizens become slaves of the People, or even property of the People?

Slavery, or serfdom, have not left America. But what is interesting is how some private corporations have moved in to taking care of the slaves of the federal or state governments, or taking care of the People’s slaves or property. The American government, or state government, pay private corporations to take care of their private property, which happen to be other human beings. What is even more interesting is that the American government happens to turn more black people into slaves than they do white people, at least based on the racial make up of jails in the US. So the 13th amendment gave “private citizens” slaves freedom, and yet the Federal government was still in the business of slavery and helped to make those who are decedents of the freed slaves to become slaves of the government instead of another private citizen.

 

 

Don’t Sleep on Barry O!

Ever wonder what happened during Obama’s college years? Well, a tape has surfaced. It appears that he was still a person of inclusiveness, but he happened to mess up the rotation. Take a look and you’ll see what I mean about his inclusiveness and his messing up the rotation. So “Don’t Sleep on Barry O!”.

Ron Paul’s Farwell Address to Congress

Here’s a transcript of the speech.

Farewell to Congress

This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor.  At the end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period.  My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today:  promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.

It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.

To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.

The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.

 

How Much Did I Accomplish?

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little.  No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness.  In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues.  Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.

All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer.  A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going.  One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and  corporate elite.  And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues.   As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.

The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.

The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”

Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.

I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits.  If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell.  Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.

 

Authoritarianism vs. Liberty

If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty.  There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.

During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible.  Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.

I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.

Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth.  In our early history we were very much aware of this.  But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax.  The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.

They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.

Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved  for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies.

But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady.  It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.

The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected.  As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.

 

The Age of Redistribution

This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone.  That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts.

The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market.  It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.

The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail.  We have ended up with a system that doesn’t produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.

If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time.  Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.

 

We Need an Intellectual Awakening

Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law.  A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.

If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties.  Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.

This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled.  Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy.  Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely—that is until it too fails.  There’s a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option.  The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be pretty.

The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism.  And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future.  The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.

If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored.  By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.

Everyone claims support for freedom.  But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others.  Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited.  These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.

 

No More ‘isms’

The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.”  The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less.  Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.

Just this recognition—especially if we move in this direction—increases optimism which in itself is beneficial.  The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people.

But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.

Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the  one that we have  had for the  last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers.  We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause.

It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself.  Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer.  The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.

After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders.  In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed.  Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today’s possible outcome.  The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.

 

Dependency on Government Largesse

Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need.  Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:

  • Undeclared wars are commonplace.
  • Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
  • The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
  • Debt is growing exponentially.
  • The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.
  • Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
  • The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.
  • It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
  • Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
  • Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”
  • Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.
  • Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.
  • Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.

 

Questions

Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:

  • Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
  • Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
  • Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
  • Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
  • Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York?  Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
  • Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
  • Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
  • Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
  • Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?
  • Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
  • Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
  • Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
  • Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
  • Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
  • Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
  • Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
  • Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
  • Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
  • Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
  • Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
  • Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.
  • Why is it is claimed that if people won’t  or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
  • Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
  • Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
  • Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?
  • Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
  • Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
  • Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.
  • Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and  foreign policy?
  • Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
  • Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
  • Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration?   Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse these attitudes.  The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems.  Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.

 

Trust Yourself, Not the Government

Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves.  Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades.  The blame is shared by both political parties.  Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop.  Without this first step, solutions are impossible.

Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity.  The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.

We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.

Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced.  Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats.  This replaces the confidence in a free society.  Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they,   armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production.  This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty.  It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.

It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.

 

Economic Ignorance

Economic ignorance is commonplace.  Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals.  Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber.

Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.

Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty.  This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge.  But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.  Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions.  The results are always negative.

The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems.  Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world.  Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal.  The good results sought never materialize.  The new problems created require even more government force as a solution.  The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.

This is the same fundamental reason our government  uses force  for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.

It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order.  Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.

 

No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence

Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society.  Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream.  We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000.  Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.

Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.

We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.

 

The Proliferation of Federal Crimes

The Constitution established four federal crimes.  Today the experts can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books—they number into the thousands.  No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system—especially the tax code.  Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China.  I don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws.  Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems.

The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year.  When will the people start shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.

 

Achieving Liberty

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force.  If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed.  To achieve it, more than lip service is required.

Two choices are available.

  1. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective.  The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty.  Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
  2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations.  Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer.  This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages.  Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible.  It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously.  Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that:  “power corrupts.”

Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government.  Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression.  There’s no in-between.  Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.

Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.

The results are not good.  As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed.  The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system.  It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.

 

The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis

Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis.  It’s the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power.  Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.

Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2.  There is no other choice.  Claiming there is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a “touch of pregnancy.”  It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise.  What we see today is a result of that type of thinking.  And the results speak for themselves.

 

A Culture of Violence

American now suffers from a culture of violence.  It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will.

Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate.  Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt.  It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.”  They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.”  The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority.  Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.

This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to “do good,” as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified.  This is similar to what we were once told that:  “destroying a village to save a village” was justified.  It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was “worth it” to achieve the “good” we brought to the Iraqi people.  And look at the mess that Iraq is in today.

Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms.  The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.

First, we recognize that individuals shouldn’t initiate violence, then we give the authority to government.   Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual’s “right” to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority.  If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.

When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority.  It’s then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs.  As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase—as are already occurring— violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs.  They will not wait for a government rescue program.

When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer   just can’t be helped.

When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs.  All moral standards become relative.  Whether it’s bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it’s all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth.  Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress.

Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is all about.

Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government.  It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.

To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected.  Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.

 

Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People

Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed.  The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people.  The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.

Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government.  The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty.  The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt.  The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.

If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.

If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.

It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time.  This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due.  This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.

But that illusion is now ending.  Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.

Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.

The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.

Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.

I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.

Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek.  Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.

If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents.

Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of  personal achievement.

Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions.  The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior.  Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims.

 

Conclusion                                                                                                                                                    

What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.               

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.                                                         

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.                                        

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.                                               

 5. World government taking over  local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking,  a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.

Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.                                                     

What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression.  The retort to such a suggestion is always:  it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.

The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.

What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions.  It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.

No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior.  Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny.  This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.

The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried.  The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war.  The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time.  It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.

Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.

What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.

The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people.  Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them.  Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.

Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”  John Adams concurred:  “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.

A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society.  All great religions endorse the Golden Rule.  The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials.  They cannot be exempt.

The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.

The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow.  This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society.  If we can achieve this, then the government will change.

It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.

Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.

The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome.  Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare.  Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies.  These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism.  Both views ought to be rejected.

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.”  The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.

Petition for Texas to Secede from United States

Here is an interesting petition to the White House.

The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.

The petition was started on November 9th, 2012, and as of November 12th, 2012, it has 48,335 signatures. Petitions have the necessary requirement to meet the signature threshold, which is 25,000 signatures as of when the petition was created. The signature threshold had to have been met by December 9th, 2012 to have a response from the White House. There would be some policy study done by the White House into the consequences of accepting the proposal of the petition.

Whatever anyone thinks of this petition, whether it is right or wrong, has no bearing on an analysis of the situation.

We already know what happened the last time a state, or some states, tried to secede from the Union, or the United States. This was known as the Confederacy, or the Confederate States of America. This ended up being known as the Civil War, and the Confederacy ended up losing. This was a huge costly war, both economically, socially, and numerical causalities. It also tore into the American psyche, in some sense. So we have at least one example of when multiple states seceded from the Union. They happened to build their own Confederacy of States like one before founding of new government with US Constitution, i.e. Articles of Confederation.

What is interesting is that Texas was part of those states that seceded from the Union in 1860 to join the Confederate States of America. So Texas has a previous history of seceding from the Union. Texas also seceded from the Mexico, or revolted against the Mexican government. After Texas won its freedom from Mexico, they were an independent nation and eventually did join the Union or the United States of America, and later seceded to join the Confederate States of America.

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union, and shortly thereafter, some other states seceded from the Union. Now what is interesting is that the first state to secede from the Union was also the first state that “fired the first shot” to start the Civil War. History supposedly has it that the first state to secede from the Union started the Civil War. But let us assume that it is true that Texas does secede from the Union, then would it be true that it would be violent?

First, this brings up an interesting question about the state militia. The state militia responds to the orders of the Governor of the state, which happens to be Rick Perry. But, the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief, and so can take control of the state militia, i.e. national guard. This brings up interesting potential conflict in this situation, even though the line is clear with US soldiers that are non-national guard. These soldiers would be Union troops. With this in mind, it would appear that the United States would be able to, numerically, beat the Texas national guard in any potential military conflict. This is not assuming that other civilians in Texas join to swell the ranks of the Texas state militia, or national guard. But the US population is greater than that of Texas, and so the US can possibly gain more troops than Texas. A military conflict does not seem to be reasonable for Texas to want or to go through, let alone of the US. So Texas seems to have no incentive to want to have a military conflict.

Second, this brings up an interesting question about how would the President respond. Would the President take military action, since the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the military, which means not even Congress? Texas would, in a sense, be at the mercy of the President choosing to go through a 30 day war, until President goes before the Congress to ask for a deceleration of war or money to continue to finance military actions (like Iraq and Afghanistan). Texas would appear to be at the mercy of the Presidents decision, since US appears to have greater military power relative to Texas.

Assuming that it is true that Texas secedes from the Union, then Texas would not have a violent secession (like South Carolina). But assuming that it is true that Texas does not have a violent secession (like South Carolina), then would the President take military action or no military action? This is a decision for the President to make. The US or Union would appear to have more of an incentive for violence than Texas.

Now the person brings up some main ideas with secession, and one of them is economic. It points out that the state of Texas, on its own, has the 15th largest economy in the world. So Texas would have some economic power or stability. Being part of a Union with other states, the problems of one state affects another state. One consequence is standard of living. Texas could have a high standard of living, but other states in the Union have a low standard of living, so this comes to affect the state, and people, of Texas. Texas would appear to be able to economically compete with other foreign nations. But the loss of Texas would also mean that it affects the economy of the US, or the Union. The Union would lose a major money maker for the US economy and for other poorer states and people in other states.

Another main idea for secession that the person brings up is civil liberties. They specifically state the NDAA, which I am assuming that they mean the portion of “indefinite detention”. This issue has actually gone to federal court and an Obama appointed judge said it was unconstitutional, but the Obama administration is appealing this decision. One of the main problems is that this is a violation of the 4th amendment, which is protection from the federal government and thus a civil liberty. The government would, and by the Patriot Act, are still allowed to for unconstitutional search and seizure of people and their property. You also have the President having deprived people of their 5th amendment right by being deprived of life or liberty without due processes.

So there are at least two arguments for secession. There is the economic point of view and there is the civil liberty point of view.

One thing that should be made aware is what happened with the Confederate States of America. One state left and others followed. California might be one state to take a look about secession if we accept the economic argument (since they supposedly have around the 9th largest economy in the world), and the civil liberty argument would apply to California as well. For example, the civil liberty argument applies to all states in the United States, or Union. But the economic argument would not apply to all states in the United States. Some states benefit from more economically powerful states being in the Union. Weak economic states benefit from being in a union with strong economic states, but it hurts the strong economic states, in some respects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 47% and 2012 Election

Well, the 2012 Presidential Election is “done”. We have some results in. Here is something that I found funny. Mitt Romney made some comments about the 47% of American citizens that do not pay income tax and receive benefits from the federal government. Here is something interesting from the election results for President in 2012.

51% of the popular vote went to Barack Obama, which is about 62,262,675 votes. 48% of the popular vote went to Mitt Romney, which is about  58,894,887 votes. Now here is what is funny, Mitt Romney made some comments about 47% of Americans, and Romney happen to get 48% of the popular vote. So 121,157,562 cast a vote for either Obama or Romney, and of those, 48% went to Romney. So did the 47% vote for Romeny and Romney received 1% of the vote from the 53% of Americans that do pay an income tax? Maybe some of Romney’s friends who only have a capital gains tax instead of having to pay the income tax, all voted for him and some of the 53% voted for him as well, at least 1% of the 53% who pay income tax.
Funny how Romney got the 47% he talked about and got 1% more. Looks like that video did nothing wrong and spoke the truth, and the people voted for him for it. Too bad he did not say what was needed to get the majority of Americans, those 53% that pay income tax. So out of 100 American citizens, 53 of them pay income tax and 47 don’t pay income tax. Romney received 48 of the votes and Obama received 51 of the votes, and other people received 2 of the votes, out of an assumed 100 votes total.
Here are the simple ideas in basic logical form of a syllogism: All those who do not pay income tax (i.e. 47%) are voted for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote. All those who voted for Barack Obama in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%). Some of those who voted for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%) and Some of those who did not vote for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%).

Fiscal Cliff and Tax Increase

You might not have heard, but there is this “Fiscal Cliff” that the federal government is coming to. One of the big points about it is that if we do not come to a deal by the end of December, on January 1st everyone’s taxes will increase. President Obama happened to make the point that everyone’s taxes will increase, especially the 98% of Americans that make under 250,000 dollars.

Here’s my question: So what?

What does it matter that 98% of Americans, or every American, is going to have their taxes go up? Close to half of Americans don’t even pay income tax, while of course paying other taxes like those who do pay income tax have to pay these other taxes as well. What does it matter now that the poor class, the middle class, and the rich class, all have to pay more money now?

Last I checked this was the United States of America, and in this country people are expected to pay into the system instead of getting something from the system without paying in. Well, the system is having tough times and *everyone* has to pay more. This means that the poor class, middle class, and rich class have to pay more. There is no class of American to be exempt for this. We are a nation united and not a nation divided where one class has to put in and another does not. Let everyone pay more since things are very tough right now.

Think about the type of America that Obama wants to have for a second. He wants one group of Americans to pay more, while of course you can thank this one class of Americans for most of the things that the government does for people, since it comes from their wallets. He does not two other groups of Americans to pay more money, even though a sizable portion of those groups do not even have any “skin in the game”, and yet get all the benefits of the game.

Does it sound like fairness and equality when you force the one group that already puts the most into the system, while also being vilified, pay more while the other groups are not putting in or not putting in more, while also vilifying the group that does put into the game?

Let us get some equality and fairness, lets all go over the fiscal cliff together. This way we are all paying into the system and paying our fair share.

2012 Presidential Election Results

Here is some information on the Presidential Election results of the 2012 election.

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

Here are some numbers that they give:

Popular Vote- 120,887,981

Obama- 50.5%/ 61,128,734
Romney-  48.0%/ 58,138,521
Johnson- 0.9%/ 1,139,562
Stein- 0.3%/396,684
Barr- <0.1%/ 49,959
Anderson- <0.1%/ 34,521

Electoral Vote- 509*

Obama 303
Romeny 206

(* The Electoral vote is 538, but the result of Florida has not been added in, so the 29 votes missing belong to Florida.)

Obama received 50% of the popular vote and Romney obtained 48% of the popular vote. That is a 2% difference in popular vote between Obama and Romney. Obama received around 59% of the Electoral vote and Romney received 41%. There is a 18% difference in the electoral vote between Obama and Romney.  Obama did 9% better with the electoral vote than the popular vote, and Romney did 7% worse with the electoral vote than the popular vote. IOW, Obama did better with the electoral college than he did with the popular vote; Romney did better with the popular vote than he did with the electoral vote.

Think about this the next time you hear someone saying that there was a mandate for the Obama Administration and the Democratic Parties plans or ideas. The American public is split on this issue. It is not a nation united, like promised and hoped for and tried to change to back in 2008, but it is a divided country from what it especially once was. If you have someone tell you that there was an American mandate that supports Democratic policy, point out that the popular vote was only 2% difference between “American mandate” for Obama and “No American mandate” for Obama. Obama won handedly in the electoral college, but he definitely did not in the popular vote.

Government Regulations Help Big Banks

JP Morgan, one of the largest, if not the largest, Banks in the world is now going to be allowed to do a “stock buy back” plan. The federal government, when it gave money to private banks to keep them from collapsing, the federal government also bought stock in those private banks. JP Morgan was one of those private banks that had some of their stock bought from the private bank. Now JP Morgan was given the okay to buy back their stocks from the federal government.

Here is a video on that story from NBR (Nightly Business Report):

banking-analyst-looks-at-jp-morgan-buyback-plan-nov-8-2012#.UJxqvIYgITY

Now I want people to try to remember back to 2008 and 2009. Around these times, some of the largest private banks in the world and which operated in a global market, happened to hit into a financial crisis. There were some bad investments that the banks took on or were holding, which no rational actor would have chosen. The federal government wanted to prevent a “financial meltdown” from happening and gave tax payer money to those private banks to keep them from collapsing. At the same time the federal government took stock on those companies. The private banks, once they got through the “financial meltdown” would be allowed to buy back the stock options in the bank that the federal government owned.

Some people were made about the banks and wanted to institute regulations to keep these “too big to fail” banks that helped to cause the financial meltdown. Laws were passed and executive orders were given, and banks had more restrictions placed on activities they cannot do. People were very angry at the big private banks and wanted these big banks to fail. But something interesting appears to be happening with wanting the private banks to pay that helped to cause this situation, by institution “more” regulations on these private banks that helped to bring about the financial storm.

The person being interviewed in this story happens to bring up something very interesting. These private banks did not want Barack Obama or Elizabeth Warren to be elected. They did not want them to be elected because of these “regulations”. But what happened because of these “regulations”? They helped to expand the market power, or how much of the piece of the pie they have, and kicked out some of their competition. These regulations helped “small” private banks go under. But this “big” banks that helped to cause the financial problem can afford these regulations and they can obtain more market power since they have one less potential rival for your money. So “small business”, as “small banks”, are not being helped with the regulations. Instead, these regulations allow for there to be less competition between these “too big to fail” private banks.

How about that? You try to hurt someone and it only makes them stronger. Are they Goku?

Where Half of Obama’s National Debt Came From

There was a  Presidential debate between Mitt Romeny and Barack Obama on October 3rd, 2012. This was the first Presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Now what is interesting about this was not so much the debate itself, but some commentary on the debate. For example, PBS discussed and commented on some of the statements that the candidates made, and did some “fact checking”. Mark Shields happened to bring up one of the most interesting points of them all. The point they made was that half of the national debt incurred under Obama’s 1st term was based on pulling out of Iraq.

Now I want you to realize this, around 3 trillion dollars of around 6 trillions of national debt incurred under Obama’s first term. Under 2 terms of George W. Bush, around 4 trillion dollars were incurred on to the national debt. Now Bush lead the US into an undeclared war with both Afghanistan and Iraq, and Congress approved to continue to fund this undeclared war. And when this undeclared war was said to be officially over, US troops occupied those nations. These nations continued to be occupied up to the 2008 Presidential Election. Barack Obama said that he would bring the occupation troops in Iraq back home within 16 months of his election as President. By 2011 the last troops were pulled out, but don’t mind the huge embassy. But he did flip-flop on promises of when pull out would be done of occupation troops in Iraq. (They are literally military troops occupying land in a foreign nation.)

One of the big points made against Bush was that he used the national “credit card” to pay for the “Wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He used the credit cards to get us into these occupations of foreign nations, and the debt rose by 4 trillion in 8 years of Bush doing this, or 7 years at least. But Obama would use the national credit cards to pull out of Iraq alone, which costs nearly half of the debt incurred by using the credit card under Obama’s watch. Just think about that when you realize that the troops are back from occupying foreign lands, instead of being stationed at home with their families and community and defending the continental boarders and US owned land.

Point blank: Promised to get out by a certain date and does not pull out by that certain date, but also being ambiguous on when it will happen until it happens after it contradicts some earlier states. Raised the national debt more than his predecessor, while at the same time obtaining half of it pulling out of Iraq.

But let us be fare to Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama. They can only order where the troops go and when they come back. But Congress controls the revenue and distribution of the revenue. So the people using the national credit card where Congress. Just ignore that last important part and enjoy the hypocrisy of 21st politics.