Cutting Government Spending Creates Jobs

Cutting Government Spending Creates Jobs

            WWII officially ended (All theaters) on 9/2/1948.  Between 1948 and 1952, over 15 million soldiers returned to the workforce.  What happened to them?  How were they employed?   It would appear that unemployment remained well under 4% from 1948 (the earliest year that data was available from BLS.gov) through 1954, except for a 2 year period that averaged 5.6%, with a very brief peak of 7.9%.  Considering the huge amount of new jobs that would have been required to employ such a deluge of returning soldiers – this seems to be rather astonishing.  Bush and Obama spent trillions in stimulus, and were unable to create a single net job, and in fact lost many millions of jobs.  So what was different after WWII?

Let’s also examine Tax rates… clearly the impressive job creation was not a result of tax cuts.

So what else could it be?

Austrian economists know that government cannot create something without first taking it from someone else.  So let us examine total government spending…   After WWII, there’s a dramatic cut in spending levels – from around 52% of GDP down to 22% in just about 2 years.  It looks like the way to create jobs – is to stop confiscating the people’s money and wasting it on government spending, which is inherently non-productive, wasteful and kills jobs.

So it would seem that the Keynesian Economists (like Obama) are completely and utterly absurd in their belief that government spending can create jobs.  It also would seem that Chicago school economists (Supply-siders, Republicans, Laffer, Friedman) who claim tax cuts alone are responsible for creating jobs – don’t quite have the whole picture.






http://www.electRichter.com

Gay Marriage? What's Government got to do with it?

We must all remember, that tolerance does not mean that we agree with or endorse a given behavior.  In fact, that we disagree with a behavior does not even mean that said behavior is wrong, it simply means we disagree with it.  If you want real freedom, you must, by definition, tolerate the views and behaviors of others - most especially when you don't agree with them.  Toleration does not however mean that others can impose their views on you, nor can they interfere with your freedoms in any way, in the exercise of their freedom.

With this in mind, let's re-evaluate the role of government on marriage.  Marriage is one of the most sacred institutions, most honored traditions that people of all cultures celebrate.  Why is it that we have allowed government to become involved in this so intimate of proceedings?  Why do we think we can trust Government to act as the benevolent dictator in this situation?  Shouldn't marriage be performed by religious organizations?  Shouldn't marriage be controlled by "We the People" and not the Government?  Why don't we take back the power of marriage, lest we lose control of it entirely?  


The legal benefits of marriage should also be conveyed by simple contracts, executed by the people entering into the agreements.  This removes government from the process and empowers the people.

****** UPDATE :  6/15/2011 ******

Ann Coulter recently opined that "Libertarians are cowards" for saying basically what I have stated above.  She claims that we've left important questions unanswered, such as, who can adopt, etc.  I thought it important to answer her attack - with logic of course.

Regardless of your opinion of gays, right or wrong, natural or unnatural, logic will prevail.

1. People are born gay, they are not taught to be gay.  If gays can only "mess up kids" by raising their kids to be gay, simply by being gay themselves, how do you get a gay in the first place, since presumably traditional families are not gay.
   
   
2. Given the vast numbers of unwanted children, children bouncing around in the foster care system, or living in abusive homes, what could possibly be worse than where they're at?  Isn't it more important that these children be placed in a loving, permanent home?  Does it really matter that the home is not what traditionalists would consider "ideal"?  Isn't what really matters is that it's a great improvement over where the kids were before?

Libertarians are most definitely not cowards, we did not ignore the issue of adoption, we just see it very differently than Ann Coulter.  We don't think Government can do anything better than the individual, most especially child care.

American Freedom Under Assault!

This week alone, we've lost the right to keep cops from entering our homes, even when they lack a proper warrant.  We've lost the right to defend our home if a cop BASHES his way in, even when he has no reasonable suspicion of an emergency.  Federal Agents raided a raw milk farm with weapons drawn.  North Carolina banned restaurants from selling Rare or Medium Rare hamburgers and now you cannot breastfeed your 2 year old in public, and worst of all, the PATRIOT ACT may be extended until 2015.  How's that for hope and change?

My Libertarian View on Abortion

The so called "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice" views on abortion are actually both consistent and defensible with Libertarian views. For Libertarians, it really boils down to a question of when life begins. For those who believe that life begins at conception, then it's perfectly understandable that a Libertarian would defend that life with everything within his being. For those who believe that life begins at viability, it's also perfectly understandable that a Libertarian would defend the mother's right to choose to do what she chooses with her own body. I don't think anyone has a magic wand that will convince the other - so the best thing is to get the federal government out of it, and leave it up to each state. There's 50 opportunities for each side to have their way, and the likely outcome will be that half the states will go one way, and half will go the other. People will then have true choice about where they live, who they support, and how their tax money is spent, but we will all be better off because the federal government will be removed from the equation. Instead of focusing on differences, isn't it better to focus on the things we have in common? One thing that is probably true for all of us, is that abortions are not desirable, so we should focus on ways of educating young women to avoid these situations in the first place. We can also work together to solve the underlying reasons why certain segments of the population are much more likely to have abortions than others. It seems apparent to me that the war on drugs destroys the inner city, and this destruction of the family leads to abortions. Maybe it's time to stop treating the symptom, and start fighting the disease.

Hate speculators? Go for Gold!

If Obama hates speculators so much, here's how you get rid of them - RETURN TO THE GOLD STANDARD!  When the value of the dollar is measured by the value of gold, there is little incentive for people to gamble on the future price of the dollar, since it does not fluctuate very much if at all. Inflation ends, money stabilizes, businesses can better plan for the future, and everyone gets richer!  When the dollar is stable, oil prices will also stabilize, and again, there will be little incentive to gamble on the future price of oil.  Problem Solved.

Petition Congress to stop funding the IMF which spreads socialism!

The IMF is a very powerful tool used to spread Socialism.  It takes money from US Taxpayers and distributes it to foreign governments who then use it to create more government programs.

Osama Bin Laden's Funeral

Apparently our troops were forced to execute a very touching and respectful Muslim ceremony which lasted 45 minutes - for the despicable terrorist Osama Bin Laden, who killed thousands of Americans. Doesn't it seem like OBAMA cares more about how radicalized Muslims think of him than he cares what American citizens think of him?


Just imagine the troops that had to sit there and be respectful while they gave that terrorist an honorable funeral. It's sickening.

Napolitano NAILS it on Osama's Execution

I really love the way Judge Napolitano covers this historic event.  Even other commentators that I really like didn't quite do this justice.  


http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4675452/the-usama-precedent/

Why Democrats should vote for Ron Paul

You must have realized by now that many of your goals will never be achieved by electing even those who you thought were the most far left - like Obama... why not look for a new party, with whom you can count on to defend liberty at every opportunity.

• End the wars - NOW - treat every nation like Canada, we trade with them, we're friendly, and we don't give them any of our money. Other nations can and should protect themselves. When we help, we're doing more harm than good. Israel is not even free to defend herself because she must ask the US for permission before she acts. This only prolongs the inevitable outcome, and hurts everyone involved. Every great nation in the history of the world eventually fell because it overreached in its military goals (and expenditures) - why are we so naieve to think we can be any different?
• Put an end to entangling alliances that commit us to war. What gives one generation the right to commit the next to war and conflict? This practice is wrong and immoral.

• End the Federal Reserve Cartel - Inflation is bad for everyone - it's a hidden tax that devalues every dollar in your bank and in your pocket. No FED, no Inflation! Since the FED was created, inflation has gone up over 2000%. Average salary has gone from $633 in 1913 to over $45,000 with only about a 6% increase in purchasing power.

• End corporate welfare, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, special taxes for the privileged and well connected.

• Decriminalize all drugs (War on drugs costs 88 billion a year, and it has not reduced the usage, plus the government has no right to tell us what to put into our own bodies) All drug related violence would cease overnight. Drug dealers would be forced to find other work if you could walk into Walgreens or CVS and buy clean, legitimate, taxed, and cheap drugs. Even theft would decline as it would be easier for the addicts to fund their habit without stealing.

• The Federal Government has no authorization for getting involved with marriage, sex, or abortion. Even state governments really should not have any role to play in any of these most personal issues.
• END the PATRIOT Act - This typically ill-named act is a tragedy of injustice - it gives federal agents the power to write their own search warrants, on the spot. This was the single biggest reason why our founding fathers set out to fight the British in the American Revolution! Forget about the tiny tax on tea, it was this massive invasion of privacy that changed history. The Patriot act goes even further - it allows the feds to serve self written warrants to banks and other financial institutions (who's definition was later changed to mean almost ANY BUSINESS YOU DO BUSINESS WITH) - and the recipient of the warrant is FORBIDDEN to notify YOU that the fed has invaded your privacy! This is quite possibly the worst bill that was ever passed by the American Government.

Why Republicans should vote for Ron Paul

• Read my lips – NO TAXES – Period! Just imagine what you could do with all of that extra money! If that’s not possible, at least a Flat Tax should be attainable.

• Ron may be the ONLY candidate that’s completely committed to cutting the size of government – and cutting Spending! The Tea Party is just echoing the life long fight that Ron Paul has been waging.

• States’ Rights – Ron Paul has been a champion of states’ rights.

• Ending the Federal Reserve (and the hidden tax called Inflation)

• Return to the constitution – Ron Paul has been a champion of keeping government within the confines of the constitution for more than 30 years.

• Return to a TRUE free market

• End the dept. of education

• Property Rights & Gun Rights

• End unnecessary Government Regulations

• Restoration of legislative power to the Congress where it belongs

• International stability - Despite what past war mongers have been telling us, we do not need to police the world – you want SAFETY? The answer is to pull back from the world. Nobody is saying we shouldn’t have the biggest military, the strongest military, the best military, but doesn’t it make sense to use it for defense instead of offense? Just imagine how we would respond to foreign troops on our soil. Wouldn’t we be the ones to fight back no matter how benevolent the troops might be? Can you imagine Americans putting up with even the smallest imposition on our sovereignty? Talk about waking up the sleeping giant! So, why do we expect people around the world to behave any differently? We have 900 permanent military installations ON FOREIGN SOIL! We place our best and brightest in harm’s way – and for what? To protect our oil supplies? It’s not even necessary! We have plenty of untapped energy reserves in our own country – if we could get the enviro-wackos out of the way, we’d have enough energy for the next 200 years or more without having to import another barrel of oil. Even in the short term while we await our own resources to be developed, why are we so arrogant to think that the oil flows because of our military? Many of the nations where the oil is, have little other revenue besides the oil – don’t you think it’s more likely that they will continue to sell us the oil regardless of who’s in charge, or where our troops are? If you really believe in the free market (as all Republicans claim) then how can you believe that this is any different?