It seems that with every passing day we hear more bad news about our economy. Weak GDP reports, low consumer sentiment, and low consumer spending have become the norm lately. And then it happened. Bear Stearns, the nation’s fifth largest investment bank, collapsed. What does the government do? They step in and keep this private business from completely failing by financing it’s buyout. Does this not bother anyone else?

The problem with this move is that they are using your tax money to do it. Since when should we be financing the bail-out of private companies that made the decision to engage in risky business practices? What ever happened to allowing a company to prosper or fail according to its own merit? In this case, the problem seems to be, at least according to the government, the sheer size of the bank. Their rationalization is that by allowing this bank to fail too many people will be hurt and the economy, already on life-support, will slip into the recession they are so diligently avoiding admitting is currently in the process of unfolding.

What has become of our government? Originally created to work as a tool of the people it has now become an all-powerful entity beholden only to itself. We, as the populace, are now mere subjects of this entity; slaves to the beast. What good does this do us? The populace continues to give up its ability to make decisions for itself in exchange for the perceived security a big government offers them. We need to remember, however, that at no time in history has big government succeeded. It has always failed and, in doing so, hurt the very people it promised to protect.

The sad truth is that the general population will always look for ways to get the most while doing the least and big government will be more than happy to oblige. All they ask in return is for more control over you. What we end up with is the current economic problems we are experiencing. When government intervenes in what should be the free market it ends up hurting everyone in the long run. Sure, this move might help in the short term, but it should be likened to putting a band-aid on the problem. It does not directly attack the root cause of the problem which is government’s intervention in the free market in the first place.

So, while we may be forced to deal with paying for the mistakes of a private business right now, take the opportunity to learn from it and demand that the government release its hold on the populace. Don’t be scared to demand that people be allowed to make bad choices and then be expected to live with the consequences of those decisions. This is the only true liberty.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pitched their economic plans today. Unsurprisingly, both plans relied on heavy government involvement. To summarize, Obama wants taxpayer relief and more government regulation. Clinton, on the other hand, offered a huge government-backed job training program. What’s wrong with this picture?

In order to fund Clinton’s job training program, she is calling for $2.5 billion per year. This money will be used to help workers train for new jobs and improve skills for existing jobs. Anyone want to guess where this money will come from, because she sure did not offer any ideas. We can make a pretty well-educated bet, however, that the money would come from higher taxes bestowed on the rest of us. I want to know just how great we should feel about this since we are the ones funding it, and not by any choice of our own. That’s not even the worst of it, however. Hillary doesn’t care how one loses their job. She feels everyone should be allowed to tap into this funding for job training. In other words, if one gets fired for being unproductive or doing drugs, they will have the same opportunity as those who worked their butts off but were fired, or laid off, because of circumstances they cannot control, such as downsizing or the movement of their position overseas. She has to be kidding, right? Unfortunately, she’s not. If I choose to help my neighbor, should that not be my choice alone? Where is the morality in forcing me to help people I don’t even know by threat of prison if I don’t comply?

Obama has a different view on helping the economy. He wants mandated relief for homeowners. Beyond that, he is also suggesting a $30 billion economic stimulus package. Mind you, this is before we have even received the money from the current stimulus package. We also must not forget a $1,000 tax cut for “working families.” Combine all that with his belief that government must regulate private business even more than they already do and you have yourself a recipe for a strain of Socialism. So, once again, I have to ask where is government supposed to be getting this money from? What Barack is suggesting is a lot of spending combined with cutting the government’s revenue. How exactly does this work? The truth is, it doesn’t. The money will have to come from somewhere, and whether that somewhere happens to be increased taxes, borrowed money, or the increased printing of currency, it will have to be paid for at some point. Take a guess at who is going to foot the bill. That’s right, you and I. Are you ready to bail out those who chose not to learn more about the mortgage they were agreeing to before signing the bottom line? Are you willing to give people who have shown they do not take the time to read the fine print relating to their single largest purchase more money?

When government tries to force any form of Socialist-based policy, on the populace, under the guise of morality everyone gets hurt. There is absolutely no morality in forcing one to pay for another or to do for another. Charity should be a choice, a decision made by the individual. It is not something that one should be required to do. All this does is breed resentment against a particular class of people. For presidential candidates that spend so much time espousing the greatness of removing class lines, they sure do seem to be doing their part to increase the distance between the classes.

As the price of oil continues to rise so does the price of gas. It seems to be what we hear about most when it comes to oil. But, that is only a small part of a much bigger picture. The larger concern is that the price of diesel is also rising. Should we be concerned? And, if so, why?

The simple answer is, of course we should be concerned. Diesel is the lifeblood of most commercial businesses. From the trucks that deliver your food to the supermarkets to the aircraft that delivers you to your destination, the higher diesel prices are squeezing the profit margins of these businesses. The larger concern, however, seems to be for small business.

“I’m in debt,” says Jim Gossett, an owner/operator truck driver with a wife and daughter in Chapel Hill, N.C. “Do I turn in all my equipment, potentially lose my home?”

For the last nine years Gossett has driven a truck. For the last few he’s been running a specialized carrier, delivering boats to marinas and dealers across the country.

He says his profit margin used to be around 25%. But with the near-tripling of diesel prices over the last few years, he now says that has been cut to 5%.

He says cutthroat competition in the industry means he’s unable to pass along the increased cost.

I applaud Mr. Gossett for running his own business and I do empathize with his plight. That does not mean that I think the government should intervene in any way. In the United States one has the opportunity to do as much, and go as far, as he likes. That does not mean that one is entitled to be successful. Do you understand what I am saying here? One is given the opportunity to be successful but is in no way guaranteed that success. Success comes from being more innovative or having more value-added services available to one’s customers. Those that cannot meet the public demand for a product or service at a particular price are in the wrong line of business. It really is as simple as that.

Government meddling in business only creates artificially higher prices. When a government subsidizes an individual it only succeeds in telling them that they do not have to be innovative and they don’t have to run a tighter ship. No; instead all they have to do is continue running their business inefficiently and the government will make sure they are profitable. How is that right? Why should I be forced to pay more for the things I need or want just because someone might have to do something else for a living?

At the end of the day the opportunities are there. The problem is that individuals have this feeling of entitlement to do what they want, where they want, whether or not it is feasible. People need to get over this feeling of entitlement and do what they have to in order to be successful in life. If Plan A doesn’t work then move onto Plan B. What, you have no Plan B? Then you have only yourself to blame. Do not become so rigidly attached to an idea that it keeps you from doing anything else because at that point you have set yourself up as a victim by choice. The problem with these victims is that they expect the government to do for them. It’s my money you are expecting the government to give you and I have a big problem with that. Once again, the opportunities are there. You just have to be willing to accept the fact that what you have been doing is no longer working and it’s time to move on.

Article

Competition in currency should be demanded by all. The FED currently holds a monopoly on our currency which means that they are not kept in check by the populace. Inflation is the result. But, what can we do about it? We can start by listening to Dr. Paul.

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act. This act would eliminate two sections of US Code that, although ostensibly intended to punish counterfeiters, have instead been used by the government to shut down private mints. As anti-counterfeiting measures, these sections are superfluous, as 18 USC 485, 490, and 491 already grant sufficient authority to punish counterfeiters.More…

The two sections this bill repeals, 18 USC 486 and 489, are so broadly written as to effectively restrict any form of private coinage from competing with the products of the United States Mint. Allowing such statutes to remain in force as a catch-all provision merely encourages prosecutorial abuse. One particular egregious recent example is that of the Liberty Dollar, in which federal agents seized millions of dollars worth of private currency held by a private mint on behalf of thousands of people across the country.

Due to nearly a century of inflationary monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve, the US dollar stands at historically low levels. Investors around the world are shunning the dollar, and millions of Americans see their salaries, savings accounts, and pensions eroded away by rising inflation. We stand on the precipice of an unprecedented monetary collapse, and as a result many people have begun to look for alternatives to the dollar.

As a proponent of competition in currencies, I believe that the American people should be free to choose the type of currency they prefer to use. The ability of consumers to adopt alternative currencies can help to keep the government and the Federal Reserve honest, as the threat that further inflation will cause more and more people to opt out of using the dollar may restrain the government from debasing the currency. As monopolists, however, the Federal Reserve and the Mint fear competition, and would rather force competitors out using the federal court system and the threat of asset forfeiture than compete in the market.

A free society should shun this type of strong-arm action, and the Free Competition in Currency Act would take the necessary first steps to freeing the market for competing currencies. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

by Ron Paul, Dr. December 13, 2007

Personally, it is a fantastic idea, I think. It doesn’t mean that the Fed will be put out of business. What it means is that they had better start working for the people instead of for themselves, to the extent that the populace is willing to accept it. As long as they aren’t allowing runaway inflation, as they have been doing over the years, they should be golden.

What most of the general population fails to realize is that inflation is the cause of having too much money in circulation. This happens because the government has come to view the FED as their personal money printing supply house. When Congress wants to increase spending of some sort and doesn’t want to impose immediate taxes to do it, they get the FED to print up more money. Unfortunately, the more dollar bills that are out there, in circulation, the less valuable each one of those dollar bills is worth. At a time when our dollar is near, or at, all-time highs versus the Euro and the Great British Pound it has become increasingly important for us, as the populace of this great country, to stand up against the government’s money printing free-for-all.

The result of this excess printing of money is that the government is effectively taxing, not only our children, but our grandchildren. What do I mean? Simply, they will be paying higher prices for necessities, not because the cost of producing them is going up, but because the value of their money is going down. Once again, the more money that is in circulation the less valuable it is. The less valuable it is the more money it will cost to purchase items one needs or wants. So, step up and don’t be afraid to say no to our government when they ask for your blessing to spend more money. Make them work with what they have. Make them become more efficient and innovative. Remember, government is beholden to the people who allow its existence. That is you and me.

Since its ratification in 1791, the meaning of the United State’s Constitution’s Second Amendment has been argued by gun proponents, and opponents, alike. The Supreme Court has yet to pass a decisive decision either way. But, that could all change, as early as this summer.The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments to the legitimacy, or lack thereof, in regards to Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns. The question boils down to, is this law constitutional or not? As it is one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, deciding the constitutionality of this 32-year-old handgun ban will likely have far-reaching effects on the rest of the nation.

The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.

The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

So, what does the Second Amendment refer to? Were the Founding Fathers referring to state’s rights or to individual rights? Let’s look at what is actually being said here. The amendment clearly sates “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” In the amendment before, and the amendments after, the word “people” refers to an individual. What would make the Second Amendment any different? Why would “people” all of the sudden refer to the state? Also, a person can “bear arms” but is it possible for a state to do so? How would a state be able to “bear arms?” A 1997 Supreme Court ruling stated that only an individual can bear arms.

Unfortunately, this is just the first step. Gun ban proponents tend to cling to the morality aspect of guns. They feel that guns are immoral because of the chance of accidental death and the severity of injuries related to guns. What these misguided extremists are doing, however, is blaming the “tool.” They argue that not having access to these “tools” would decrease the severity of injuries and the accidental deaths. I have to argue otherwise.

How can ANYONE, who claims to have ANY KIND of morality support gun bans? Take a minute to think about it. Let what I am about to say really sink in before lashing out. Be sure to leave emotion and false attempts at morality at the door. The truth is, by banning guns these “moral” people are telling innocent individuals that their life is not worth the potential cost of a bullet. They are taking away the ability of the innocent to protect themselves against the criminals. What is an individual to do when approached by a criminal that is either taller, stronger, faster, smarter, has them outnumbered, or is more adept at fighting than themselves? The gun is a great equalizer. It is a fantastic deterrent and much more effective than any other form of personal protection. If anything, it allows those less-able to protect themselves, because of the above-mentioned deficiencies, the opportunity to walk away from a potential altercation alive, and, quite possibly, unhurt.

The person that claims the individual has no right to protect themselves, with a gun, against one which would do them harm is morally defunct in every way. They are so intent on looking at the immediate, easy outcome (i.e. no guns means that there will possibly be less severe outcomes to crimes) that they fail to realize the more serious implications of what they are suggesting (those they are claiming they are trying to protect will become even easier to target and hurt). What they are failing to comprehend is that making guns illegal will NOT get them out of the hands of criminals. It will only, somewhat effectively, remove guns from law-abiding citizens. What good does that do anyone?

The bulk of our problem with our own government, here in the United States, is that it spends too much time putting band-aids on problems and trying to outlaw the tools used. Instead, the time and effort should be spent on attacking the root of the problem…the people who are committing the crimes. Education and deterrence work a lot better than making crime easier to commit by unarming innocent, law-abiding people. Get to the root of the problem and you have a chance at solving it.

Unfortunately, those who are all for gun bans cannot seem to get past the correlation concerning guns and crime, and that’s what they base their “logic” on. What ever happened to fixing the causation? The only way to fix a problem is to attack its cause. And guns do not CAUSE crime. They are merely tools used by criminals in the process of committing a crime AND by innocent individuals as protection against that crime.

While owning a gun may not be a natural right, it is the absolute best guarantee to one’s protection of his own rights. The government cannot always be expected to protect an individual’s liberties, as has been shown throughout history. Whether that protection is against a standing army, the government, or the criminal next door makes no difference. A person’s ability to protect oneself should always supersede government’s control over one’s life. Nobody, no entity, should EVER stand in the way of a person protecting oneself and family. Period. To believe otherwise is showing a complete lack of morality and is 100% unethical.

Article

Exactly what rights do passengers on airliners have, and should the federal government become involved?

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down a state law requiring airlines to give food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to passengers stuck in delayed planes, saying the measure was well-intentioned but stepped on federal authority.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said New York’s law — the first of its kind in the country — interferes with federal law governing the price, route or service of an air carrier.

The law was passed after thousands of passengers were stranded aboard airplanes for up to 10 hours on several JetBlue Airways flights at Kennedy International Airport on Valentine’s Day last year. They complained they were deprived of food and water and that toilets overflowed. A month later, hundreds more passengers of other airlines were stranded aboard planes at JFK after a daylong ice storm.

I applaud the appeals court for this decision. Let’s face it, keeping your customers happy is purely a business decision. Airline customers do not have a right to water, food, clean toilets, and fresh air. I know that sounds harsh, but hear me out. It is true that these things would make the delayed flight a bit more bearable, but they are not, in any sense of the word, rights. An airline is under no obligation to provide these things to its passengers. They do so out of the prospect of return customers and good word-of-mouth advertising. At the end of the day, one that has a questionable experience with a company should not use that particular company again. If one hears of questionable experiences with a company, and still uses them, that company should thank its lucky stars that the person was a customer and do what it can, within reason, to show that they appreciate their business. The less government is involved in business, the better things will be…to an extent.

In this case, as much of a pain in the butt as it was for the passengers, they should consider it a learning experience AND tell everyone who will listen about their terrible experience. Once the impact of less passengers is felt on the airline’s bottom line, if they want to stay competitive and in business, they will HAVE to address the concerns. If not, they will simply go the way of other businesses that were not as competitive as they should have been. Choosing to do the things mentioned in the article then becomes a VERY IMPORTANT business decision. How much are these customers worth to the airline? Choose wrong and you’re out of business; choose right and you’re still in. Bad business gone, good business lives on.

Of course, it isn’t as simple as that when it comes to the airline industry. As they are subsidized by the government (read: kept afloat by spending your taxes) they will still feel the impact of less passengers, but not to the extent they should. If airlines were really forced to deal with the full implications of the decisions they make, rest assured we would be a much happier air-traveling populace. Does this mean that individuals will get everything they want? Of course not. What it does mean is that we will get a truer compromise between what we want and what the airline is able to offer. Those that can afford to be more accommodating, whether it be through cost-cutting, value-added services, or a better business structure, will be rewarded with a greater customer base. Airlines that, either, choose to offer less or simply cannot afford to do so will become a mere footnote in our country’s business history. This is a good thing. The only way everyone wins is if we have a truly competitive business environment. Government MUST be kept out of it to the greatest extent possible. No more corporate welfare. No more government subsidies. Level the playing field and allow those that can provide the best products and services we desire, at the lowest possible cost, the ability to do so. Competition spurs innovation which lowers cost.

Article

According to a recent article, entitled Government Benefit Programs in Trouble, Social Security and Medicare are soon to be on life support. Trustees from the two benefit programs have listed Social Security’s trust fund depletion date at 2041 and Medicare’s at 2019.

Both those dates were the same as in last year’s report. But the trustees warned that financial pressures will begin much sooner when the programs begin paying out more in benefits each year than they collect in payroll taxes. For Medicare, that threshold is projected to be reached this year and for Social Security it is projected to occur in 2017.

Did our government really believe that they would never have to pay back the billions of dollars they have borrowed, over the years, from the Social Security trust fund? Or, is it just that they never even honestly considered it? It must have been difficult having such easy access to all that surplus over the years. Borrow a little here; take a little there. The next thing you know, it’s gone. The hard truth is that the trust fund will no longer have the money to fully pay out the benefits promised to the people by the time 2017 roles around. In other words, they will be short. Do you understand what they are say here? There will not be enough money coming in from payroll taxes to cover the benefits they will be required to pay out. What is the government to do? What can they do? They will be left with only two choices, raise taxes or cut other government programs. Which one do you think they will choose?

When one gives another any control over their life, or their well-being, they are just asking for the problems we are currently seeing with the Social Security and Medicare fiasco. Take note, this is what happens when government meddles in an individual’s personal life too much. Generations of people have been taught to rely on the government’s Social Security trust fund for their retirement. It would seem this has been all for naught. These same people are now struggling to make ends meet. As a matter of fact, the average retired worker will receive estimated monthly benefits of only $1,079 this year. That’s the average, folks. For most people, it does not get better than that, and for a lot of people it gets much worse.

I am not blaming the government, directly, for the current state of a person’s retirement lifestyle. What I am saying is that they have had a hand in it, indirectly, by teaching the populace to rely on them for so many years. The government’s responsibility lies in giving people a false sense of security. That being said, individuals must learn to take the blame for their circumstances. An individual’s vigilance, in their own financial security, is the only guarantee there truly is. It’s about time individuals stood up and took responsibility for themselves instead of being lazy and expecting someone else to do it for them. No more entitlement. No more crying about how they don’t understand stock markets, mutual funds, FOREX, bonds, or any other financial investments. If you don’t understand it, LEARN IT. Seriously. It’s YOUR future. Take control of your life.