I would like to take this moment to remember all the veterans who have served and all the soldiers now serving. You're not forgotten and surely are very well appreciated. You fight for the same freedoms our founding fathers fought for so that generations of mankind to come may enjoy the only lasting light on earth; a nation of freemen. America will forever thank those who serve as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. We love you and keep you in our prayers.
Siska DeYoung
Monday, May 30, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
No Joke! Obamaphone
Over 2 months ago I had received an email from a friend who told me about an "Obama-phone." At first I thought, "No way! Come on. That's got to be a joke." The email started out with a story about this lady who was in line at a check out stand of a grocery store. She over heard this guy in front of her talking about his "Obama-phone." and that he was able to get it for free with free minutes to do whatever he wanted with it. The lady was shocked and asked him how he got it. He explained that since he gets food stamps, lives in government housing, gets cash every month, and is on Medicaid, he qualified to get a free phone. The lady was in shock because here she was paying her own rent, utilities, phone, food, transportation, and her own cell phone.
I went online to see if the email sent to me was true or if it was a hoax. As most of you already know, there are a lot of emails circulating stories that seem to be true but are actually unfounded. The sad thing about these untrue stories is that even the most outrageous thing could be true. Well, turned out that something as outlandish as the "Obama-phone" was true. But it wasn't until one day, I was working at one of my client's home and she received in the mail, information on a Government Assisted Cellular Service.
I went online to see if the email sent to me was true or if it was a hoax. As most of you already know, there are a lot of emails circulating stories that seem to be true but are actually unfounded. The sad thing about these untrue stories is that even the most outrageous thing could be true. Well, turned out that something as outlandish as the "Obama-phone" was true. But it wasn't until one day, I was working at one of my client's home and she received in the mail, information on a Government Assisted Cellular Service.
Then it really struck me that hey, this is really true. You can get a free cell phone from the government with free minutes. Then I thought, "When does it end?" Seriously! Just look at the list of government assistance a person can get just on this letter alone! And it doesn't even account for everything that is available. But on this letter you can see food stamps, Medicaid, supplemental security income (aka SSI), federal public housing assistance (aka section 8), the national free lunch program, temporary assistance to needy families (TANF), and low income home energy assistance programs. WOW! What the heck am I doing working when all of my needs can be taken care of by the government!? Now, I can even get a free cell phone and not work for it. Gee, ain't that great, we have destroyed any and all incentive for man to work. I'm sure that what's next is that we can get free fuel-efficient cars from the government. After all, they're willing to pay for the gas in welfare recipients' cars.
The problem with all this is the myth that there are such things as "free lunches" or that cradle-to-grave welfare programs do no harm to our nation. The fact is that a welfare state is harmful to us financially, and morally, and as well reduces our individual freedoms.
Our nations debt ceiling has been reached this year and yet at the last townhall meeting I attended, the main topic was not the debt crisis as it should have been but it was keeping entitlement programs in place such as Social Security and Medicare. Of course, what politician would want to give the generation who fought WWII the boot. No one does of course. Everyone appreciates what our grandparents did for us in that war. There's no argument there. The argument is does that generation wish to leave a legacy of debt for their generations to come as a way for us to thank them for their service?
As Barry Goldwater would put it, there are plenty of politicians who promise to go to bat for lower taxes and in the same breath vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible. We demand for government to spend money on us and yet we don't want to see our tax rates go up. So, the problem is not so much that politicians aren't listening to their constituents. They are listening and that is part of the problem. So, when it comes time to do anything about entitlement programs that are not working or are straining the economy, politicians are hesitant to do anything about them. They are also hesitant about raising taxes as that's another way to end a politician's career. So to find a way to pay for the cradle to grave social state, they print money. Printing money has been a popular way of governments throughout history to pay for welfare and war without actually raising taxes on citizens. Thing of it is that inflation IS a form of tax. Whenever your currency is inflated, you pay more at the check stand or at the pump. The thing about inflation is that you don't get to vote on it but you do have to pay it and hence you're still paying for the entitlement programs.
A point that never gets discussed about welfare programs is the demoralizing aspect of it. Welfare is what I consider to be as a double edge sword. First it takes from the worker in the form of taxes, be it hidden or not. The worker's incentive to want to produce, innovate, or create is destroyed as they will inherently have nothing to look forward to. Instead, you have producers who see what kind of welfare being made available to the recipients and become disheartened that the un-producer is being rewarded for taking a handout from the government. Second, the welfare recipient mortgages himself to the government in return for the benefits and the government then gives or withholds benefits as they see fit. The welfare recipient also lose their sense of responsibility to themselves and their families as they transform from an individual of dignity, self-reliance spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it.
Barry Goldwater said, "I am unaware of any moral virtue that is attached to my decision to confiscate the earnings of X and give them to Y." Should a person approve of a welfare program, why is it that he can't contribute that money to private charities? To force everyone to pay into any welfare programs forces individuals to work against themselves. But when we instead allow for individuals to chose for themselves what private charitable organizations they wish to contribute, then their individual rights are preserved and the recipient is then uplifted as they become aware that the charity is the product of the humanitarian impulses of the giver, not the due of the receiver.
In short, let us remember that the material and spiritual sides of man are intertwined. For the State to assume the responsibility of one without intruding the essential nature of the other is impossible. In the face of sounding religious, I would like to say the following. That is, as a nation as a whole, we have lost faith. No, not faith in that there is a God. But faith that we are capable beings, that God can provide. We hear so much more often now than before from family, friends, and even members of church to simply go and get what you need from the government. We have lost that faith that we don't need to turn to government for our material needs and have hence lost our spirituality and our ability to think for ourselves. If we take from a man the personal responsibility for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free.
Siska DeYoung
Monday, May 23, 2011
Hold That Thought on Herman Cain....
Herman Cain is a great business guy, a speaker at Tea Party rallies, a black American (NO I refuse to say African-American, we're Americans and that's it!), and has some leadership qualities. He would symbolize to the world that the Republican Party is not a racist group and the Tea Parties don't care about the color of the skin. Herman Cain represents himself to the world as a defender of the free market system and as a voice for the Tea Party.
Hold it right there. Before we begin sounding the trumpets to herald in a hero, let's do some research on the guy and see what he's really like. Times past we've been let down after we have elected a person in to find out that what he said and suppose to have symbolized was untrue. I think also, that we really do need to stop looking at the color of the skin because this really is not the time to try and prove anything to the world about us not being racists. The racist tag that has been attached to the Republican Party is simply the Democrats having done a great job of playing the race card and spreading the fallacious idea that Republicans are racist. A quick overview of the history of the Democratic Party would confirm that the opposite is in fact true.We know who we are and we know we are not basing our thoughts or actions just because someone is of a different shade of color. We should base our thoughts of a person by what they have done in the past, what they have said, and what they stand for. So, let's move pass this racism thing and see what history of this man tells us.
A short biography on Herman Cain; After completing a master's degree in computer science from Purdue University, Cain left the navy department and started working for the Coca-Cola company as a business analyst. He later went on to work for the Philsbury Company and went all the way up to Vice President, and then went on to manage over 400 stores for Burger King. He was so successful with Burger King that Philsbury decided to bring Cain back and placed him as CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Cain is well known for this position with Godfather's Pizza and while he was CEO, he took a stand against then President Clinton's universal healthcare plan. During this time as CEO of Godfather's Pizza, however, Cain was a member of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992 and was later the chairman of the board 1995-1996 after which he resigned to become active in national politics. http://www.think-it-inc.com/HermanCain.htm ; http://www.horatioalger.org/members_info.cfm?memberid=CAI96
Cain got his first taste in national politics while he was serving as CEO for Godfather's Pizza. Cain started getting by starting a radio show called The Herman Cain Show on an Atlanta radio station. He also worked for Fox News as a commentator and was a syndicate writer in a local newspaper. Cain later went on to start the Herminator's Intelligent Thinkers Movement, HITM, with hopes to have 100,000 activists in every congressional district. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain
In 1996, Cain was a senior advisor for Dole's then campaign for Presidency and later went on to attempt a campaign and get nominated for Senate on the Republican ticket. Neither of these attempts were successful. http://www.rlc2011.com/speakers_list/herman-cain/, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58347-2004Jul17
While Cain was running for Senate, his opponent, Mac Collins, accused Cain of being a moderate because Cain supported affirmative action. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58347-2004Jul17 The only response Cain could offer to Collins' accusation was that he was conservative in that he was more pro-life than Collins was. Cain was against abortion even in the case of rape and incest. He based his conservatism on how far more religious he was than the other candidates. He attempted to discredit Isakson by saying that Isakson approved of abortion for the case of rape, incest and medical needs. Besides the fact that Cain dodged the accusation of supporting affirmative action, it's as if he based his "conservatism" by how religious he is and not by facts, preserving individual rights and his adherence to the US Constitution. Needless to say, Isakson was the one who won the nomination to the Republican ticket.
Since 2010, Cain became a popular speaker for Tea Party rallies and attended over 40 such rallies. He called himself a "dark horse candidate" and a leader for the Tea Party rallies. Well, note to Herman Cain, the Tea Party rallies were never about giving politicians power; they were about giving the power back to the people where it rightfully belongs. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/herman-cain-the-gop-wild-card/8367/
Herman Cain does have some good positions to offer as a candidate for the Republican Party. He supports policies that will lower regulations, lower taxes, and reduce, albeit slightly, government intrusion in the economy. He supports returning the gold standard in spite of having been a chairman of the Federal Reserve in Kansas City. Cain also favors supporting off shore drilling and even wants to allow drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He also wants to allow the free markets take reign of advancements in alternative energy sources instead of having the government dictate who will be the economic winners and losers. Cain favors repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, because he believes that the free market should be the largest provider of health care, not the government. He is also in support of Israel's right to defend itself and make their own decisions in what they think is best for them. Cain supports Israel as our ally and the only one that we have in the most dangerous part of the world.
In principle all these positions are great but nevertheless the amount of deregulation he supports is still miniscule and will by no means make America an economically friendly nation. He also hasn’t advocated any substantial spending cuts anywhere in the government or privatizing any government programs. Cain is at best (!) in favor of implementing socialism albeit at a slower pace than Obama and the left.
Herman Cain says he supports lowering taxes but is in favor of a Fair Tax of 23%. I like the idea of Fair Tax but a low one. At 23% Fair Tax, we can expect to pay 23 cents for every dollar we spend. That adds up! Just imagine going to the store to buy $100 worth of groceries and add another $23 to that bill. Do you think you can handle that? Don't forget that you also have to pay a state and local sales tax on top of that. Besides that, why only lower the corporate tax from 35% to 25%? Why not just lower it to 0%? Corporations are being forcedto ship jobs overseas because they have to compete in a global economy and in order to do that they have to go for the cheapest labor available. So, why not make it economically feasible for corporations to have jobs here in America and make a profit?
Herman Cain claims to be fiscally conservative but if that is true, then why was he in support of Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP? Cain saw TARP as a way for the taxpayer to invest while saving a troubled asset. When asked about his support of TARP, he said he had no regrets as he said, "I studied the situation. I have no trouble with the idea; I had trouble with the implementation, picking winners and losers." (http://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc133.htm ; http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267029/introducing-herman-cain-robert-costa?page=7 ) How does one pass something like TARP without picking the winners and losers? If that is the stand he takes on it, then we might as well have given bailouts to ALL companies in a given market and consider them all losers.
Forget anything about correcting, let alone get rid of, what is wrong with our welfare system and Social Security. Herman Cain is only in favor of streamlining these government entitlement programs. (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110508174238) And well, when you streamline government, you only streamline government power to coerce violations of your individual rights. There's a reason for checks and balances in government and it's meant to act as a way to restrict government; not to restrict the individual.
But the worse political stand that I see from Herman Cain is his position on Iran. His idea of "dealing" with Iran is a diplomatic approach to nuclear disarmament.( http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110509171147) Either Cain is naive about Iran, or that he really doesn't know much about what's going on in the Middle East. They have made it clear many times over that their intent is to wipe Israel from the map and kill all the Jews. There really is no deal-making with them to give up their quest.
Bottom line; Herman Cain is not the capitalist he claims to be. He is more of a corporatist or fascist. You cannot be a capitalist if you are in favor of government welfare, keeping government Social Security, in favor of bailouts and stimulus from government and you certainly cannot be a capitalist if you support affirmative action. To be a capitalist means to know, understand and protect individual rights; none of which describes Herman Cain. Just as well, a true capitalist would never support the Federal Reserve as he has done because a free market capitalist system would never tolerate a concentration of power in one bank that causes for the mess we are in. One bank that controls other banks, dictates what interest rates we can charge and how much other banks are allowed to make. That is not capitalism. For a bit of “trivia”, according to Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute, during the Gilded Age of America, from the Civil War to the World War, America experienced the greatest economical growth than any other time in America history and we didn’t have a Federal Reserve Bank or any kind of central bank.
Should Cain ever become president, we will still continue to have a debt crisis because he refuses to attack the very reason how we got here, he'll tank the economy further if the Democrats haven't done the job already, and then at the end of his presidency you'll hear people say it's because capitalism failed. Truth is capitalism didn't fail. We don't have capitalism and Cain is not the capitalist people think he is. He favors giving corporations a break and yet still wants to keep welfare and Social Security. We will have a mixed economy with elements of socialism, elements of free markets with lots of government intrusions.
I would beware of Herman Cain and do the research yourself. He’s another wolf in sheep’s clothes.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
CONGRATULATIONS United States! 14.367 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT!!!
Yep! You read the title right. Our national debt is over 14.36 trillion dollars by the time you read this. Oh wait, make that 14.37, no that's 14.38..... It's ridiculous. Just guess a number. Or just check out www.usdebtclock.org and see for yourself.
You might be asking why is 14.3 trillion a special number to focus on. Well, that was our nation's debt ceiling anything after that is anybody's guess. The thing is that we have reached the debt ceiling before in 1985,1995, and 2002. So, while Timothy Geithner maybe scare mongering congress into raising the debt ceiling and Bohner falling for Geithner's tacktic, let's take a look at what history has to say.
Each time we reached the debt ceiling, payments to Social Security were still made on time, Medicare and Medicaid were still fully operational, no interest payments were missed and the economic Armageddon, Geithner claims would happen, never materialized. The world economy never tanked.
Now, I'm not saying those things couldn't happen. They could, but it would be up to Timothy Geithner if he allows them to happen. Geithner has tremendous discretion over how, when and which government bills get paid because after all he is the Secretary of the Treasury.
This time however, our national debt ceiling is placed at 98% of our nation's Gross Domestic Product; much higher than it has ever been. Gross Domestic Product is basically all final finished products and services made within the borders of our nation. The GDP often acts as a collateral for the nation's debt. Sort of like when you buy a house. The mortgage company keeps the title of the house as collateral in exchange for you to have money to buy the house. When you fail to make your payments, or when you breach the contract with the mortgage company, they simply take your house and try to recover the money owed to them by selling it. At least that's the way it's suppose to work. So long as the national debt is under the value of the GDP, we're solvent. We could declare default and our creditors would come in and take the GDP up to how much is owed them.
With all the scaremongering in Washington D.C., I imagine the Republican party will cave in spite of outrage from the American people. They'll raise that debt ceiling without any change in spending habits which is what we ought to be doing. Why do I say that? Because the Republican party has not been showing much leadership lately. Sure, they came up with the Path to Prosperity while the Democrats are paralyzed by their altruism and twitted their thumbs. But the Democrats know that they still control the Senate and the White House, plus, Presidential elections are coming up and they want to make good on all their entitlement programs they promised during their campaigns. The Path to Prosperity really does nothing to attack the reason why we got into this debt crisis to begin with which are the entitlement programs. Despite what you may have heard from the Democrats accusing the Republican party of trying to give grandma the boot, the Republican's plan has no intention of getting rid of entitlement programs but rather just "fix" them so that they last longer. More like kicking the can down the road and putting off our own "Greek" debt crisis.
Last year this time, we were discussing how Greece found themselves with a debt crisis and a debt ratio being well over 120% of their GDP. The CATO Institute did an extensive study in the Greek debt crisis to find out what was the cause of this debt crisis and found some rather startling things. One was that 1 out of 4 workers in Greece was a public sector worker. That's 25% of the population of Greece on the public payroll, not to mention the outrageous benefits some of these public sector workers receive that included giving children of deceased workers full benefits including paychecks that would have other wise been earned. Now, I'm not saying that we're that bad off but we certainly are that close. The Kansas Watchdog Group found that in the state of Kansas, 1 out of 5 citizens are a government employee and in the state of Georgia, we find government employees making 6 figure incomes.
I'm not opposed to people making as much money as they can, but when it comes to public jobs that are paid for by the taxpayer, then it's a different story as it is a from of legalized stealing and certainly suggests that government can do whatever it wants with other people's money. Higher wages in government jobs also destroys man's incentive to innovate and produce in the private sector jobs because then everyone's aspiration is to work for the government and take control over others while destroying individual rights.
The solution to our problems is not the prolonging of entitlement benefits while cutting here and there. Keeping the entitlement benefits will only worsen the problems we face down the road. It has been typical of government to underestimate the cost of entitlement benefits because they fail to learn that people have a tendency to take advantage of welfare programs and government has the natural tendency to use welfare as a means to become absolutist and then we find ourselves right back where we are now with another debt crisis.
Also, another thing is that should we raise the debt ceiling, even just one last time, it does nothing to end the crisis but instead worsens the problem. As I said, we have hit the debt ceiling 3 times in the past already and all because of government's out-of-control spending. It's said that government is spending like a drunken sailor but the difference between the government and the drunken sailor is that when the drunken sailor runs out of money, they stop spending. Government on the other hand continues to spend like they've got money growing on trees. What with a printing press in their hands, and Keynesian economics ruling the show, their solution is to simply print more money which leads to inflation. Then we wonder why the price of food, gas, and other commodities are higher than they were just a few months ago.
We have got to make real government cuts and make the sacrifices needed to reverse the tide of this debt plague. 38 billion dollars didn't even scratch the surface of what's needed; especially since the government added 57 billion dollars in spending. The Republican party had a good start when they wanted 100 billion dollars in spending cuts and even that was not enough to save this nation from the debt crisis. Apparently, as I went to the townhall meeting with Mike Pompeo, he explained that the majority of calls he gets are from people who tell him that spending cuts are good, buuuuuut..... and they would tell him what they don't want cut such as water treatment projects, Social Security, Medicare, education, food assistance... and it goes on. It sounded to me just the exact source of the problem. Altruism.
The problem in America can be found in one sentence and that is, "America is Great, because America is Good." Everytime we find a problem that we think needs to be fixed, we run to the government. When we see homelessness, poor, and need for medical care, we run to the government. When we see a need such as clean water, affordable housing, and even gas for cars, we run to the government. We make demands that taxpayers pay for things they don't use regardless if they agree to it or not or if they even use the program. Heaven forbid that we should ever look to ourselves to solve our problems. And now this. The great fall of a once morally good nation is caused because people are more worried about having their 3 meals a day rather than worry about having a nation of individual rights in the next day. They trade a higher value for a lower value much like how Esau traded his birth right for a mess of pottage in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible.
What are we going to do folks? Are we Americans or are we the new United Soviet States of America? That's where we're heading if we don't stop the out of control spending in government and make the sacrifices needed to ensure that this nation will endure for many more generations to come.
Siska DeYoung
www.cato.org
www.usdebtclock.org
www.gao.gov
You might be asking why is 14.3 trillion a special number to focus on. Well, that was our nation's debt ceiling anything after that is anybody's guess. The thing is that we have reached the debt ceiling before in 1985,1995, and 2002. So, while Timothy Geithner maybe scare mongering congress into raising the debt ceiling and Bohner falling for Geithner's tacktic, let's take a look at what history has to say.
Each time we reached the debt ceiling, payments to Social Security were still made on time, Medicare and Medicaid were still fully operational, no interest payments were missed and the economic Armageddon, Geithner claims would happen, never materialized. The world economy never tanked.
Now, I'm not saying those things couldn't happen. They could, but it would be up to Timothy Geithner if he allows them to happen. Geithner has tremendous discretion over how, when and which government bills get paid because after all he is the Secretary of the Treasury.
This time however, our national debt ceiling is placed at 98% of our nation's Gross Domestic Product; much higher than it has ever been. Gross Domestic Product is basically all final finished products and services made within the borders of our nation. The GDP often acts as a collateral for the nation's debt. Sort of like when you buy a house. The mortgage company keeps the title of the house as collateral in exchange for you to have money to buy the house. When you fail to make your payments, or when you breach the contract with the mortgage company, they simply take your house and try to recover the money owed to them by selling it. At least that's the way it's suppose to work. So long as the national debt is under the value of the GDP, we're solvent. We could declare default and our creditors would come in and take the GDP up to how much is owed them.
With all the scaremongering in Washington D.C., I imagine the Republican party will cave in spite of outrage from the American people. They'll raise that debt ceiling without any change in spending habits which is what we ought to be doing. Why do I say that? Because the Republican party has not been showing much leadership lately. Sure, they came up with the Path to Prosperity while the Democrats are paralyzed by their altruism and twitted their thumbs. But the Democrats know that they still control the Senate and the White House, plus, Presidential elections are coming up and they want to make good on all their entitlement programs they promised during their campaigns. The Path to Prosperity really does nothing to attack the reason why we got into this debt crisis to begin with which are the entitlement programs. Despite what you may have heard from the Democrats accusing the Republican party of trying to give grandma the boot, the Republican's plan has no intention of getting rid of entitlement programs but rather just "fix" them so that they last longer. More like kicking the can down the road and putting off our own "Greek" debt crisis.
Last year this time, we were discussing how Greece found themselves with a debt crisis and a debt ratio being well over 120% of their GDP. The CATO Institute did an extensive study in the Greek debt crisis to find out what was the cause of this debt crisis and found some rather startling things. One was that 1 out of 4 workers in Greece was a public sector worker. That's 25% of the population of Greece on the public payroll, not to mention the outrageous benefits some of these public sector workers receive that included giving children of deceased workers full benefits including paychecks that would have other wise been earned. Now, I'm not saying that we're that bad off but we certainly are that close. The Kansas Watchdog Group found that in the state of Kansas, 1 out of 5 citizens are a government employee and in the state of Georgia, we find government employees making 6 figure incomes.
I'm not opposed to people making as much money as they can, but when it comes to public jobs that are paid for by the taxpayer, then it's a different story as it is a from of legalized stealing and certainly suggests that government can do whatever it wants with other people's money. Higher wages in government jobs also destroys man's incentive to innovate and produce in the private sector jobs because then everyone's aspiration is to work for the government and take control over others while destroying individual rights.
The solution to our problems is not the prolonging of entitlement benefits while cutting here and there. Keeping the entitlement benefits will only worsen the problems we face down the road. It has been typical of government to underestimate the cost of entitlement benefits because they fail to learn that people have a tendency to take advantage of welfare programs and government has the natural tendency to use welfare as a means to become absolutist and then we find ourselves right back where we are now with another debt crisis.
Also, another thing is that should we raise the debt ceiling, even just one last time, it does nothing to end the crisis but instead worsens the problem. As I said, we have hit the debt ceiling 3 times in the past already and all because of government's out-of-control spending. It's said that government is spending like a drunken sailor but the difference between the government and the drunken sailor is that when the drunken sailor runs out of money, they stop spending. Government on the other hand continues to spend like they've got money growing on trees. What with a printing press in their hands, and Keynesian economics ruling the show, their solution is to simply print more money which leads to inflation. Then we wonder why the price of food, gas, and other commodities are higher than they were just a few months ago.
We have got to make real government cuts and make the sacrifices needed to reverse the tide of this debt plague. 38 billion dollars didn't even scratch the surface of what's needed; especially since the government added 57 billion dollars in spending. The Republican party had a good start when they wanted 100 billion dollars in spending cuts and even that was not enough to save this nation from the debt crisis. Apparently, as I went to the townhall meeting with Mike Pompeo, he explained that the majority of calls he gets are from people who tell him that spending cuts are good, buuuuuut..... and they would tell him what they don't want cut such as water treatment projects, Social Security, Medicare, education, food assistance... and it goes on. It sounded to me just the exact source of the problem. Altruism.
The problem in America can be found in one sentence and that is, "America is Great, because America is Good." Everytime we find a problem that we think needs to be fixed, we run to the government. When we see homelessness, poor, and need for medical care, we run to the government. When we see a need such as clean water, affordable housing, and even gas for cars, we run to the government. We make demands that taxpayers pay for things they don't use regardless if they agree to it or not or if they even use the program. Heaven forbid that we should ever look to ourselves to solve our problems. And now this. The great fall of a once morally good nation is caused because people are more worried about having their 3 meals a day rather than worry about having a nation of individual rights in the next day. They trade a higher value for a lower value much like how Esau traded his birth right for a mess of pottage in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible.
What are we going to do folks? Are we Americans or are we the new United Soviet States of America? That's where we're heading if we don't stop the out of control spending in government and make the sacrifices needed to ensure that this nation will endure for many more generations to come.
Siska DeYoung
www.cato.org
www.usdebtclock.org
www.gao.gov
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Restoring Courage
Last summer Glenn Beck had Restoring Honor in Washington D.C. This summer in August, he is planning Restoring Courage in Jerusalem and give people of all faiths the opportunity to show their support for Israel and to stand for good. I support Israel and support her right to exist and defend herself. Israel is the only democracy in the middle east and is the only nation there that recognizes individual rights. If there is ever a time when we should stand with Israel, it is now. Arab countries surrounding this tiny Jewish nation wishes to wipe Israel clean off the map and see to the extinction of Jewish people everywhere. Please listen to Glenn Beck's invitation and consider weather you can go or not. If not, then perhaps we can do something here in the US to show we're with Israel. Who knows? Maybe if I contact Glenn Beck, I can make arrangements to have a satellite broadcast of the meeting in Kansas City, MO for those who who can't make it to Jerusalem but would like to show their support to Israel.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/05/16/coming-this-summer-restoring-courage-in-israel/
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/05/16/coming-this-summer-restoring-courage-in-israel/
Monday, May 16, 2011
College Bubble
I highly recommend NIA's newest documentary, College Conspiracy. I agree that it is because of Government intervention that college costs inflated extraordinarily. It use to be that when you graduated you could go to college and play your way by working full time during the summer or that you worked part time while you went to school. You were also able to buy a car and pay for a higher standard of living than college students do now. Government grants and loans has made it possible for colleges to charge more for their tuition. So now, students graduate with a debt worth the price of a house and it becomes impossible to get out from under that debt they're now stuck paying for the rest of their lives as indentured servants. It goes to show that government should never entangle themselves in the free market, no matter how "good" their intentions may be, because they only disrupt the market's equilibrium and cause for imbalances, making it worse.
This documentary by NIA explains it all. They have been through and have obviously done their research and included interviews along with the world's foremost trends forecaster, Gerald Celente in it as well. I'm sure you will enjoy this movie and find new facts in this as I have. Please share with everyone you know and let's get a knowledge revolution going. Also, please, if you're not a member of NIA yet, go to http://www.inflation.us/ and sigh up. You'll get tons of information on economics and they have been right on top of everything that have been going on in the economy including inflation, gold and silver prices, stock picks and much more. You won't regret it.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Happy Mother's Day to all our Mothers out there
Kansas Shrugged would like to take the moment to recognize all Mothers out there who work so hard each and every day. Great Mothers make a great nation!
HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!!
HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!!
The Hidden Tax
I saw this article in the Wichita Eagle newspaper and wanted to address it right away.
Not only does the journalist have his facts wrong about the tax history and he doesn't seem to know a lick about economics, but he shows that he has no understand of, or any respect for individual rights.
Sure, we're paying lower taxes than we were in recent years but our taxes are still quite relatively high. According to The Tax Foundation, we are presently paying anywhere from 10% to 35%, depending on our income. But that's just in income tax alone. That does beat having to have to pay from 11% to 50% in 1986, and that's with lower tax brackets! Just imagine making 176,000 a year and you have to pay half of that in income taxes. It's outrageous and insane. But the thing of it is that this journalist so conveniently left out was the hidden tax that we pay today. Inflation. All economist, especially those of the Austrian, warn of inflation being a hidden tax governments impose on the people.
Inflation has often the most popular way of paying for debt and wars by various governments throughout history. The reason being is because people don't want to pay tax and they certainly don't want to see increases in taxes they pay. Tax increases, especially if it's too high, can cause people to revolt against their governments.
So, instead of putting a tax on the people to pay debt, war and other things, government simply print or coin more money. Or in some cases, they monetize debt. Monetizing debt is basically saying that debt is money and therefore it's considered done and paid for. Wouldn't that be lovely if we could all do that with our mortgages, credit card debts, car loans and any other debt we may have? Except that it doesn't work that way. The reason we have money is because it is the axiom for trading value for value.
The perceived value of a given currency is based on the amount of paper money out there, what it's backed by, and the desirability of the currency. When government starts rolling out the money press and injects millions or billions of dollars in the market, then you lose value because money is no longer in greater demand because now there's more to be had and it's not so hard to get it anymore. In turn, this causes for the price of your milk, bread and butter to go up at the local grocery store. It causes for the price of gas to go up as well, which then also causes for food to go up again because farmers use gas to run a lot of their machinery to do a lot of the work. Ever wondered why when last year at this time you were able to get ground beef for less than 3 dollars a pound and now it's more like 4 dollars a pound? Or that you remember when you were able to get a gallon of milk for about 2 dollars and now it's well over 3?
Just to explain about something else and I don't mean to get a little side tracked but I do think this needs to be explained as well. When the Federal Reserve injects their quantitative easing of millions of dollars, you'll notice that often times after that, the stocks go up and then you hear economists tell you we're on the verge of recovery. When you hear that, I bet you're scratching your head, thinking yeah ok, so why am I or my friend, or this person I know personally, still out of a job? The recovery couldn't be further from the truth. The recovery is just a veneer, it's not real recovery at all. The Federal Reserve injects money and shortly thereafter the stocks jump but then after awhile inflation catches up and then we see the stocks take another dive. The idea of injecting money is a Keynesian idea; one that Austrian economists are against because it hurts real growth and causes for the demise of any given currency. So, don't be fooled when you see stocks go up and you think we're on a recovery. We're not. We're just getting ready for the perfect storm in economics.
So, are we paying lower taxes than ever before? No. Simply put, we're paying more in taxes than ever before to pay for the reckless spending on altruistic social programs, sending troops overseas for so many years on a war that could have ended a long time ago, and getting absolutely no where.
We need to allow the markets to correct themselves. You hardly ever hear about the Depression of 1910, but that's probably because it wasn't so long and horrible as the Great Depression that started in 1929. The reason that the Depression of 1910 didn't last so long was because government stayed out of the markets way and let things carry on. Government, at that time, didn't step in with social programs, stimulus money or bailouts. What happened? The markets corrected themselves and it was business as usual before too long. Yet, the Great Depression of the 1930's took over a decade and things did not get better after FDR came out with all the social programs he brought in. Outside of Obama, FDR was the president that brought in more social programs and bureaucrats than any other president in US history. It wasn't until AFTER we won WWII that we finally saw any economic growth and it was because markets were finally being allowed to correct themselves.
Government has got to stop printing more money but then again how do you tell a heroin to stop shooting up more drugs to save themselves? The way I see it is this, if we do not cut government spending, stop the injecting of millions of dollars in the markets and raise the interest rate, then we ARE on that certain path of destroying the dollar as leaders from around the world lose faith in our currency. But like a heroin that won't stop shooting up, Bernake, the Federal Reserve Chairman, and Obama won't stop injecting money in the markets. So, we can expect to see continued increase in prices on food, gas, products, and services we enjoy everyday. As the price of gold and silver continues to climb and show record rises in price, people everywhere are going for the sure thing, not to gain more money, but to keep themselves from losing purchasing power. In the past, it has been shown that those families that invested in silver or gold, did fairly well compared to those who don't. I won't be surprised at all if the White House Administration decided to come out with laws against owning gold or silver or trading dollars for precious metals. They'll do it to tell people it's to keep the dollar from losing its desirability as more people dump the dollar and they'll say it's wrong to do that because you should have loyalty to your nation. Forget it, do yourselves a favor now and invest in physical gold and silver that you can store in your own home, stock up on food storage and be prepared to take care of yourselves. Of course, that's a whole other topic.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Inflation has often the most popular way of paying for debt and wars by various governments throughout history. The reason being is because people don't want to pay tax and they certainly don't want to see increases in taxes they pay. Tax increases, especially if it's too high, can cause people to revolt against their governments.
So, instead of putting a tax on the people to pay debt, war and other things, government simply print or coin more money. Or in some cases, they monetize debt. Monetizing debt is basically saying that debt is money and therefore it's considered done and paid for. Wouldn't that be lovely if we could all do that with our mortgages, credit card debts, car loans and any other debt we may have? Except that it doesn't work that way. The reason we have money is because it is the axiom for trading value for value.
The perceived value of a given currency is based on the amount of paper money out there, what it's backed by, and the desirability of the currency. When government starts rolling out the money press and injects millions or billions of dollars in the market, then you lose value because money is no longer in greater demand because now there's more to be had and it's not so hard to get it anymore. In turn, this causes for the price of your milk, bread and butter to go up at the local grocery store. It causes for the price of gas to go up as well, which then also causes for food to go up again because farmers use gas to run a lot of their machinery to do a lot of the work. Ever wondered why when last year at this time you were able to get ground beef for less than 3 dollars a pound and now it's more like 4 dollars a pound? Or that you remember when you were able to get a gallon of milk for about 2 dollars and now it's well over 3?
Just to explain about something else and I don't mean to get a little side tracked but I do think this needs to be explained as well. When the Federal Reserve injects their quantitative easing of millions of dollars, you'll notice that often times after that, the stocks go up and then you hear economists tell you we're on the verge of recovery. When you hear that, I bet you're scratching your head, thinking yeah ok, so why am I or my friend, or this person I know personally, still out of a job? The recovery couldn't be further from the truth. The recovery is just a veneer, it's not real recovery at all. The Federal Reserve injects money and shortly thereafter the stocks jump but then after awhile inflation catches up and then we see the stocks take another dive. The idea of injecting money is a Keynesian idea; one that Austrian economists are against because it hurts real growth and causes for the demise of any given currency. So, don't be fooled when you see stocks go up and you think we're on a recovery. We're not. We're just getting ready for the perfect storm in economics.
So, are we paying lower taxes than ever before? No. Simply put, we're paying more in taxes than ever before to pay for the reckless spending on altruistic social programs, sending troops overseas for so many years on a war that could have ended a long time ago, and getting absolutely no where.
We need to allow the markets to correct themselves. You hardly ever hear about the Depression of 1910, but that's probably because it wasn't so long and horrible as the Great Depression that started in 1929. The reason that the Depression of 1910 didn't last so long was because government stayed out of the markets way and let things carry on. Government, at that time, didn't step in with social programs, stimulus money or bailouts. What happened? The markets corrected themselves and it was business as usual before too long. Yet, the Great Depression of the 1930's took over a decade and things did not get better after FDR came out with all the social programs he brought in. Outside of Obama, FDR was the president that brought in more social programs and bureaucrats than any other president in US history. It wasn't until AFTER we won WWII that we finally saw any economic growth and it was because markets were finally being allowed to correct themselves.
Government has got to stop printing more money but then again how do you tell a heroin to stop shooting up more drugs to save themselves? The way I see it is this, if we do not cut government spending, stop the injecting of millions of dollars in the markets and raise the interest rate, then we ARE on that certain path of destroying the dollar as leaders from around the world lose faith in our currency. But like a heroin that won't stop shooting up, Bernake, the Federal Reserve Chairman, and Obama won't stop injecting money in the markets. So, we can expect to see continued increase in prices on food, gas, products, and services we enjoy everyday. As the price of gold and silver continues to climb and show record rises in price, people everywhere are going for the sure thing, not to gain more money, but to keep themselves from losing purchasing power. In the past, it has been shown that those families that invested in silver or gold, did fairly well compared to those who don't. I won't be surprised at all if the White House Administration decided to come out with laws against owning gold or silver or trading dollars for precious metals. They'll do it to tell people it's to keep the dollar from losing its desirability as more people dump the dollar and they'll say it's wrong to do that because you should have loyalty to your nation. Forget it, do yourselves a favor now and invest in physical gold and silver that you can store in your own home, stock up on food storage and be prepared to take care of yourselves. Of course, that's a whole other topic.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Friday, May 6, 2011
UN Has Proven Once Again to Be Morally Repugnant.
Last Sunday, May 1st, it was announced that the Navy Seal team 6 killed Osama Bin Laden. People all across the US could not be more excited about it and sang the song "Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead." and rightfully so. Osama bin Laden died on Walpugisnacht; the night of black sabbaths and bonfires.
Of course it brings up very many questions that needed to be answered by Pakistan. Questions that should and ought to be answered to. After all, how could they have NOT known that the world's most wanted man was living in an elaborately built compound just 800 yards from the Abbottabad military academy, which is the equivalent of West Point academy. On just about every street corner is a soldier standing guard and the place is just 80 miles from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. There is no way that in a country where the average height for a male is 5 ft 8 that they could have missed a man that was 6 ft 4. How could they have not known that couriers were running in and out of the compound where Osama bin Laden was living just yards away from a military academy?
Instead of answering the questions that needed answering, Pakistan instead chose to accuse the US of murdering Osama bin Laden in cold blood and tell the US that our small number of military was no longer welcomed. This was their response after the US government said they needed to answer questions. It really is no surprise, after all, that Pakistan would have double standards. After the bombing in Mumbai in India, India was certainly demanding answers for Pakistan's support of the groups that committed the act of war. It was evident that Pakistan was warring with India by proxy. This time around, Pakistan learned that the "Who me? I didn't do it?" wasn't going to cut it. So, to be able to cut their tails and run, they chose to accuse the US of murder which couldn't be even more repugnant than their "I didn't do it" look.
To build on top of the morally repugnant nation of Pakistan, here comes the UN joining in on the old and usual, "let's bash the US" party. After all, what better way to keep demanding the US to fund the most money to them, provide the most military resources, and not allow the US on any of the boards in the UN. The UN comes out and claims, along with Pakistan, that the US committed murder.
EXCUSE ME! Since when did we treat mass murders with the same rights as any other man on earth??
Osama bin Laden was the enemy combatant. He was a mass murderer who killed over 3 thousand innocent people on 9/11 but had intended to kill thousands more people who had never done anything to deserve what he did to them. He killed thousands of his own people as well. If Osama bin Ladin was unarmed, then who cares? We were at war with him and still are at war with terrorist groups that had ties to Osama bin Laden such as the Taliban and al Qaeda. In fact, just this morning, OBL's predecessor came out and said he was going to continue on with the war and made threats for more acts of terrorism.
During WWII we killed many unarmed Nazi's because it was a war. If we had the same attitude that we have now about "murdering" during a war, we would have never won that war, we would have lost it and Nazism would be everywhere and the annihilation of the Jews would have been certain.
The UN has proven to be a morally repugnant group that the US should have gotten out of A LONG TIME AGO! The UN has gladly taken money, military resources and so much else from the US and yet kept the US out of their boards but had no shame in putting Islamic members on boards such as the Women's Rights Board. (Nothing like handing the keys of the hen house to the fox, eh?) It should be pretty well and obvious that the UN does not recognize any rights for the US. Their morality is such that the US should recognize the right of a terrorist leader over their own.
Just think of yourself as a foot soldier and you walked into the mansion of the leader of the group you're fighting against and you're not allowed to shoot him!? NO WAY! It doesn't work that way. You mean to tell me that if, during WWII, I walked into the mansion of Adolf Hitler, I was not allowed to shoot the man who was the leader of the Nazi regime, killed millions of innocent people and we were at war with him and his thugs? We're not talking about petty crimes here, we're talking about a man we were at war with. Osama bin Laden was the enemy combatant who was a leader of the enemy we are fighting against. You shoot him when you get the chance. End of story! You don't give him a chance unless he has something to offer but he really had nothing to offer. For all we know, we could have just bombed the place and killed him along with everyone else there and it would have made no difference. Only that by having the Navy Seal team go in there instead, they have been able to collect more intelligence on the terrorist groups and to verify that Osama bin Laden really was dead.
So, what I have to say to the UN is to go FLY A KITE! We don't need you! It's you who needs us. Pack your bags, get off our land, and don't count on our tax payer's money or military resources ever again! UN is a criminal organization that aides and abets the real criminals while mooching off of the real producers in the world.
http://www.businessinsider.com/salman-rushdie-its-time-to-declare-pakistan-a-terrorist-state-2011-5
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/05/pakistan-cut-military-presence-bin-laden-raid/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/05/days-bin-ladens-death-chief-questions-legality-killing/
Of course it brings up very many questions that needed to be answered by Pakistan. Questions that should and ought to be answered to. After all, how could they have NOT known that the world's most wanted man was living in an elaborately built compound just 800 yards from the Abbottabad military academy, which is the equivalent of West Point academy. On just about every street corner is a soldier standing guard and the place is just 80 miles from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. There is no way that in a country where the average height for a male is 5 ft 8 that they could have missed a man that was 6 ft 4. How could they have not known that couriers were running in and out of the compound where Osama bin Laden was living just yards away from a military academy?
Instead of answering the questions that needed answering, Pakistan instead chose to accuse the US of murdering Osama bin Laden in cold blood and tell the US that our small number of military was no longer welcomed. This was their response after the US government said they needed to answer questions. It really is no surprise, after all, that Pakistan would have double standards. After the bombing in Mumbai in India, India was certainly demanding answers for Pakistan's support of the groups that committed the act of war. It was evident that Pakistan was warring with India by proxy. This time around, Pakistan learned that the "Who me? I didn't do it?" wasn't going to cut it. So, to be able to cut their tails and run, they chose to accuse the US of murder which couldn't be even more repugnant than their "I didn't do it" look.
To build on top of the morally repugnant nation of Pakistan, here comes the UN joining in on the old and usual, "let's bash the US" party. After all, what better way to keep demanding the US to fund the most money to them, provide the most military resources, and not allow the US on any of the boards in the UN. The UN comes out and claims, along with Pakistan, that the US committed murder.
EXCUSE ME! Since when did we treat mass murders with the same rights as any other man on earth??
Osama bin Laden was the enemy combatant. He was a mass murderer who killed over 3 thousand innocent people on 9/11 but had intended to kill thousands more people who had never done anything to deserve what he did to them. He killed thousands of his own people as well. If Osama bin Ladin was unarmed, then who cares? We were at war with him and still are at war with terrorist groups that had ties to Osama bin Laden such as the Taliban and al Qaeda. In fact, just this morning, OBL's predecessor came out and said he was going to continue on with the war and made threats for more acts of terrorism.
During WWII we killed many unarmed Nazi's because it was a war. If we had the same attitude that we have now about "murdering" during a war, we would have never won that war, we would have lost it and Nazism would be everywhere and the annihilation of the Jews would have been certain.
The UN has proven to be a morally repugnant group that the US should have gotten out of A LONG TIME AGO! The UN has gladly taken money, military resources and so much else from the US and yet kept the US out of their boards but had no shame in putting Islamic members on boards such as the Women's Rights Board. (Nothing like handing the keys of the hen house to the fox, eh?) It should be pretty well and obvious that the UN does not recognize any rights for the US. Their morality is such that the US should recognize the right of a terrorist leader over their own.
Just think of yourself as a foot soldier and you walked into the mansion of the leader of the group you're fighting against and you're not allowed to shoot him!? NO WAY! It doesn't work that way. You mean to tell me that if, during WWII, I walked into the mansion of Adolf Hitler, I was not allowed to shoot the man who was the leader of the Nazi regime, killed millions of innocent people and we were at war with him and his thugs? We're not talking about petty crimes here, we're talking about a man we were at war with. Osama bin Laden was the enemy combatant who was a leader of the enemy we are fighting against. You shoot him when you get the chance. End of story! You don't give him a chance unless he has something to offer but he really had nothing to offer. For all we know, we could have just bombed the place and killed him along with everyone else there and it would have made no difference. Only that by having the Navy Seal team go in there instead, they have been able to collect more intelligence on the terrorist groups and to verify that Osama bin Laden really was dead.
So, what I have to say to the UN is to go FLY A KITE! We don't need you! It's you who needs us. Pack your bags, get off our land, and don't count on our tax payer's money or military resources ever again! UN is a criminal organization that aides and abets the real criminals while mooching off of the real producers in the world.
http://www.businessinsider.com/salman-rushdie-its-time-to-declare-pakistan-a-terrorist-state-2011-5
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/05/pakistan-cut-military-presence-bin-laden-raid/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/05/days-bin-ladens-death-chief-questions-legality-killing/
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Social Security; World's Biggest Fraud
Like I said in another article, I did attend a recent townhall meeting with US Senator Mike Pompeo and the biggest concern people had was their Social Security Check. Let me recap on what happened.
Republicans came out with a plan to address the nation's debt crisis, the Path to Prosperity; more like a path to destruction imo. It was a plan to pay down the national debt, balance the budget within five years, and yet keep entitlement benefits and more. They were going to keep Social Security and Medicare programs in place whereas if things were to keep going in the direction they were going, the two programs would eventually have become broke and no longer provide their services. (Gee, what a loss.) The Democrats and the President, however, accused the Republicans of otherwise. They created an ad where this elderly woman stood in front of the camera and accused the Republicans of taking her Social Security check away and they were encouraging people to call their Republican leaders not to take their checks and benefits away. So, not only are the Democrats playing a dirty game, vilifying the Republican's plan but they're using the elderly as a front to try and discriminate and discount any efforts the Republican's may have to try and save this nation from certain failure. Democrats in turn lose more credibility for simply ignoring the facts. AS IF they had any credibility at all in the first place.
It was no surprise then that at townhall meetings across the nation that the number one discussion was not the debt crisis, as it should be, but the number one discussion was Social Security and are we going to keep getting our checks. As I walked into the building where the meeting was taking place, low and behold there were people standing just outside the door, representing Peace and Social Justice Center from Topeka, Kansas, handing out pamphlets about this very thing. They accused the Republicans of being so cold hearted and turning their backs on the elderly, disabled and, oh my gosh, the poor! Let me just share with you a paragraph ;
Paul Ryan's proposal will eliminate traditional Medicare in 10 years by forcing seniors and beneficiaries onto the private market to purchase insurance. Imagine seniors, in their 80's and 90's, having to negotiate individually with private health insurance vultures. Ryan's proposal would have Medicare eligible people receive a predetermined amount to purchase private coverage- about $8,000 in 2022. When health costs increase, recipients will be responsible for the difference between the rise in premiums and the $8,000 contribution, making coverage unaffordable, since the voucher will not keep up with health care spending.
Wow! These people are geniuses. (please note the sarcasm)
Not only were these people morally degenerate but they were also entirely misinformed and in complete denial about the situation we are in with Social Security.
According to the Cato Institute in 2009, our nation's GDP was 14.3 trillion dollars and the Social Security required 107 trillion dollars in that year alone. Every cent that is "contributed" to Social Security goes directly towards paying the benefit of those who are collecting on it now. There is a growing problem of the ratio of workers to retirees. In 1940 the ratio was about 49 workers to one retiree which worked out fine. Today, however, you have 3 workers to one retiree well on it's way to below 2 per retiree especially now that the baby boomers are entering retirement age, and the tax rate for Social Security has risen dramatically over the years. Many people of modest means will find that they pay more into Social Security than they do in income taxes. Younger workers pay into a failing system more money then ever before assuming that they will ever see any of that money when they retire.
Let's get something straight about Social Security. First off, it was never meant that it would last this long but it did and it's because of the entitlement mentality it created amongst the citizens. The people were the ones that refused to allow their political leaders to do anything about it but instead demanded that these "benefits" should stay put. Social Security became the "third rail" so to speak because it was believed by all politicians that if they messed with it, then it would end their careers. Sure enough, before a politician can even finish saying the word Social Security, out they went. So, it wasn't so much that there aren't any politicians that didn't want to do anything about the growing crisis with Social Security, they were afraid to do so because of the people who elected him into office.
Second of all, it is foolish to believe that our country could not run without Social Security. Australia and Chili are countries that have private industries that take care of their "social security". Guess what! They're doing fantastic and have loads of money for their recipients. When you have government run social security and everyone is forced to pay into it regardless of if they're going to take advantage of it or not, then you have problems with government embezzling the funds and not making the right investment strategies to create more money. Government also tends to carry themselves above the law lots of time and excuse itself from any wrong doing such as this. Meanwhile, should you have social security in private companies then you have the laws of the land that protects you and your funds. Also, another thing is that in a free market, you're allowed to choose which company you trust your money with. If you don't like one, then you go to another. If you feel that a company has broken the law and robbed you in anyway, then that's when you get the law on them and you go do business with another company. So, not only would you most likely be better protected trusting your social security with private companies and you get variety of services to better suit your needs, but you would also get competition from the companies who are vying for your business. You would get to choose who treats you better, who would protect your money better, who would make better investment returns on the money you put in. Going into the free market system would do away with the ponzi scheme we got going now and create better wealth for people's retirement.
Third of all, like I said before; Tell me how it is justified that I should keep paying into Social Security, that I have never asked for but was forced upon it, keep paying into it to never see one dime of that money I put in when I retire??? Face it folks! Social Security is a failed system from the get go and everyone knew that eventually, someone was going to have to pay the price of this system and the game is up! We've dug ourselves a bottomless pit. Social Security will run out of it's assets in about 30 years and will no longer be able to pay out. Could be sooner, who knows but it is nonetheless a failing system that will place us, our children, grandchildren in bondage and the quality of life is miserable.
If you want to solve the problem of Social Security, my suggestion would be to start off with allowing insurance companies that already offer life insurance to offer social security as a product. People who buy their own private social security could then be given a tax break. People already on social security and currently collecting can be given an annuity with the company of their choice, the government could then purchase for them the annuity which will immediately give the recipient a monthly payment as they are normally use to.
This works out great because those who are on annuities can control the amount of money they get each month. If they want less money, they can call the company and tell them they want to lower the payment to save part of their money for a trip or a wedding coming up or whatever. They can also increase their monthly payment if they wish by adding more money from say a sale of a house, working, or what ever they decide to do. What's great about it is they no longer have to feel like they have to play by the government's rules of how much they can make. They can create and produce as little or as much as they'd like. After all, why would a private company tell you that you can't make more money? It would be bad for business. Meanwhile, people, such as myself, can buy a social security product from an insurance company knowing that it will be well protected by the law. On top of that, the company will be better at investing the money to create more wealth with my money, so that I know that it won't be a ponzi scheme and all the money I put into it, will come back to me whereas with the government, I'll be lucky if I get half of it back. In my case, I'll be lucky to see a penny.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10688
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/04/26/ten-years-left-for-social-security/
Republicans came out with a plan to address the nation's debt crisis, the Path to Prosperity; more like a path to destruction imo. It was a plan to pay down the national debt, balance the budget within five years, and yet keep entitlement benefits and more. They were going to keep Social Security and Medicare programs in place whereas if things were to keep going in the direction they were going, the two programs would eventually have become broke and no longer provide their services. (Gee, what a loss.) The Democrats and the President, however, accused the Republicans of otherwise. They created an ad where this elderly woman stood in front of the camera and accused the Republicans of taking her Social Security check away and they were encouraging people to call their Republican leaders not to take their checks and benefits away. So, not only are the Democrats playing a dirty game, vilifying the Republican's plan but they're using the elderly as a front to try and discriminate and discount any efforts the Republican's may have to try and save this nation from certain failure. Democrats in turn lose more credibility for simply ignoring the facts. AS IF they had any credibility at all in the first place.
It was no surprise then that at townhall meetings across the nation that the number one discussion was not the debt crisis, as it should be, but the number one discussion was Social Security and are we going to keep getting our checks. As I walked into the building where the meeting was taking place, low and behold there were people standing just outside the door, representing Peace and Social Justice Center from Topeka, Kansas, handing out pamphlets about this very thing. They accused the Republicans of being so cold hearted and turning their backs on the elderly, disabled and, oh my gosh, the poor! Let me just share with you a paragraph ;
Paul Ryan's proposal will eliminate traditional Medicare in 10 years by forcing seniors and beneficiaries onto the private market to purchase insurance. Imagine seniors, in their 80's and 90's, having to negotiate individually with private health insurance vultures. Ryan's proposal would have Medicare eligible people receive a predetermined amount to purchase private coverage- about $8,000 in 2022. When health costs increase, recipients will be responsible for the difference between the rise in premiums and the $8,000 contribution, making coverage unaffordable, since the voucher will not keep up with health care spending.
Wow! These people are geniuses. (please note the sarcasm)
Not only were these people morally degenerate but they were also entirely misinformed and in complete denial about the situation we are in with Social Security.
According to the Cato Institute in 2009, our nation's GDP was 14.3 trillion dollars and the Social Security required 107 trillion dollars in that year alone. Every cent that is "contributed" to Social Security goes directly towards paying the benefit of those who are collecting on it now. There is a growing problem of the ratio of workers to retirees. In 1940 the ratio was about 49 workers to one retiree which worked out fine. Today, however, you have 3 workers to one retiree well on it's way to below 2 per retiree especially now that the baby boomers are entering retirement age, and the tax rate for Social Security has risen dramatically over the years. Many people of modest means will find that they pay more into Social Security than they do in income taxes. Younger workers pay into a failing system more money then ever before assuming that they will ever see any of that money when they retire.
Let's get something straight about Social Security. First off, it was never meant that it would last this long but it did and it's because of the entitlement mentality it created amongst the citizens. The people were the ones that refused to allow their political leaders to do anything about it but instead demanded that these "benefits" should stay put. Social Security became the "third rail" so to speak because it was believed by all politicians that if they messed with it, then it would end their careers. Sure enough, before a politician can even finish saying the word Social Security, out they went. So, it wasn't so much that there aren't any politicians that didn't want to do anything about the growing crisis with Social Security, they were afraid to do so because of the people who elected him into office.
Second of all, it is foolish to believe that our country could not run without Social Security. Australia and Chili are countries that have private industries that take care of their "social security". Guess what! They're doing fantastic and have loads of money for their recipients. When you have government run social security and everyone is forced to pay into it regardless of if they're going to take advantage of it or not, then you have problems with government embezzling the funds and not making the right investment strategies to create more money. Government also tends to carry themselves above the law lots of time and excuse itself from any wrong doing such as this. Meanwhile, should you have social security in private companies then you have the laws of the land that protects you and your funds. Also, another thing is that in a free market, you're allowed to choose which company you trust your money with. If you don't like one, then you go to another. If you feel that a company has broken the law and robbed you in anyway, then that's when you get the law on them and you go do business with another company. So, not only would you most likely be better protected trusting your social security with private companies and you get variety of services to better suit your needs, but you would also get competition from the companies who are vying for your business. You would get to choose who treats you better, who would protect your money better, who would make better investment returns on the money you put in. Going into the free market system would do away with the ponzi scheme we got going now and create better wealth for people's retirement.
Third of all, like I said before; Tell me how it is justified that I should keep paying into Social Security, that I have never asked for but was forced upon it, keep paying into it to never see one dime of that money I put in when I retire??? Face it folks! Social Security is a failed system from the get go and everyone knew that eventually, someone was going to have to pay the price of this system and the game is up! We've dug ourselves a bottomless pit. Social Security will run out of it's assets in about 30 years and will no longer be able to pay out. Could be sooner, who knows but it is nonetheless a failing system that will place us, our children, grandchildren in bondage and the quality of life is miserable.
If you want to solve the problem of Social Security, my suggestion would be to start off with allowing insurance companies that already offer life insurance to offer social security as a product. People who buy their own private social security could then be given a tax break. People already on social security and currently collecting can be given an annuity with the company of their choice, the government could then purchase for them the annuity which will immediately give the recipient a monthly payment as they are normally use to.
This works out great because those who are on annuities can control the amount of money they get each month. If they want less money, they can call the company and tell them they want to lower the payment to save part of their money for a trip or a wedding coming up or whatever. They can also increase their monthly payment if they wish by adding more money from say a sale of a house, working, or what ever they decide to do. What's great about it is they no longer have to feel like they have to play by the government's rules of how much they can make. They can create and produce as little or as much as they'd like. After all, why would a private company tell you that you can't make more money? It would be bad for business. Meanwhile, people, such as myself, can buy a social security product from an insurance company knowing that it will be well protected by the law. On top of that, the company will be better at investing the money to create more wealth with my money, so that I know that it won't be a ponzi scheme and all the money I put into it, will come back to me whereas with the government, I'll be lucky if I get half of it back. In my case, I'll be lucky to see a penny.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10688
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/04/26/ten-years-left-for-social-security/
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Altruism vs. Charity
I had a great discussion the other day over the subject of charity. Ok. Maybe it wasn't a discussion but more of a brawl. LOL! I find it to be often the confusion of what charity really is. I hear a lot how people say that if they met a guy on the street that if he asked them for some money, they would give it to them without second thought. I once considered that thought and found this line of thinking to be false in it's principle and reasoning. People call it charity. I call it altruisim or a dead mind at work.
Altruism is defined as unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others. Altruism demands that one gives to others regardless of any rational thought. So anytime anyone comes up to you and asks for money, then according to altruism you give to them. Well, gee, Code Pink is asking for my money and I have to give under altruism. The thing of it is, is that Code Pink is giving all the donated money to Hamas. That in turn is killing our soldiers and causes our hard earned money we worked for to be turned against us. Do you see where altruism is not such a hot idea after all?
Charity on the other hand is defined as the practice of benevolent giving and caring. This is a voluntary act and actually allows for fore thought of the individual. Individuals are allowed to decide if they can give given their individual circumstance and if the receiver of their charity is something they truly believe in. So, when the guy walking down the street asks you for money, you have no moral obligation to give. It is up to the individual to decide if they want to give or not. I would expect that often times individuals would take their best interest in mind and say no because they don't know the person on the street and are not sure what they would do with the money being given. You don't know if this guy is really a smoocher and actually has a pile of money sitting at home from begging. You also don't know if this guy is going to use the money to buy drugs from a drug dealer who then buy the drugs from drug smugglers who then pay drug cartels who have gotten rich this way. If a person truly wants to help the homeless, imo, it would be best to give to a charitable organization that gears towards helping the homeless as they would know just exactly what would be needed to help the homeless individual and will know best how to make the donated money effective.
Altruism is a dangerous notion as it causes for money taken from individuals to be used against them in the end. It is from this morality that has caused for government to become corrupt and it is their bases for taxing the worker to give to the poor at the same time destroying man's incentive to work. Even today, Republicans can't morally defend what they know is right because altruism has paralyzed them from doing so. It's evident in the last spending cut charade. Republicans agree that spending cuts must be made. There are no arguments there. But they failed to make the cuts necessary because they don't have the correct morals to defend the drastic cuts needed to save our nation from certain economic doom. Republicans are fiscally conservative in thought but in action they are actually liberals. This is so widely confused about Republicans that no one will ever guess who said the following quote, “Contrary to some of the wild charges you may have heard, this administration has not and will not turn its back on America's elderly or America's poor. Under the new budget, funding for social insurance programs will be more than double the amount spent only 6 years ago. The entitlement programs that make up our safety net for the truly needy have worthy goals and many deserving recipients. We will protect them.” At first, you might think that a democrat actually said this but the truth is that this was a quote from Ronald Reagan. Because of the morality of altruism, Republicans are forced to go along with lower spending cuts Dems want and to keep welfare programs in place, much worse, increase their funding. Ever wondered why spending increases with Republicans when they touted that they're fiscially conservative in thought? Well, now you know why.
I believe that if we had a better understanding what charity truly is and understand the difference between charity and it's conterfeit, altruism, we would have no problem morally defending spending cuts, putting an end to redistribution of welfare and encourage more people to work instead of getting handouts.
My review of Atlas Shrugged, the movie
I read the book, Atlas Shrugged, years ago with a reading group online. I was thrilled by the book and at the level of intelligence put into the book. Atlas Shrugged was first published in 1957 and was Ayn Rand's fourth and last book. It was also her longest book and one that Ayn considered to be her finest work. Ayn Rand then went on to write about her philosophy behind the story of Atlas Shrugged that she coin-termed as objectivism.
The story of Atlas Shrugged centers around Dagny Taggart, a VP of Operations for the Taggart Transcontinental Railway. She witnesses collapse of society all around her as government increasingly asserts control over all industries including her railway. Meanwhile, the most productive citizens of the nation mysteriously disappear as they are led by the mysterious, yet sought after, John Galt to a place unknown where they can never be found. Galt's goal was to "stop the motor of the world" by withdrawing from the world the "minds" that drove society's productivity and growth. He proposed to force civilization to see that when people are slaves to government and society, when you destroy the profit motive, then your society will inevitably collapse.
The title, Atlas Shrugged, is in reference to a Titan of Greek mythology who holds the weight of the world on his shoulders. The conversation between Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden displays the relationship between the mythology and the story itself. Francisco asked Hank what he would suggest to the Titan what to do as every time Atlas gave greater effort the heavier the weight of the world bore. Hank couldn't come up with an answer but Francisco said that he would simply tell him to shrug. Hence the title of the book, Atlas Shrugged.
When the movie came out, I was thrilled! I had been waiting for a long time with many others for a movie on the book to come out. I went by myself but still ended up talking to other patrons there who were just as excited as I was for the movie to finally be played.
Having read the book, I found great appreciation for the movie. The movie was done on a budget and it did show but even so, it was still appreciable. I could feel myself build some anger as I watched what happened to Hank Rearden and to Ellis Wyatt and to their companies. What a person who did not read the novel may not know is how these two men got to where they are in their companies. Perspectively, neither one of them was born with a silver spoon but worked all their lives to build everything that they have. Hank rose from being a miner in a coal mine and on to an industrial giant to his eventual creation of Rearden metal which proved to be not only the most economical but light weight and yet strong. And so it angered me when their companies were slapped with taxes only because there were some people who felt they should "contribute" more to their fellow man as if they hadn't already. But I could feel my blood boil even more when they forced Hank to give up over half of his industries that he worked so hard to build. All that Hank was left with was his steel industry and the secret metal that he was unwilling to share which caused a lot of jealousy amongst other politicians and businessmen. Anyway, I do think it is important to read the book as you do miss out on a lot and you can understand better what the characters are going through.
I was disappointed that they couldn't include anything about the people from the book. I remember reading how the railroad engineers supported Dagny's new "controversial" railway and were lining up in her office to volunteer to drive the train in spite of the union leader's call not to drive her train. I also remember reading about how volunteers would guard the rail so that no one could steal the metal or sabotage the train's first run. People have a tendency to get behind leaders who are rational and will follow truth where ever it goes.
I have heard people say that they were disappointed there weren't any messages shared in the movie. Maybe it's just me but I thought there was. I felt the movie made me think about not only about how government has a tendency to be absolutist but about our relationship with others including family. You see how Wesley Mouch betrays Hank Rearden using the government to bring his industry down. You also watch as you see Hank's manipulative wife, mother and ungrateful brother who show no appreciation for everything he provides for them. Hank's own family hinders his progress in his industry by slowing him down and weigh him with altruistic ideas.
Overall, I think it was a great movie and I look forward to part 2 of the movie. I do recommend reading the book before seeing it but even so, it's just as well. It is obvious the movie was done on a dime and you get what you pay for, but it's still worth it.
Kansas is Shrugging
Hey folks! I am really excited to start this new blog site, Kansas Shrugged. I want to be able to share with more people my views and knowledge on any given subject, but mostly with politics. I have studied economics in high school and in college and am continuing to study Austrian Economics on my own. I co-hosted the Purple People Network radio show on blog talk radio with Jim Guest until it ended. I gave advice to various local political leaders and have posted notes on my facebook page with over 4600 fans. Now, I think it's time for me to push forward and strike it out on my own. I am still learning many things, but I would consider it a waste of life to quite learning. Everyone has their learning curve and I hope that people who read my blogs will be patient with mine as I have a very slow learning curve. LOL!
I went to a recent townhall meeting with US Senator Mike Pompeo in El Dorado, Kansas. There were many topics concerning the nation including the debt crisis, national security, health care, Medicare, Social Security and more; just to name a few. Mike Pompeo presented himself well but what shocked me most that the main topic of the meeting was not the debt crisis and the nation possibly raising the debt ceiling but that it was Social Security. I couldn't help but to wonder where people's priorities are. Elderly person after old folk after disabled got up wondering if they were going to keep getting their checks. I seriously felt like getting up and sternly tell those old folks to look me in the eye and tell me how it's justified that I should have to keep paying into Social Security for all my working life only to find that when I do retire that I WON'T GET ONE DIME BACK! NOT ONE CENT!!! I was fuming.
Apparently what had happened was that Obama and his team of thugs had ran some ads on the air displaying an elderly woman and basically told people that the Republican's "Path to Prosperity" would take their Social Security checks away from them and end Medicare. Truth is that the Republican's plan does neither, but they keep the social programs in tact. You can look for yourself at the following link; http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf I will write another article on that.
The point is this; Our state of Kansas and the nation as a whole is dying and for what? Altruism and reckless intransigence. We've abandoned the values and principles that made this nation great all for the sake of government taking care of the man. Federal government have time and time again pushed the limits of the US Constitution to extend welfare rather than freedom. And now, after so many years of this, the working man not only has to support himself and his own family but support others who are not working because there are people who want to make sure they get their Social Security check, or their prescription, or their kid has top notch education in the public school, or their art commission gets their funding, or their water department gets money... and it goes on.
Our nation is dying folks. We need to make better priorities than that or otherwise, we're going to lose the most valuable asset our nation has. Our US Constitution and individual rights.
It is my hope that in this blog website, that I will be able to convince the people of Kansas to change the direction of where our state is heading; to go away from the entitlement state to one of individual rights and free capitalism. These are the things that I cherish and I want to restore them and help to maintain them so that my children and future generations may come to know them and enjoy them. So, that later in life, I can relax, knowing that I have done my best and enjoy a free country.
I went to a recent townhall meeting with US Senator Mike Pompeo in El Dorado, Kansas. There were many topics concerning the nation including the debt crisis, national security, health care, Medicare, Social Security and more; just to name a few. Mike Pompeo presented himself well but what shocked me most that the main topic of the meeting was not the debt crisis and the nation possibly raising the debt ceiling but that it was Social Security. I couldn't help but to wonder where people's priorities are. Elderly person after old folk after disabled got up wondering if they were going to keep getting their checks. I seriously felt like getting up and sternly tell those old folks to look me in the eye and tell me how it's justified that I should have to keep paying into Social Security for all my working life only to find that when I do retire that I WON'T GET ONE DIME BACK! NOT ONE CENT!!! I was fuming.
Apparently what had happened was that Obama and his team of thugs had ran some ads on the air displaying an elderly woman and basically told people that the Republican's "Path to Prosperity" would take their Social Security checks away from them and end Medicare. Truth is that the Republican's plan does neither, but they keep the social programs in tact. You can look for yourself at the following link; http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf I will write another article on that.
The point is this; Our state of Kansas and the nation as a whole is dying and for what? Altruism and reckless intransigence. We've abandoned the values and principles that made this nation great all for the sake of government taking care of the man. Federal government have time and time again pushed the limits of the US Constitution to extend welfare rather than freedom. And now, after so many years of this, the working man not only has to support himself and his own family but support others who are not working because there are people who want to make sure they get their Social Security check, or their prescription, or their kid has top notch education in the public school, or their art commission gets their funding, or their water department gets money... and it goes on.
Our nation is dying folks. We need to make better priorities than that or otherwise, we're going to lose the most valuable asset our nation has. Our US Constitution and individual rights.
It is my hope that in this blog website, that I will be able to convince the people of Kansas to change the direction of where our state is heading; to go away from the entitlement state to one of individual rights and free capitalism. These are the things that I cherish and I want to restore them and help to maintain them so that my children and future generations may come to know them and enjoy them. So, that later in life, I can relax, knowing that I have done my best and enjoy a free country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)