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?

What is money?

Everyone knows what money is... right? "It's just money" - but what does that mean? How about "Time is money" - well that's a little better. But, have you really thought what that means? Is money just a greenback? Is money some coins made of nickel and copper which have little value except by the promise of our government? What about gold and silver coins - does money need to be a precious metal? If gold is money, then why do governments coin it? More importantly, what does money really mean to us?

Money really is time - it is the simplest and most accurate of the common definitions, but it is so simple it is little understood despite its common usage. So, what truths does that simple equation hold for us? Money = Time. Money is most simply, the most convenient way for men to trade their time and labor. If we had no money, time and labor could only be traded in a most cumbersome way. A doctor could trade his time easily with another doctor, "work an hour for me and I will work an hour for you." A day laborer could trade his time easily with another day laborer in the same way, but how would a day laborer trade his time fairly with a doctor? The hour is the same, but the years of study and poverty that the doctor endured to become a doctor would not be compensated for, and thus the trade would be hopelessly unfair. Money allows us to effectively trade time and labor in cases like this. All of this knowledge is contained in our little common equation Time = Money.

So, with this in mind, ask yourself if it is moral for government to take our time, by force. By force you ask? Yes, by force. Does government ask you to pay taxes or do they force you? They force you under threat of imprisonment (another way to steal your time). So, every April 15th, you are faced with the choice of having to willingly give 20 - 56% of your time to the government in the form of a check to the IRS, or to give up even more time by imprisonment. If it were a criminal that gave you this choice, you might have the police to defend you, but when it's the government that gives you this choice, what can you do? Is this choice moral? Isn't it immoral to make a man act against his nature of survival?

To read more about these ideas, read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", and read the writings of Ayn Rand.

The Ant and the Grasshopper

Life Mimics Art

Maybe it's time that Aesop's fable about the ant and grasshopper is updated for modern times:

The ant works hard every day during the summer, building his house and storing food for the winter. The grasshopper, on the other hand, watches the ant with amusement and prefers to sing and dance, putting nothing away for the winter ahead.

When the winter comes, the grasshopper has nothing to eat and becomes desperate. he elects a president who promises that spreading the food around is good for everyone. The president demonizes the ant for being greedy and asks how he can live with himself when so many others have so little. An executive order is signed demanding that the ant turn over 50 percent of his food supply to the government. The grasshopper laughs and plays the rest of the winter, getting fat on the ant's assets. The ant is depressed and resentful.

The next summer the ant stops preparing his home and storing his food and instead joins the grasshopper, singing and dancing all day. Unfortunately, all o fthe other ants make the same decision. The next winter, with no one left to exploit, the grasshoppers and ants all die of cold and hunger.

From Glenn Beck "Broke" (2010)

Federal Government's Attack on Gold

Washington doesn't want you to be in control of your own money. They don't want you to buy gold - they'd rather you buy TIPS. Google Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and see for yourself what a complete scam it is. So the logical move (if you're a diabolical progressive) is to put gold companies out of biz, or at least discredit them, then keep pushing the TIPS. It's kind of like a drug dealer killing the other dealers in the hood.

Congressman Weiner doesn't want you to buy gold, so he's going after the companies that sell gold - on the premise that you are too stupid to read - I mean - on the premise that these companies are not disclosing enough... um - I just checked out Goldline (A top rated BBB company) - seems pretty straight forward to me. So what's Weiner's problem? Maybe he thinks people are all just Homer Simpsons.

Germany's Summer of Recovery

So, in our "Summer of Recovery", while we are enduring the continued 10% unemployment, and worrying about a double dip recession, Germany has cut taxes, reduced regulation, cut pensions, union pay, and vacation time and has experienced nearly FULL EMPLOYMENT and 9% GROWTH in the last 6 months. I'd say THIS is a "teachable moment" - Keynsian Economics has failed yet again, and rather miserably!

Obama's Alger Hiss?

Obama's Buddies:

- Van Jones, Green Jobs Czar

- Cass Sunstein, Information Czar

- Eric Holder, Solicitor General

- John Holdren, Science Czar

- 10 Russian spies (one really sexy) - funny how we traded Russian spies so quickly...

- Mark Lloyd - FCC Diversity Czar

FDR's Buddies:

- Henry Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, Commerce Secretary, Vise President

- Duncan Lee, Chief of Staff (OSS - predecessor to CIA) - and was spy for KGB!

- John Abt, General Counsel for WPA

- Lee Pressman - Counsel for New Deal AAA

- Nathan Witt - CPUSA, Ware group, New Deal AAA

- Alger Hiss - Russian Spy

- Victor Perlo - Communist Party Economist

-Henry Collins

- Nathan Silvermaster

Healthcare and Welfare

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Benjamin Franklin, August 14th 1766

We are a great and moral people - and we must resist the progressive assault on our souls. They would lure us to their Marxism by the carrot of our compassion for those less fortunate but we know this to be wrong and immoral.

Why Atheists need God

For almost 90 years, the United States has been the greatest power for good the world has ever seen. We have been the peace keepers, the decider of wars, the protector of democracy and freedom. The United States never receives its due credit - even in the handling of the native American Indians - while most invasive cultures have simply wiped out the indigenous population, the British colonies of the Americas were decidedly different - greatly due to their strong religious beliefs and puritan values. Although their goal was not entirely successful, they tried to preserve Indian culture by segmenting, instead of outright forced assimilation. This was a ground breaking concept which had never been tried before. The common misconception that the White Man's greed in dealing with the natives is simply not accurate. The native chiefs also showed great greed since they were bartering for things which they believed could not be traded or owned. Who is more at fault? The merchant who (mistakenly) believes he is selling a good that cannot be sold or the buyer who believes he is getting an exceptionally cheap price? Today we call that fraud. The important thing to take from this is not that the colonialists were innocent - as they were clearly not - but you must question the little pieces of information you have been allowed to learn because it has been so selectively filtered so as to change the facts. It is just as critical to understand that the main reason for the continued existence of the natives were due to the values of the colonists that settled the new world. That later misdeeds were committed should not diminish these facts.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Now, I'm not a religious or even church going man - however I do believe that my values have certainly been framed by a country founded and based on religious principles. Were I to be born and raised in any other environment, surely I would now be writing an entirely different blog post right now. (possibly by candle light instead of on a keyboard). In the Declaration of Independence, the wishes of our founding fathers could not be more clear. men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... "by their Creator". So despite what Democrat Tom Harkin said in a speech in 2010, Rights are not Given by Congress. Rights are not given by any government. The entire foundation of this great nation is that Rights are so fundamental to our existence, and to our humanity that they cannot be granted, by any other man, or group of men, and in order for that to be valid, our rights can only be granted by our creator - God. This God is non-denominational - no one religion owns the concept of God, so it equally applies to Christians, as to Jews, and Protestants as well as Muslims and any and every other religion in the world. We have rights given by a higher power - not by any mere mortal, and with that means that no mere mortal may take them away. You've no doubt noticed the attack on religion in our culture today. Christmas has been under attack for years. Schools have ceased to mention "Christmas" on the calendar, in favor of "Holiday break". The 10 Commandments have been banned in front of courthouses. These are all meant to erode our protections offered by God - and to make us forget that it is God who gave us these unalienable rights - so that they may one day have the power to take them away.

Nobama Care Passes

Not since the British Navigation Acts have we been faced with such oppressive government control. Let this be a rallying cry for all Americans, Democrat and Republican, Conservative and Liberal. This is an outrage that cannot stand. As sure as 9/11 was an attack on our security, last night's vote was an assault on everything that America stands for and drastically erodes our freedom.

Mob Rules?

From my last post, you now know the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.  What may not know is that the Obama administration is either intentionally or through incompetence moving us towards a true Democracy, which you also know is only a temporary state on the road towards Oligarchy.  Hard to believe?  Remember that Democracy is really 'Mob Rules' and Republic is "The Rule of Law".  So, the first example that pops into my mind is the AIG Bonus situation.  The general population (mob) was enraged about this because at first glance these bonuses seem to be ludicrous.  However, think about it in a different way - think about your own relationship with your employer.  You may have a contract that details what  you are supposed to do, and what they are supposed to pay you in return.  You have confidence that this contract will be honored because it is protected by Law.  In the case of AIG, the government did their best to dissolve this contract when it had absolutely NO RIGHT to do it because we live in a Republic - where the Law is supreme, even above majority (mob) rule.  In a democracy, any thing goes, as long as the mob wants it!  Ultimately, this is why a democracy is only a transitional state that cannot survive.  Eventually a true democracy will de-evolve into anarchy, and then oligarchy just as history has proven many times over.

What is America?

If you're anything like me, you listen to the pundits talking about political issues and you generally have a good understand what is going on, but occasionally you hear a word that you may not have a complete understanding of.  Whenever this happens, the first thing I do is of course, to Google it.  A few weeks ago, it occurred to me that although I had a feeling of the difference, I really couldn't define it, and that really bothered me.  To think that I couldn't properly define two words that together makeup the architecture of the greatest nation the world has ever known.  I'm talking about two words - Republic and Democracy.  I'm a well educated American.  I have always thought of myself as having a good grasp on the English language, U.S. History and political terms.  How is it that this could happen?  As it turns out, I've found that there is a lot of confusion surrounding these words.  Many people, even those who should know better, use them interchangeably.  It would seem as though these two words are more similar than they are different - but nothing could be further from the truth.  The difference actually is quite spectacular. The best explanation I've come across was put into a video.  http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/  Please watch, then come back here to comment.