October 31, 2012 § 1 Comment
Liberals often argue that we need to tax the rich more, and give to the poor. We should be our brothers keepers. We need to take care of those who wont or cant.
There is no fine line, in fact, there is a very clear difference between being charitable because you want to and can, and being charitable because of the forceful hand of government.
There is a disconnect with the latter. Liberals like to say they are “charitable and kind,” and look at how “bleeding heart” I am! I want to take from the rich because they can afford it, and give to the poor. I care for my fellow man!
There is nothing moral about forcing one man, by the use of intimidation, and coercion to give up what properly belongs to him, and he rightly earned via his hard work, time, smart investments and/or efforts, to giving to another.
The moral, charitable, “Jesus” thing to do is for YOU get off that couch, and get out there and help your fellow man. You go help that homeless man on the street. Take him in, get him cleaned up, clothe him, feed him. You do this. Don’t claim to be charitable, and caring for your fellow man because you voted for government to do this for you.
There is nothing moral about this stance. If anything it is IMMORAL to forcefully, by the use of government intimidation and coercion, take another man’s property. Fundamentally, what we are doing is reaching into the pockets of those who could and would, taking it, and giving it to those who can’t or won’t.
Those who can, more than likely will. And because we as humans are naturally and instinctively caring and social creatures, we will by natural instinct care for those around us. Each to our own abilities. Where the working man who earns just enough to get by, might volunteer his time at a local soup kitchen, or just care for himself and family, and the wealthy CEO might give a small percentage of his fortune to start or fund a charitable organization that will benefit many. THIS is how the social human spirit should and would work if given the opportunity.
In our society, where the genuine, compassionate nature of humans should be in place, it is not allowed to flourish because in its place is the forceful hand of government. We have voted ourselves into a state of numbness. Where once upon a time we might have stopped on the side of the road, realizing that a fellow man needs care, we would have helped him. Now we default to the reasoning that government will care for him.
Every one of us, when faced with a beggar at the freeway off ramp, thinks to themselves, “poor man.” Our system has squashed that emotion, and made it irrelevant. We now may think and feel that emotion for a split second, but it is quickly replaced with apathy and displacement of responsibility. “The police will take care of him.” “He will just go to the shelter.”
We, as a society struggle to take personal responsibility for ourselves, let alone those around us. With government safety nets in place to catch all those who can’t or won’t, the moral responsibility to care for your fellow man is no longer yours. It’s the governments. And that is the issue with centralized social programs.
Nobody is saying cut all social safety nets, I’ve got mine and screw everyone else. Contrary to liberal belief; conservatives are usually truly compassionate, libertarians don’t want to screw everyone else because they’ve got theirs… The general understanding is beginning to take hold that these social programs do nothing for the betterment of our fellow man. On the contrary, they help breed dependence, and encourages apathy. Why get a job when you know you can make more on unemployment? For up to 99 WEEKS in some states! The crooked liberal politicians like it because they get to earmark the spending with waste, fraud and abusive programs that benefit them and their special interests.
It is also important to note that there is MOST definitely a wrinkle in our capitalist system. The system is no longer fair, and in fact, it is well known as I’ve made mentioned in the past, that the system is blatantly rigged in the other direction. It is no longer for the people, but for the banks and corporations. This is a bigger issue unto itself.
Nobody is advocating for an undisputed elimination of all federally funded social programs, but the understanding is begging to take root that maybe what we are doing is not working. Maybe we need to re-evaluate how we handle these social safety nets. Maybe a centralized system is not the best answer. The more people become aware of this reality, the closer we will get to arriving at a logical and sensible solution to our social issues. A solution that doesn’t involve federal government coercion, and benefits all citizens equally.
October 12, 2012 § 1 Comment
The Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express. It is a private bank operating for the profit of its shareholders under the guise of an “independent within the government.” Really, its not accountable to anyone or anything. This is no secret.
When government needs more money, it calls the fed. The fed agrees to issue more money to loan to the government at interest. Government issues “treasury bonds,” AKA, IOU’s. The fed issues federal reserve notes, AKA, “dollars” to the government. Government then goes and spends said money on whatever it deems appropriate. War, bailouts, more social programs, servicing the debt, just to name a few of the biggies.
The fed then sells these US government issued bonds to China, Japan, or any entity willing to buy. This is what is meant by saying that China and Japan own us.
Because the federal reserve notes (dollar) is tied to nothing of intrinsic value, the fed can keep issuing it freely. And it does. Secret bailouts, QE1, QE2, and the latest, indefinite QE3.
When the government gets this newly created money, it lends it to the banks at very low rates. Sometimes close to zero, or 1% in the form of bailouts, TARP and Quantitative Easing. Those with access to the money first, have a huge advantage over the rest of society. Banks can simply borrow money at 1% and loan it out at 4% or 5% to you and me. Not a risky bet at all. Those receiving the money first tend to save it, or invest it themselves, thus, trickle down economics fails immediately. Nice idea Regan, but the crony’s got to it first.
Banks also use fractional reserve banking to maximize their profits with little concern for the risks. For example, Chase takes in a $100 deposit from my latest paycheck. It keeps 10% on hand as reserve, then loans out $90 to make money off its interest. The next bank receives that $90 dollar deposit, and that bank only needs to keep 10% on hand, so it loans out $81. And on and on it goes… fractional reserve banking. Maximize profits. Since they know they are too big to fail, and our government or even the fed itself will bail them out, there is no risk for these institutions. In light of this, a simple question comes to mind, what happens when everyone wants their money in case of economic insecurity? Will your money there?
Banks keep huge profits when their bets pay off, as they often do, but any losses get socialized and dumped on the taxpayers, via government bailouts, or via federal reserve quantitative easing. We bail out the institutions that caused the problem in the first place. And who is on the hook for said bailout? You and me, and future generations. The national debt is upwards of 16 TRILLION, not including unfunded liabilities, i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. and it WILL keep rising.
In exchange for this cheap money, the banks are huge contributors to the campaigns of the politicians that allow this system to perpetuate.
So next time you hear the phrase “Corporate Whore” directed at one of our leaders, now you know. Or next time you hear the term “crony capitalism,” THIS is the definition of cronyism. The connected few, connected with government, get all the special privileges, bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks they want, at a VERY clear advantage over the rest of us. THIS is what is meant by the 99% vs the 1%. The 1% that have a clear, unfair, and immoral advantage over the rest of us. They keep getting richer, and we keep getting poorer. Crony capitalism defined.
Furthermore, because the fed under the guise of our all knowing leaders in government, have managed to print ever more money, this has a very evil and silent consequence on our savings. It saturates the market with dollars, thus making the dollar worth less and less every time. Ever wonder why gas keeps going up? Oil priced in gold (as is the basis used for its value around the world) is still just as cheap as its been over the past 60 or 70 years! 2 grams of gold per barrel. Gas is not more expensive, the dollar is just cheaper. It can buy less and less “stuff” every day.
Thus, we spin our wheels for a paper dollar currency worth a fraction of what it used to be worth. We run the rat race, never enough time to spend with our loved ones, working two jobs, and commuting multiple hours a day… to service our debts, and put ever-more costly food on our tables. They rake in astronomical profits all the while being propped up by our crony-corporatist political system, and paid for by us. The working class. i.e. the non-bankster types.
This is America.
October 5, 2012 § 3 Comments
Last night I did not tune in to the debates, simply because it would have been a waste of time, and I/we were much better served preparing and enjoying a nice healthy and fresh home cooked meal with my wonderful fiancé. From what I gather, based on sound clips and quotes, Romney won though! Right? Can someone please explain how? Did he propose a bold new plan on how he is going to cut the $16,000,000,000,000+ national deficit? No? Then he surely must have proposed an exit strategy from the wars and finding a diplomatic solution with Iran!! YAY! I’ll vote for that! Wait… no, none of that… hmmm… then it must have been his INGENIOUS savvy business man side that laid out a step-by-step plan to create those 12 million jobs right?! (yes I clicked on the link to learn more) No?… Hmmmm…. well then what was it!?
The debates last night where nothing more than scripted entertainment/distraction. Two politicians, pretending to disagree with each other, to debate the “issues,” to attack the problems this nation is facing… But what we got was the exact opposite. More skirting the issues, more pocking at the federal budget, and more proof that these two politicians represent two very similar big government ideals. Oh WAIT! There is a difference! Romney wants to kill Big Bird. Ding ding ding! We have a winner!! Too bad for ol’ Mittens, public broadcasting represents… oh… about .00002% of the national deficit.
Here is a MUCH better version of those same debates… maybe just a little more “diverse.” We would all be much better served including a unique and fresh set of ideas into the national debate.
If you want to listen to a debate that will discuss the real critical issues, with a few candidates that bring fresh ideas to the table… then tune in to the Free and Equal Presidential Debates on October 23rd. This debate will feature FOUR candidates for president from FOUR different parties.
The two aforementioned candidates were invited but declined to attend. Surprise!
Here is a little tid-bit from one of the pesidential candidates that WILL be in attendance at this Free and Equal Presidential Debate:
We didn’t see a debate tonight. We saw two slightly differing versions of defending the Republican and Democrat status quo that has given us war after war after war, a $16 trillion debt, and a government that is the answer to everything. Nowhere was there a real plan for reducing government, balancing the budget any time in the foreseeable future, or a path that will actually put Americans back to work. We heard two politicians arguing over which of their plans for government-run health care is less bad. We heard fantasies about balancing the budget while not reducing Medicare costs. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are nibbling around the edges of the nation’s problems. We don’t have time to nibble — we need to devour them. Americans deserve real debates and a voice who will actually tell the truth about what it will take to put this great nation back on track.
October 2, 2012 § Leave a comment
Who is excited for the presidential debates?
We all are! It’s time for hope and change to either REALLY start hoping and changing this time!.. or we need to move in another direction COMPLETELY! Right? The national debates are virtually the only time most Americans will get to listen to the two presidential hopefuls duke it out, and tell us how they are different, how the other guy is wrong, and why we should vote for him. After the debates, it should be clear who we will be supporting come November!
Well… that’s just where it all begins.
This is the Commission on Presidential Debates Mission Statement.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan , 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008.
Seems legit right? “to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.” I could buy off on that… if it were true.
What the CDP is NOT telling us is that there is another very viable option for president. He is currently on 48 states ballots, and working on 50. He is and will be eligible to win the 270 electoral votes needed. He is a VERY eligible presidential option. His name is Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. His motto is Live Free, and he claims that he is more socially accepting that Obama, and more fiscally responsible than Romney. There are also a few others, Jill Stein of the Green Party, and Vigil Goode of the Constitution Party to name two. Both lack sufficient ballot access to be viable candidates, although a look into each is time well spent. Principle over party is never a bad way to go…
So why is Gary Johnson, as a viable presidential candidate not included in the debate? If the CDP’s main mission is to ensure that debates provide the best possible information to us… well, unless the best possible information means, excluding 33.3% of the viable options for president… then they must have a very different interpretation of the “best possible information.”
The CDP will tell us that Gary Johnson is not being invited to the debates because he doesn’t poll at least 15% in the national polls. Well, the other thing they won’t tell us is that Gary Johnson is not even INCLUDED in the national polls to begin with! How can he poll in the 15th percentile if he hasn’t even been an option for us to select him in the polls? As of late he has been included in some, but too little too late, it would seem.
Have you even heard of Gary Johnson? Didn’t think so. Is it then a fair question to ask. Why? Why haven’t I heard of Gary Johnson if he’s going to be on at least 48 states ballots and is a very eligible candidate for president? Makes you wonder what the media is missing huh?
The CDP also lays claim to being a nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization. Well… nonpartisan if you fit into their mold. The CDP began in 1987 by the democratic and republican parties to establish the way that presidential election debates are run between candidates for President. If the CDP is run by Democrats and Republican, is it then honestly a nonpartisan organization?
Another vital question comes to mind. Why would an organization run by republicans and democrats want competition from another party? If you find an answer to that, then you just might be on to something…