Occupy pathetic

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Friday, November 4, 2011
Subject: Occupy pathetic
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


<http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n567/BruceMajors/th_4a6288e5.jpg>

4a6288e5.jpg
A pitiful 30 Occupy protestors block the intersection of 7th and New York Avenue NW in DC outside the tea party summit. One loon got in to scream at the dinner speaker, Judge Andrew Napolitano, who was criticizing the Patriot Act. I guess Occupy supports the Patriot Act now

<http://pic.photobucket.com/logos/PbLogo.170.gif>

If you are having problems viewing this email, copy and paste the following into your browser:
http://s1140.photobucket.com/albums/n567/BruceMajors/?action=view&current=4a6288e5.jpg&evt=user_media_share

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: Occupy pathetic

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Friday, November 4, 2011
Subject: Occupy pathetic
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


<http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n567/BruceMajors/th_4a6288e5.jpg>

4a6288e5.jpg
A pitiful 30 Occupy protestors block the intersection of 7th and New York Avenue NW in DC outside the tea party summit. One loon got in to scream at the dinner speaker, Judge Andrew Napolitano, who was criticizing the Patriot Act. I guess Occupy supports the Patriot Act now

<http://pic.photobucket.com/logos/PbLogo.170.gif>

If you are having problems viewing this email, copy and paste the following into your browser:
http://s1140.photobucket.com/albums/n567/BruceMajors/?action=view&current=4a6288e5.jpg&evt=user_media_share

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Immigration and Misplaced Blame

Because unlike Mr. Stink, Plainol, at times, posts something of value. 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:29 PM, USA Lover <steveo.norris@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 4, 9:48 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Misplaced Blame
> ----
> blame the politicians and those who extort them into ignoring our
> immigration laws ... namely unAmerican socialist minorities, xians,
> jews, and liberals and those who hire illegals
> know the enemy
>
>How come this dude get's to make inflammatory and racist remarks
and you throw off somebody like Stephen Stink?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

How to Change the World (Or…How to Occupy Yourself)

"People say, first, "well you can vote and make change." Clearly that doesn't happen. No single vote has ever created change. (See, " Politics is a Scam and Why I Will Never Vote Again") And who do we vote for? Bush who started all these wars? Or Obama who continued them (he even kept Bush's Secretary of Defense and now we are in year 10  of Afghanistan). Voting doesn't work."

How to Change the World (Or…How to Occupy Yourself)
Posted by James Altucher
on November 2nd, 2011

I cheated. When I was in college I took six courses a semester and then worked another 20-30 hours a week to pay for my bills (on top of the debt I was incurring). Often I had to miss classes because I had a job that I had to go to. One time I showed up for a midterm and the room was empty. Later I found out the midterm was the day before. I had to convince the professor to let me retake the midterm.

A week later he gave me the same midterm he gave everyone else but I had gotten a hold of that midterm and had a week to prepare the answers. Grade. A+. I've explained over and over, College is a scam these days trying to relieve you of all of your future income.


(biggest student loan debt in history)

My roommate in my second semester was the son of a wealthy doctor. He was also a Marxist. In particular, he liked Trotsky. I didn't understand any of the differences. Later, I'd run into him and he would be talking about "the worker". He would be in one of the cafeterias reading, in no rush to get anywhere. I was always in a rush. I had either a class or a job. I wanted to take six courses a semester so I could graduate early and not get into even more debt. I felt like I was a "worker" and would get mad at him for always talking about how "the workers" are exploited. He had an anger that I couldn't understand.

Many people are angry. Here are some of the things they are angry at:

- banks took big bailouts and CEOS got paid big money afterwards. This is horrific. Why did it happen?

-  after the CEOs took home big paychecks, thousands of their own employees lost their homes.

- 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I couldn't point those places out on a map if you had a gun to my head. I was always bad at geography. [See, " Name Me a Single War That Was Worth It"]

- 100s of billions in global corruption funded by the US. Why did Hosni Mubarak's family amass an estimated $200 billion while he was President of Egypt. How many of those hundreds of billions came directly out of US taxpayer pockets. How many Mubaracks are there all over the world as we continue to fund every corrupt government in the world out of fear and anger towards our perceived enemies.

- Why are banks more busy foreclosing than lending? (Although, to be fair, I don't think ANYONE should be buying a home right now. Home ownership is a total scam propagated by the banks for the past sixty years)

- Why do we have military actions happening in over 120 countries right now even though the last legally declared war was in 1941.

And on and on. People are angry. I get it. This is anger I understand. And people have a right to protest. But then the anger gets warped even beyond the truth. "The US caused 9/11 . "The Jews control Wall Street" (a common anti-semitic refrain heard among the Occupy Wall Streeters but under-reported in the news).


(sign seen at Occupy Wall Street)

I get angry also. I want things to be better in the world. I want change. Why do so many African dictatorships horde money we send them while their citizens die of hunger? Why did GM go bankrupt and allow their entire middle management to lose their life savings and pensions? Why has unemployment doubled in the past 3 years.

People say, first, "well you can vote and make change." Clearly that doesn't happen. No single vote has ever created change. (See, " Politics is a Scam and Why I Will Never Vote Again") And who do we vote for? Bush who started all these wars? Or Obama who continued them (he even kept Bush's Secretary of Defense and now we are in year 10  of Afghanistan). Voting doesn't work.

So then people do "Plan B". Let's Occupy Wall Street. Who is on Wall Street? Certainly not the bank CEOs, who are on Park Avenue and in Greenwich, CT. "Oh,its a symbol", people say while they shout nonsense at security guards who lost their homes and low-level back office workers who work at the stock exchanges but can't afford to pay their bills. So nothing happens so they now "Occupy Portland" , "Occupy Seattle" and on and on, trying to change the world.

I will tell you how to change the world:

A) Stop being angry at the world first. Ultimately, you can't change it by force, by voting, by protesting. Nothing works. So it's none of your business what's going on out there. I forget who said it but someone said, if you want to walk comfortably, it's better to put on your own sneakers than cover the entire world with leather.

B) Heal yourself. Forget about the past ("historical is hysterical") and forget about the future (a popular book right now is that America will be #2 by 2025. My view: who even cares? And who thinks so far ahead anyway? I can get hit by a bus tomorrow and not even be here in 2025.) Focus on how you can be a better person NOW. If each person was healthy now, then change will happen.

C) How do you heal yourself? Do " The Daily Practice" I recommend. Blah. I hate recommending that every day. In my book, I Was Blind But Now I See,  I have some modifications on how you can tailor the Practice to your lifestyle. But here's one trick that you can do instantly. If you find yourself getting angry about some world event you can't change, label that thought "not useful". Instead, replace it with a thought that makes you a better person. Perhaps a thought of gratitude towards what you have. Gratitude improves not only you but the people around you. This is the seed of world change. Not anger.

D) Pretend you're an alien. I have another trick I use on myself when I'm down or angry. I picture I'm an alien who wakes up in a different body each day. Today I woke up in the body of "James Altucher". Oh, guess what? He's angry at something. How quaint. He's worried about something. But he's got all these other advantages. He's waking up and the weather is good, he's healthy, his wife is next to him, he's got various other advantages. Why should he be so angry? I'm here on a mission to help "James". What can I do to make HIS life better and healthier today? Because tomorrow my mission is over and I'll be somewhere else.

E) Change comes from within first. Not within society, which is always going to cater to the lowest common denominator, but within ourselves. I'll give an example. I first wrote about my anti-college views in the Financial Times in 2005 or 2006. Then on Yahoo Finance, then on AOL, then in the Huffington Post and the NY Post, and this blog. I don't take credit for anything but now, thanks to other people who then continued the discussion, the debate about rising college costs is no longer dismissed as "oh, that guys an idiot" but now is a serious mainstream discussion and will only get more serious over time. First YOU change, make your mind flexible, healthy, clean, while emotionally and physically and even spiritually you remain healthy. Then you'll know what to do. That's how change begins.

F) Finally, SHUT UP. Most people don't think before they talk, which is probably why these "protests" are so disorganized.


In a nutshell:

- you change

- the people around you begin to change

- the people around them begin to change

- the world becomes a little better.

Another example: a few weeks ago I wrote about "9 Skills Needed to Become a Super Connector". It got syndicated in various places. Overall maybe a million people read it. Let's say 1% get effected by that article. Those 10,000 people will start introducing people to each other. Some of those introductions will result in positive changes in society.

Before you start yelling at the world, begin the discussion inside of yourself. Only then will you have any real lasting impact outside of yourself. Only then will the angers of the world start to fade away and on the day you breathe your last breath, you could know that you did the best you could. And the world has become better for it.


http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/11/how-to-change-the-world-or-how-to-occupy-yourself/

Opponents of Occupy Wall Street Harm the Cause of Freedom

Opponents of Occupy Wall Street Harm the Cause of Freedom
by Sheldon Richman, November 4, 2011

After many weeks, Occupy Wall Street and its kindred demonstrations around the country are still a source of headline controversy -- even aside from the police manhandling of protesters. And yet the disparate coalition of discontent with contemporary America has not coalesced around a single set of aims. Unfortunately, the loudest voices call for more government management of the economy, when it is precisely that which got us into the mess we have yet to dig out from.

The protesters don't seem to understand that the great meltdown which began in 2008 grew out of joint management of the finance and housing industries by several government agencies ­ including the Federal Reserve System ­ and the captains of those industries themselves. Contrary to popular misconception, this was no case of rampant deregulation, but rather one of rampant regulatory privilege. Avoiding the debacle would have required not only actual deregulation but also, and crucially, "de-privilegization." Every device to protect banks from their own folly -- from deposit insurance to implicit guarantees to the Fed's promise of emergency cash injections -- has contributed to the misery that sent the protesters into the street.

Oddly, Wall Street's critics give little attention to the constellation of privileges that were championed by housing and finance for years. Instead, they believe that justice lies in more vigorous government regulation. The problems here are that regulatory agencies invariably end up serving the regulated industries, which sometimes write their own rules, and that even regulators with the best of intentions can't know what they would need to know to serve the public's true interest. So they are bound to do more harm than good.

The protesters need to understand that a free economy is not an unregulated economy -- far from it. Market forces, when not impeded by politicians and bureaucrats serving special interests -- are the toughest regulators, punishing firms that waste resources, destroy value, and fail to serve consumers.

In other words, the authors and administrators of the Dodd-Frank financial-regulation regime are the enemies, not the friends, of justice for the 99 percent. Who will be in a better position to participate in the rule writing: the average person or the head of a big bank? Demanding more power for government is equivalent to demanding more privileges for Wall Street. When will the protesters realize that?

Another source of confusion hangs over Occupy Wall Street, and it comes from many critics of the protests. It is a sad spectacle to see self-styled advocates of the free market come to Wall Street's defense, as though it were the natural product of spontaneous market forces rather than a creature of the corporate-state partnership that has characterized the American economy for generations.

When people who claim to favor free markets rally to Wall Street's defense, seemingly oblivious to the poisonous corporatist partnership, they harm the cause of freedom by encouraging the protesters to conflate freedom with probusiness statism. Free-marketers should not be protecting Wall Street from criticism; rather they should be educating the protest movement about the true nature of the problem.

How can Occupy Wall Street activists be taught that their real adversary is the corporate state, not free markets, if defenders of Wall Street talk as though we have free markets today? (That message is subtle, but it's coming through just the same.)

Part of Occupy Wall Street's complaints concerns income inequality, specifically the growing gap between the top 1 percent of income earners and everyone else. Income statistics are tricky, and much is hidden by the fact that people move to and from the various income levels all the time. Moreover, the influx of poor immigrants can depress the median income even though no one is worse off. Nevertheless, it is true that a few people in banking and housing made and held onto fabulous fortunes thanks to government -- that is, taxpayer -- help.

In other words, America's skewed income configuration cannot have been the result of purely free exchange. Yet many advocates of a free market respond defensively to any criticism of income inequality as though it is their cherished system of natural liberty that is under assault. But we have had no such system, and free marketers set back the cause whenever they imply otherwise.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1111b.asp

Re: Immigration and Misplaced Blame

and you throw off somebody like Stephen Stink?
---
did the mod throw him off? I hope not ... even SS can learn to see
things right
he's a typical moonbat ... not worth thinking about
his tactics were similar to those of Bez and just as juvenile

so, you like my list of those who extort our politicians into ordering
our authorities into ignoring the illegals and those who hire them?

On Nov 4, 1:29 pm, USA Lover <steveo.nor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:48 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:> Misplaced Blame
> > ----
> > blame the politicians and those who extort them into ignoring our
> > immigration laws ... namely unAmerican socialist minorities, xians,
> > jews, and liberals and those who hire illegals
> > know the enemy
>
> >How come this dude get's to make inflammatory and racist remarks
>
> and you throw off somebody like Stephen Stink?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Former Marine's injury spurs vets to join Occupy movement

But comparably speaking! Man!!!!!!!!
---
they are volunteer government workers ... which side do you think
they'll obey?

On Nov 4, 1:32 pm, USA Lover <steveo.nor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You notice off duty soldiers are marching with the occupation movement
> and they didn't march
> with the tea party? Ok? Maybe 5 marched with the tea party. But
> comparably speaking! Man!!!!!!!!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street Check List

New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street Check List by Scotty Starnes Pretty much sums up the differences. Pass this to Obama. He thinks there are similarities. H/T to Jawa Report Scotty Starnes | November 4, 2011 at 2:22 PM | Tags: Occupy Wall Street, President Obama, tea party | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-659 Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/tea-party-vs-occupy-wall-street-check-list/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [New post] The Crisis in the EU

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ThinkMarkets

New post on ThinkMarkets

The Crisis in the EU

by Mario Rizzo

by Jerry O'Driscoll

I addressed the Greek situation and the wider EU debt crisis in an op ed in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, November 2nd ("Why We Can't Escape the Eurocrisis"). It is also posted today on the Cato homepage. I explain the linkages between the US and the EU, particularly among financial institutions.

Banks within the EU finance the deficits of their governments. It is not just that Greek banks buy Greek sovereign debt, but French banks lend to Greek banks. And French banks buy the bonds of the Italian government. US banks lend to EU banks. Less well known, US money market funds hold a good amount of debt issued by EU banks. And the Fed is backstopping dollar funding of EU banks.

Sovereign defaults over there will have a big impact over here. And, then, there is our own public debt problem. And it is not just public-sector debt that afflicts both economies, but, to varying degrees, excessive leverage in the household and nonfinancial corporate sectors.

Last night, Judge Napolitano interviewed me for a segment on "Freedom Watch."

The Judge was interested in not only the economic issues, but also political issues.

The lead segment was with John Allison, former CEO of BB&T, who decried the crony capitalism that is at the root of the crisis here and there. It was enjoyable to hear a former banker decree rent seeking by banks. He even used the word "rents."

Mario Rizzo | November 4, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Tags: European Union, government debt | Categories: Financial Markets, Fiscal Policy, macroeconomics | URL: http://wp.me/pmseG-1ih

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/the-crisis-in-the-eu/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Former Marine's injury spurs vets to join Occupy movement

You notice off duty soldiers are marching with the occupation movement
and they didn't march
with the tea party? Ok? Maybe 5 marched with the tea party. But
comparably speaking! Man!!!!!!!!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [Tea Party -- One Lump or Two?] New comment on Mitt Romney woos the tea party.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeffery Small
Date: Friday, November 4, 2011
Subject: [Tea Party -- One Lump or Two?] New comment on Mitt Romney woos the tea party.
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


Jeffery Small has left a new comment on your post "Mitt Romney woos the tea party":

Any Tea Party advocate that would fall for Romney's BS would be a fool. This man stands for absolutely nothing, blowing whichever way the prevailing winds take him. He is a statist through and through, as his track record clearly indicates, and would be no advocate for individual rights or limited government. Supporting this man is tantamount to handing the 2012 election to Obama, as was done in 2008 with the nomination of McCain. And the progressives fully understand this, which is why you have seen a concerted attack in the media on every GOP candidate except for Romney. They would love to see Romney as the GOP choice.

All the GOP candidates are flawed, but I suggest that you give Gary Johnson a close look. This is the only person running that tells you exactly where he stands while being the greatest advocate for individual freedom and personal choice. If you really wish to see the Tea Party principles put into action -- as well as any president is able in today's world -- then Johnson is our best hope for the future, and this is precisely why he is being excluded from the debates. But regardless of whether you accept that viewpoint, we should all certainly agree that Romney is, by far, the worst!



Posted by Jeffery Small to Tea Party -- One Lump or Two? at November 4, 2011 11:14 AM

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Immigration and Misplaced Blame

On Nov 4, 9:48 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Misplaced Blame
> ----
> blame the politicians and those who extort them into ignoring our
> immigration laws ... namely unAmerican socialist minorities, xians,
> jews, and liberals and those who hire illegals
> know the enemy
>
>How come this dude get's to make inflammatory and racist remarks
and you throw off somebody like Stephen Stink?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Former Marine's injury spurs vets to join Occupy movement

Bush didn't tell the Boston police to use non-lethal weapons.

On Nov 4, 11:48 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Studio: "But that's the Republitard police state introduced by Bush
> Jr. in action."
>
> It may be that the Republicans introduced it but the Dems under Obama
> are actually using it and doing with impunity in Democratic
> strongholds such as NYC, California and Mass.
>
> On Nov 3, 8:29 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 10:02 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Meanwhile, in Boston, the Coast Guard has told its members to stay the
> > > F away.
>
> > They can't tell Coast Guard veterans to stay away.
>
> > > Isn't Oakland pretty when its on fire?
>
> > It's not on fire.
> > Can't you sound more fearful of peaceful demonstrators?
>
> > > What cops need to figure out is that these non-lethal weapons aren't.
>
> > But that's the Republitard police state introduced by Bush Jr. in
> > action.
>
> > Wall Street gave NYC cops a $4 million "donation" to help them.
> > Some people say it was a bribe...
> > look for more donations in the future.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Immigration and Misplaced Blame

 MJ says: They argue that we can't have people circumventing the
system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate
only when they protect the natural rights of others.

Laws are designed to protect the natural rights of that countries
citizens... Definitely NOT "natural rights of others."

We can not legislate inside another nation nor can we even try a
foreign national that does not have "access" to HIS/HER own consulate/
embassy in ours. As long as this is true and they are not punishable
by our laws as is any legal member of our society without the
notification and or approval of a foreign state their rights (natural
or not) are obviously in the control of that foreign state. Right from
the start an illegal has more "rights" than a legal.... ie TWO
guaranteed phone calls.... one to his consul and one to whomever he
chooses. This is patently UNFAIR to legal citizens that broke no law
to be present in the US.

On Nov 4, 9:48 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "Many have misdirected their anger toward illegal immigrants or the businesses that hire them. Instead, this outrage should be aimed where it truly belongs -- with the state. Rather than insist onfurtherinterventions with a national ID card orE-verify, conservatives should demand areductionin the government's role. Alexis de Tocqueville made a keen observation when he said "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." It is time for Americans to realize more of the same -- that is, more slavery -- cannot possibly bring about more prosperity."Immigration and Misplaced BlameFriday, November 04, 2011
> byJoel Poindexter
> Conservatives love to champion the free market. They often are quick to defend businesses from increased regulation and taxation, and generally oppose intervention in the market place. However, in the case of undocumented workers, these free-marketeers suddenly become ardent supporters of central economic planning.
> In this case they condemn those who hire "illegals," call for shutting down their businesses, imposing heavy fines, and other draconian measures.This exchangeat a recent GOP debate demonstrates the prevailing attitude among those on the right regarding the issue.
> The first contention is that illegal immigrants are breaking the law. They argue that we can't have people circumventing the system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate only when they protect the natural rights of others. Anything else is simplymalum prohibitum, a state contrivance that is grounded solely in exerting control over nonviolent behavior. In a free society, individual property owners would decide who was allowed in and who was not.
> The second argument that conservatives present against so-called illegal immigrants concerns unemployment. The perennial claim is that if they weren't "taking our jobs" then hard-working Americans could go back to work. This is wrong for two reasons. The first, and most important, is that a job cannot be stolen. The employer owns the position, and only he or she may decide who will fill it. The second problem with this view is that it fails to explain unemployed skilled workers; most "illegal" immigrants contribute unskilled labor.
> The only significant impact that immigrants have on the labor market is to increase the supply of labor, which tends to put downward pressure on wages. Everything else equal, the only way an immigrant will be hired over a native worker is if he is willing to accept lower wages. In order to maximize profits, business owners look to pay the lowest wage possible without affecting marginal productivity. If an immigrant is willing to work for less, and he is productive enough, it only makes sense to choose the lower-cost labor. Billions of people the world over make this same decision on a daily basis while shopping for goods and services -- it's called bargain hunting.
> When owner and employee enter into an agreement, they are simply engaging in voluntary exchange. This is how the market would function absent state coercion. It is merely humans acting on two of the most basic desires: economic survival and improving one's condition. Neither has violated the natural rights of any other person, so no real crime has been committed, and they haven't caused unemployment.
> Government intervention in the labor market leads to unemployment, and this includes restrictions on who may be allowed to work in the United States. "Getting tough" on illegal immigration would undoubtedly make us all worse off. The unemployment rate would rise, real wages would fall due to a decrease in productivity, and an overall lowering of living standards would be realized. We're already witnessing the effects of legislation targeting illegal immigrants. It was recentlyreportedthat, thanks to a law passed in April, Georgia farmers had to leave $75 million of produce to rot in their fields because of labor shortages. Firms that laid off undocumented workers for fear of losing their businesses could hire documented workers but would not likely be able to replace everyone. Otherwise it stands to reason that they would have done so in the first place, and stayed within the boundaries of the law.
> It's unclear what the exact ratio would be, but assuming that in some industries three illegal immigrants can be hired in place of two legal citizens, when the former are laid off to accommodate the latter, we see that previously there were two unemployed workers, but now there are three. Where the firm once had the productive capacity of three laborers, it now has that of two. Forcing companies to fire employees on the basis of their immigration status hardly seems an effective way to lower unemployment rates or increase real wealth.
> Perhaps the only reasonable claim that conservatives make is that they've been paying into the system their whole lives, and it's unjust for immigrants to come here illegally and collect welfare. But this is not an issue of immigration policy; it is a problem of government welfare policy. In a free society, individuals would pay directly for the things they needed, and the problem offree ridingwould disappear.
> One effect of displacing immigrant workers already in the country is that an increase in actual crimes is likely to occur, as Stefano R. Mugnainiexplains. These individuals are not likely to repatriate immediately, given the costs. Many are likely to turn to the underground market, resorting to actual crime (malum in se) in order to survive. Again, we see that further intervention is likely only to cause more problems.
> Many have misdirected their anger toward illegal immigrants or the businesses that hire them. Instead, this outrage should be aimed where it truly belongs -- with the state. Rather than insist onfurtherinterventions with a national ID card orE-verify, conservatives should demand areductionin the government's role. Alexis de Tocqueville made a keen observation when he said "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." It is time for Americans to realize more of the same -- that is, more slavery -- cannot possibly bring about more prosperity.
> It's clear the current problems can be directly traced to the state's interference in the market. If employer and employee were left free to negotiate contracts without government intervention, everyone would truly have an equal opportunity at business, and the highest quality at the best price would surely result. This economic freedom is at the heart of a free society, and only when the market is divorced from the state will its full potential be realized.
> Joel Poindexter is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter.http://mises.org/daily/5785/Immigration-and-Misplaced-Blame

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: True free market Capitalism evil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf9d3Sayso8&feature=related

On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would much rather by unhappy with money, than unhappy without money......
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:40 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Money is more important than ANYTHING
> > --
> > you gotta have it and the more the better
>
> > congrats on facing a small piece of reality
>
> > On Nov 2, 10:30 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Money is more important than ANYTHING.
> > > it comes before God, before people, before animals, before
> > > environment, before health, before life, before housing, before food,
> > > before taxes, before paychecks, before resources, before property,
> > > before .... ANYTHING.
>
> > > And if your one of the .5% Republitard overlords, put a YOUR after the
> > > before.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Jesus as a Republican

So next time you ponder the question; "what would Jesus do?"
----
remember that he's a myth used to control people

do not let the use of fear and threats of hell control you

On Nov 3, 6:58 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Republitards interpretation of the Bible:
>
> Remember in the Bible where Jesus blames everything on the poor?
>
> Where Jesus tells them they shouldn't protest against Roman rule?
>
> The part where Jesus tells the poor how lazy they are?
>
> Or Jesus tells the people paying taxes is wrong?
>
> And where Jesus tells the people how good unfettered capitalism is?
> (Well, they didn't call it capitalism back then, it was just called
> greed).
>
> And the part where Jesus tells the rich to take the credit and the
> money?
>
> And how Jesus tells the rich that they'll be able to keep their wealth
> and status the same in Heaven?
>
> And the part where Jesus tells the people not to follow in his
> footsteps, but to do what He say's, not what He does?
>
> Or how Jesus tells the people that putting forth false witnesses will
> gain you popularity?
>
> Or how Jesus was a patriotic supporter of a strong military?
>
> Or how Jesus specific states how He's firmly set against gays and
> lesbians?
>
> And how Jesus goes into great detail how women and doctors who perform
> abortions should be punished?
>
> So next time you ponder the question; "what would Jesus do?"
> It's all right there in the Republican Bible of Money folks...

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Immigration and Misplaced Blame

Misplaced Blame
----
blame the politicians and those who extort them into ignoring our
immigration laws ... namely unAmerican socialist minorities, xians,
jews, and liberals and those who hire illegals
know the enemy

On Nov 4, 10:48 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "Many have misdirected their anger toward illegal immigrants or the businesses that hire them. Instead, this outrage should be aimed where it truly belongs -- with the state. Rather than insist onfurtherinterventions with a national ID card orE-verify, conservatives should demand areductionin the government's role. Alexis de Tocqueville made a keen observation when he said "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." It is time for Americans to realize more of the same -- that is, more slavery -- cannot possibly bring about more prosperity."Immigration and Misplaced BlameFriday, November 04, 2011
> byJoel Poindexter
> Conservatives love to champion the free market. They often are quick to defend businesses from increased regulation and taxation, and generally oppose intervention in the market place. However, in the case of undocumented workers, these free-marketeers suddenly become ardent supporters of central economic planning.
> In this case they condemn those who hire "illegals," call for shutting down their businesses, imposing heavy fines, and other draconian measures.This exchangeat a recent GOP debate demonstrates the prevailing attitude among those on the right regarding the issue.
> The first contention is that illegal immigrants are breaking the law. They argue that we can't have people circumventing the system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate only when they protect the natural rights of others. Anything else is simplymalum prohibitum, a state contrivance that is grounded solely in exerting control over nonviolent behavior. In a free society, individual property owners would decide who was allowed in and who was not.
> The second argument that conservatives present against so-called illegal immigrants concerns unemployment. The perennial claim is that if they weren't "taking our jobs" then hard-working Americans could go back to work. This is wrong for two reasons. The first, and most important, is that a job cannot be stolen. The employer owns the position, and only he or she may decide who will fill it. The second problem with this view is that it fails to explain unemployed skilled workers; most "illegal" immigrants contribute unskilled labor.
> The only significant impact that immigrants have on the labor market is to increase the supply of labor, which tends to put downward pressure on wages. Everything else equal, the only way an immigrant will be hired over a native worker is if he is willing to accept lower wages. In order to maximize profits, business owners look to pay the lowest wage possible without affecting marginal productivity. If an immigrant is willing to work for less, and he is productive enough, it only makes sense to choose the lower-cost labor. Billions of people the world over make this same decision on a daily basis while shopping for goods and services -- it's called bargain hunting.
> When owner and employee enter into an agreement, they are simply engaging in voluntary exchange. This is how the market would function absent state coercion. It is merely humans acting on two of the most basic desires: economic survival and improving one's condition. Neither has violated the natural rights of any other person, so no real crime has been committed, and they haven't caused unemployment.
> Government intervention in the labor market leads to unemployment, and this includes restrictions on who may be allowed to work in the United States. "Getting tough" on illegal immigration would undoubtedly make us all worse off. The unemployment rate would rise, real wages would fall due to a decrease in productivity, and an overall lowering of living standards would be realized. We're already witnessing the effects of legislation targeting illegal immigrants. It was recentlyreportedthat, thanks to a law passed in April, Georgia farmers had to leave $75 million of produce to rot in their fields because of labor shortages. Firms that laid off undocumented workers for fear of losing their businesses could hire documented workers but would not likely be able to replace everyone. Otherwise it stands to reason that they would have done so in the first place, and stayed within the boundaries of the law.
> It's unclear what the exact ratio would be, but assuming that in some industries three illegal immigrants can be hired in place of two legal citizens, when the former are laid off to accommodate the latter, we see that previously there were two unemployed workers, but now there are three. Where the firm once had the productive capacity of three laborers, it now has that of two. Forcing companies to fire employees on the basis of their immigration status hardly seems an effective way to lower unemployment rates or increase real wealth.
> Perhaps the only reasonable claim that conservatives make is that they've been paying into the system their whole lives, and it's unjust for immigrants to come here illegally and collect welfare. But this is not an issue of immigration policy; it is a problem of government welfare policy. In a free society, individuals would pay directly for the things they needed, and the problem offree ridingwould disappear.
> One effect of displacing immigrant workers already in the country is that an increase in actual crimes is likely to occur, as Stefano R. Mugnainiexplains. These individuals are not likely to repatriate immediately, given the costs. Many are likely to turn to the underground market, resorting to actual crime (malum in se) in order to survive. Again, we see that further intervention is likely only to cause more problems.
> Many have misdirected their anger toward illegal immigrants or the businesses that hire them. Instead, this outrage should be aimed where it truly belongs -- with the state. Rather than insist onfurtherinterventions with a national ID card orE-verify, conservatives should demand areductionin the government's role. Alexis de Tocqueville made a keen observation when he said "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." It is time for Americans to realize more of the same -- that is, more slavery -- cannot possibly bring about more prosperity.
> It's clear the current problems can be directly traced to the state's interference in the market. If employer and employee were left free to negotiate contracts without government intervention, everyone would truly have an equal opportunity at business, and the highest quality at the best price would surely result. This economic freedom is at the heart of a free society, and only when the market is divorced from the state will its full potential be realized.
> Joel Poindexter is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter.http://mises.org/daily/5785/Immigration-and-Misplaced-Blame

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Congressional Democrats Send Letters to Election Officials in All 50 States Complaining About Voter Identification Laws

New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog Congressional Democrats Send Letters to Election Officials in All 50 States Complaining About Voter Identification Laws by Scotty Starnes Democrats love, love, love voter fraud. If you read a story about someone being arrested for voter/registration fraud, it's almost a certainty that the criminal will be a Democrat. Democrats have their panties in a wad over the new voter identification laws that several states have recently passed. Democrats do not want voters to be required to show identification because they know this will stop most voter fraud. This is bad news for Democrats because they often "vote early and vote often." Requiring ID also stops all the dead people who typically vote for Democrats. WASHINGTON -- Democrats on Thursday ratcheted up efforts to combat new voting laws adopted by 13 states that Democrats contend are deliberate efforts to keep its core voting blocs from casting ballots next year. Why are Democrats against voting laws that stop voting fraud? It's because it stops their core voting blocks which include criminals and dead people. "Election legislation and administration appear to be increasingly the product of partisan plays," says a letter to election officials in all 50 states signed by 196 Democrats in the House of Representatives. "Election officials are seen as partisan combatants, rather than stewards of democracy. ... We are asking you, as front line participants, to put partisan considerations aside and serve as advocates for enfranchisement." What are Democrats asking these election officials to do? Avoid the law and break it? Sure sounds that way. Thirteen states last year approved changes to their election laws and another 24 states are weighing measures that proponents say are needed to protect against voter fraud and to prevent illegal immigrants from casting ballots. Members of the House Democratic leadership, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus unveiled the letter they're sending to election officials urging them to oppose new voting measures that a recent study said would adversely impact the ability of more than 5 million people to register or vote. Where's the Congressional Caucasian Caucus that looks out for the concerns of Caucasians? Anyway, its typical of Democrats to ask people to break the law. ACORN members, NAACP executives and a lot of Democrats have been arrested since 2009 for voter fraud, yet Democrats will try to argue that there are no concerns about voter fraud. Criminals typically claim no criminal actions are taking place. Supporters of the measures disagree, saying tougher voting laws are needed to protect against rampant voter fraud and to ensure that illegal immigrants aren't casting ballots. Some of the changes require voters to show government-approved identification cards and to restrict voter registration drives by third-party groups. Continue reading>>> Scotty Starnes | November 4, 2011 at 11:42 AM | Tags: congressional democrats, Democrats, NAACP, voter fraud, voter identification laws | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-651 Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/congressional-democrats-send-letters-to-election-officials-in-all-50-states-complaining-about-voter-identification-laws/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Request for urgent intervention of UN Special Rapporteur to protect Frederica Jansz

here's a list of protection services
http://iraq.usembassy.gov/iraq/security_companies.html

On Nov 4, 11:01 am, William Gomes <williamgomes....@gmail.com> wrote:
> *For immediate Release *
>
> 4th November 2011
>
> *Mr. Frank La Rue*
> Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom
> of opinion and expression
> Palais des Nations
> CH-1211 Geneva 10
> Switzerland
> Fax: +41 22 917 9006
> Email: free...@ohchr.org
>
> Re: Urgent Appeal for an Urgent intervention to protect Frederica Jansz,
> the editor of The Sunday Leader
>
> *Dear Mr. Frank La Rue,*
>
> I am William Nicholas Gomes, a Bangladeshi Journalist and Human Rights
> Activist.
>
> I want to draw you urgent attention for an urgent intervention to protect
> Frederica Jansz, the editor of The Sunday Leader, who received death threats
>
> On 27 October, Ms. Jansz received an anonymous hand-written letter claiming
> to come from the "Sinha regiment."
>
> The letter said "Frederica Sandra Carmela Jansz, that damn prostitute, you
> are now safeguarding the President. By you giving evidence to put Mr.
> Fonseka in trouble he had to go to courts 57 times. You have even printed
> the Presidents manifesto. Can you remember that there was a comparison of
> countries run by Generals in Head to Head?  Where was
> Rakmish Wijeywardene, photographer Thusither Kumar, they have disappeared
> at the beginning of the case. Lal Wickremesinghe too was dropped half way.
> Finally you (tho- in Sinhala) appeared on behalf of five people. You gave
> false evidence to get promotions. Your genitals were touched nicely by
> Lasantha Wickrematuge. Now Secretary Defence Gotabaya Rajapaksa is coming
> to see you?  That bugger also is having sex with that whore. Bloody whore
> on the 18th of November whichever way the judgment is given you will not be
> spared. Do you know that? 1 SR means what? We are the Sinha regiment who
> took the brunt of the war on our shoulders. Because of our Leader's
> instructions we didn't get killed during the war. We suffered for what? For
> this country. The Leader who fought so well was brought to the Military
> Court by a bloody bitch like you. He slept in the jungles amidst mosquitoes
> and snakes, with us. In addition to having suffered during the war he is
> now jailed and tortured.
> We will not spare you. (underlined) If you want to escape you go to Temple
> trees and sleep where the President sleeps. There is nothing else to
> do. Even if Mr. Fonseka comes out or not we will continue our fight. We
> have enough weapons which we got from the war. It won't be long before the
> people of this country would join us. Will the people give power to the
> President and his family to rule forever? Let's see.  The win in Colombo is
> like a victory over the entire country. If the main town was won, what more
> is there to speak?  This time also the full might of the Rajapaksas, of the
> State, and all the Ministers came to Colombo. In how many staggered times
> did they hold elections? Why was that done? Because its easy to use State
> power then. If elections were held in one go State power cannot be used.
> Anyway the government is falling little by little now. There is turmoil
> within. When more positions are given to the family the balance will also
> be destroyed. Someday Chief Justice Sarath N Silva, Fonseka, Wijeydasa
> Rajapaksa,, Tiran Alles, Mangala Samaraweera and Anura Kumara Dissanayake
> will have to take over this country. Then those SLFP people will join them.
> The UNP will be destitute. Those who are from the underworld, dealing in
> drugs, into taking bribes, making money by suppressing the people must be
> vanquished first. That is the day the country will turn right.  We heard
> that you too have a brothel.  You cannot do this everyday.  A change will
> come soon.  You be careful. Our Sinha regiment boys are very angry
> now.  Your genitals must be smashed.  Bloody whore ..because you gave false
> evidence."
>
> The letter threatens Frederica warning her that irrespective of the verdict
> due on November 18, in relation to what is known as the 'White Flag Case'
> she will be dealt with.Interestingly the letter carried some facts related
> to the White Flag case in which Frederica was the key witness. For instance
> the letter mentions the name of two staffers at The Sunday Leader Raknish
> Wijewardena (no longer at the paper) and Photographer Thusitha Kumara both
> of whom accompanied Frederica to the interview she conducted with former
> army commander Sarath Fonseka after which she subsequently published a Page
> One Lead story and interview on December 13, 2009.  Both Wijewardena and
> Kumara were not named as witnesses in the White Flag case.  Yet, if indeed
> this letter has emanated from an army person in the Sinha regiment
> (formerly under Fonseka's command) as the writer attempts to have us
> believe, it is indeed more than strange that a soldier or officer could
> have recalled the intricacies of Frederica's evidence in court to name both
> Raknish Wijewardena and Thusitha Kumara, despite the fact that neither of
> these two men were named as witnesses nor did they ever appear in court.
>
> This is not the first time that Ms. Jansz has been target of such
> threats<http://en.rsf.org/sri-lanka-interview-with-frederica-jansz-27-11-2009...>.
> The first threats were received shortly after she had provided the
> evidence. The Sunday Leader's journalists are often the targets of all
> sorts of intimidation<http://en.rsf.org/sri-lanka-president-personally-phones-02-08-2011,40...>.
> I remind you of the January 2009 murder of the newspaper's then
> editor, *Lasantha
> Wickrematunga<http://en.rsf.org/sri-lanka-outrage-at-fatal-shooting-of-08-01-2009,2...>
> *, which was never properly
> investigated<http://en.rsf.org/sri-lanka-newspaper-editor-s-murderers-still-07-01-...>,
> according to Reporters Without Borders
>
> Frederica lodged a complaint with the Mirihana Police after receiving the
> threat; So far, she has received no protection, according to the
> information received. As a verdict will soon be issued, I am   extremely
> concerned for her safety during the days and weeks to come.
>
> I am   worried about the safety of Sri Lankan journalists, who are working
> in an increasingly fraught environment and are caught between the different
> forces – political and non-political – operating in Sri Lanka.
>
> I therefore urge you for an urgent intervention into the situation that the
> threats to be properly investigated and to take whatever measures are
> necessary to ensure that they stop. Also make it sure that  the  Sri Lanka
> authorities should take proper and immediate actions to  provide proper
> protection to her  or any other journalist if they desire it.
>
> I thank you for the attention you give to this letter.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> *William Nicholas Gomes*
> Journalist & Human Rights Activist
> 80/ B Bramon Chiron, Saydabad,
> Dhaka-1203, Bangladesh.
> Cell: +88 019 7 444 0 666
> E-mail:William [at] williamgomes.org <Will...@williamgomes.org>,
> editorbd[at]gmail.com <edito...@gmail.com>
> Skype: William.gomes9
> Face book:www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes
> Twitter: twitter.com/williamgomes <http://www.twitter.com/persecutionbd>
> Web site :www.williamgomes.org<http://www.williamgomes.org/>
>
> *CC:*
>
> American Society of Newspaper Editors
>
> Amnesty International
>
> Article 19 (United Kingdom)
>
> Artikel 19 (The Netherlands)
>
> Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
>
> Freedom Forum
>
> Freedom House
>
> Human Rights Watch
>
> Index on Censorship
>
> International Center for Journalists
>
> International Federation of Journalists
>
> International PEN
>
> International Press Institute
>
> Lorne W. Craner, United States Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human
>
> Rights, and Labor
>
> The Newspaper Guild
>
> The North American Broadcasters Association
>
> Overseas Press Club
>
> Reporters Sans Frontières
>
> The Society of Professional Journalists
>
> World Association of Newspapers
>
> World Press Freedom Committee
>
> Download: Urgent Appeal for an Urgent intervention to protect Frederica
> Jansz, the editor of The Sunday
> Leader<http://williamgomes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Urgent-Appeal-for-...>
>
> http://williamgomes.org/?p=140
> <http://williamgomes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Urgent-Appeal-for-...>
>
>  Urgent Appeal for an Urgent intervention to protect Frederica Jansz, the editor of The Sunday Leader.pdf
> 92KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Ron Paul’s De-Stimulus Plan

Paul is the only presidential candidate proposing policies that
address the country's fundamental economic problems
---
a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for America and our citizens

On Nov 4, 11:14 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression of 1946, because there actually wasn't one. But many Keynesian economists were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most of the wartime economic regulations."Ron Paul's De-Stimulus Planby Tim Kelly, November 4, 2011
> Congressman Ron Paul has put forth an economic plan that calls for serious cuts in the size, budget, and power of the federal government. He has also proposed policies that would end the Fed-driven inflation responsible for the global economic meltdown. This is truly a de-stimulus plan.
> Paul's plan would immediately cut $1 trillion from the federal budget by closing down five cabinet departments, slashing regulations, and withdrawing troops from overseas. During a Paul presidency, the U.S. government would cease being the world's policeman, and the empire would be liquidated in the interests of the both the economy and the Constitution.
> Such a radical and necessary shift in foreign policy would be difficult for those Americans dependent on the war economy and accustomed to seeing their government as a colossus bestriding the world. But now is the time for Americans to face reality and admit that our country's exalted global position has been a corrupting experience, and it is simply no longer affordable.
> Such a sharp reduction in the federal budget, coupled with much tighter monetary policy would stop the flow of so-called stimulus spending from the economy. This would be the beginning of a painful readjustment period, as people necessarily reduced their consumption, and the economy liquidated years of inflation and debt-financed malinvestment. Unemployment would likely go up in the short term as zombie firms deprived of their periodic fix of easy money went bankrupt, and government payrolls were thinned.
> But it would also be the beginning of genuine economic recovery, because the private sector, relieved of the burdens of a metastasized state, would begin to accumulate real capital and invest in viable enterprises. Real jobs, not government jobs, would be created, and Americans would soon find themselves earning more, because their currency, no longer devalued by the Fed's printing presses, would actually gain purchasing power.
> No doubt Keynesians would still be out there preaching the necessity of countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies and warning of the dire consequences of deflation. There would also be no shortage of hack politicians and rent-seeking special-interest groups willing to spread the Keynesian message of more government spending. And it would be naïve to expect the financial elite to sit quietly as their privileges were taken away. A few select firms on Wall Street reap enormous profits from the bond market, and under the current system they are free to engage in essentially risk-free speculation due to their "too-big-to-fail" status.
> Paul has defended his de-stimulus program to inquisitors by correctly pointing out that similar "austerity measures" have been very successful in the past in spurring economic recovery and therefore should be used as roadmaps for recovery today. During a recent appearance on NBC'sMeet the Press, Paul tutored host David Gregory on "the depression of 1946."
> Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression of 1946, because there actually wasn't one. But many Keynesian economists were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most of the wartime economic regulations.
> Jason E. Taylor and Richard K. Vedder explain in greater detail in their article"Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946":Historically minded readers may be saying, &147;There was a Depression in 1946? I never heard about that." You never heard of it because it never happened. However, the &147;Depression of 1946" may be one of the most widely predicted events that never happened in American history. As the war was winding down, leading Keynesian economists of the day argued, as Alvin Hansen did, that &147;the government cannot just disband the Army, close down munitions factories, stop building ships, and remove all economic controls." After all, the belief was that the only thing that finally ended the Great Depression of the 1930s was the dramatic increase in government involvement in the economy. In fact, Hansen's advice went unheeded. Government canceled war contracts, and its spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to under $30 billion in 1946. By 1947, the government was paying back its massive wartime debts by running a budget surplus of close to 6 percent of GDP. The military released around 10 million Americans back into civilian life. Most economic controls were lifted, and all were gone less than a year after V-J Day. In short, the economy underwent what the historian Jack Stokes Ballard refers to as the &147;shock of peace." From the economy's perspective, it was the &147;shock of de-stimulus."Another historical precedent Paul can point to is the depression of 1920. Very few people have heard of this "economic crisis." This is most likely due to its short duration and the fact that Warren G. Harding, a president not held in high esteem by mainstream historians, was able to reverse it with laissez-faire policies that are anathema to Keynesian orthodoxy.
> Historian Thomas E. Woods Jr. provides this synopsis of Harding's successful de-stimulus program:The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction." By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.Paul's de-stimulus plan has been given the cold shoulder in Washington, DC, but that's to be expected. After all, politicians are in the business of dividing plunder, and proposing to take an axe to the federal budget is no way to win friends and influence people inside the Beltway. But most Americans are now skeptical of stimulus programs, because the plans have clearly failed to reverse the country's economic downturn. Indeed, more people are coming to realize that the orgy in government spending since 2008 has only accelerated the decline. Moreover, there is serious concern regarding the federal government's unprecedented budget deficits and their potential for sparking hyperinflation.
> Perhaps enough voters will come to realize that Paul is the only presidential candidate proposing policies that address the country's fundamental economic problems, and perhaps they will reward him appropriately for his insight and statesmanship.http://www.fff.org/comment/com1111c.asp

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Ron Paul’s De-Stimulus Plan

"Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression of 1946, because there actually wasn't one. But many Keynesian economists were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most of the wartime economic regulations."

Ron Paul's De-Stimulus Plan
by Tim Kelly, November 4, 2011

Congressman Ron Paul has put forth an economic plan that calls for serious cuts in the size, budget, and power of the federal government. He has also proposed policies that would end the Fed-driven inflation responsible for the global economic meltdown. This is truly a de-stimulus plan.

Paul's plan would immediately cut $1 trillion from the federal budget by closing down five cabinet departments, slashing regulations, and withdrawing troops from overseas. During a Paul presidency, the U.S. government would cease being the world's policeman, and the empire would be liquidated in the interests of the both the economy and the Constitution.

Such a radical and necessary shift in foreign policy would be difficult for those Americans dependent on the war economy and accustomed to seeing their government as a colossus bestriding the world. But now is the time for Americans to face reality and admit that our country's exalted global position has been a corrupting experience, and it is simply no longer affordable.

Such a sharp reduction in the federal budget, coupled with much tighter monetary policy would stop the flow of so-called stimulus spending from the economy. This would be the beginning of a painful readjustment period, as people necessarily reduced their consumption, and the economy liquidated years of inflation and debt-financed malinvestment. Unemployment would likely go up in the short term as zombie firms deprived of their periodic fix of easy money went bankrupt, and government payrolls were thinned.

But it would also be the beginning of genuine economic recovery, because the private sector, relieved of the burdens of a metastasized state, would begin to accumulate real capital and invest in viable enterprises. Real jobs, not government jobs, would be created, and Americans would soon find themselves earning more, because their currency, no longer devalued by the Fed's printing presses, would actually gain purchasing power.

No doubt Keynesians would still be out there preaching the necessity of countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies and warning of the dire consequences of deflation. There would also be no shortage of hack politicians and rent-seeking special-interest groups willing to spread the Keynesian message of more government spending. And it would be naïve to expect the financial elite to sit quietly as their privileges were taken away. A few select firms on Wall Street reap enormous profits from the bond market, and under the current system they are free to engage in essentially risk-free speculation due to their "too-big-to-fail" status.

Paul has defended his de-stimulus program to inquisitors by correctly pointing out that similar "austerity measures" have been very successful in the past in spurring economic recovery and therefore should be used as roadmaps for recovery today. During a recent appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Paul tutored host David Gregory on "the depression of 1946."

Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression of 1946, because there actually wasn't one. But many Keynesian economists were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most of the wartime economic regulations.

Jason E. Taylor and Richard K. Vedder explain in greater detail in their article "Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946":

Historically minded readers may be saying, &147;There was a Depression in 1946? I never heard about that." You never heard of it because it never happened. However, the &147;Depression of 1946" may be one of the most widely predicted events that never happened in American history. As the war was winding down, leading Keynesian economists of the day argued, as Alvin Hansen did, that &147;the government cannot just disband the Army, close down munitions factories, stop building ships, and remove all economic controls." After all, the belief was that the only thing that finally ended the Great Depression of the 1930s was the dramatic increase in government involvement in the economy. In fact, Hansen's advice went unheeded. Government canceled war contracts, and its spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to under $30 billion in 1946. By 1947, the government was paying back its massive wartime debts by running a budget surplus of close to 6 percent of GDP. The military released around 10 million Americans back into civilian life. Most economic controls were lifted, and all were gone less than a year after V-J Day. In short, the economy underwent what the historian Jack Stokes Ballard refers to as the &147;shock of peace." From the economy's perspective, it was the &147;shock of de-stimulus."

Another historical precedent Paul can point to is the depression of 1920. Very few people have heard of this "economic crisis." This is most likely due to its short duration and the fact that Warren G. Harding, a president not held in high esteem by mainstream historians, was able to reverse it with laissez-faire policies that are anathema to Keynesian orthodoxy.

Historian Thomas E. Woods Jr. provides this synopsis of Harding's successful de-stimulus program:

The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover ­ falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics ­ urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction." By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

Paul's de-stimulus plan has been given the cold shoulder in Washington, DC, but that's to be expected. After all, politicians are in the business of dividing plunder, and proposing to take an axe to the federal budget is no way to win friends and influence people inside the Beltway. But most Americans are now skeptical of stimulus programs, because the plans have clearly failed to reverse the country's economic downturn. Indeed, more people are coming to realize that the orgy in government spending since 2008 has only accelerated the decline. Moreover, there is serious concern regarding the federal government's unprecedented budget deficits and their potential for sparking hyperinflation.

Perhaps enough voters will come to realize that Paul is the only presidential candidate proposing policies that address the country's fundamental economic problems, and perhaps they will reward him appropriately for his insight and statesmanship.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1111c.asp