Libertarian – Page 9 – Zombies Uncensored

Who wants to be pro-FED?

The hypocrisy of the American two-party system is so equally balanced, I wonder if they meet secretly to decided which party gets to champion the political issues of the day. If they do meet to debate who gets what, I imagine it goes something like this:

Each year the Democratic and Republican parties hold this secret meeting and divvy up political issues. The meeting is moderated by the wealthiest investors, financiers, speculators, and businessmen in America.

Chairman: From our pre-meeting polling it looks like we can keep this meeting fairly brief.

Chairman: The Republican party is content to keep hold of the following issues – the elderly, low taxes, Christianity, guns, heterosexuals, the rich, small government and the military-industrial complex.

Chairman: The Democratic party is content keeping the young, income taxes, everything but Christianity, the police, homosexuals, the poor, big government, and the anthropogenic global warming complex.

Chairman: The issues we have to divide up are the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, education, Medicare, deficit reduction, and healthcare.

Chairman: From what I understand both sides have already discussed privately education and Medicare. Both sides have agreed that it makes senses for the Democratic Party to take education because they already have the young and for the Republican Party to have Medicare because they currently posses the elderly.

Chairman: That leaves us with the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, deficit reduction, and healthcare. Neither party is willing to concede ownership, so the board has divided them as follows.

Chairman: To the Republican party – Economy, terrorism, and deficit reduction.

Chairman: To the Democratic party – Jobs, social security, and healthcare.

Chairman: Objections?

Republican Party: It makes sense to put the economy and deficit reduction together because if the economy improves we can take credit for deficit reduction too. We should also get to be the champion for jobs because those are tied to the economy.

Democratic Party: Putting social security and healthcare with our party makes sense because both of those are designed to protect people, shouldn’t terrorism go to the us because terrorism is about protecting people too.

Chairman: Its been part of our bi-laws for decades, and once again I’m forced to remind all of you that its doesn’t matter if the issue grouping makes sense. The purpose of dividing the issues is so the American people are equally divided in their support of the parties. As long as the public is divided in support, both parties will remain in power.

Chairman: One last thing, the Federal Reserve. Who wants to be pro-FED? Anyone?

Ron Paul and Shameless Media Bias

Here is Ron Paul on CNN’s Broken Us Government with Jack Cafferty

The shameless bias is near the end when Cafferty tells Paul that he wishes he’d run again….and I loved every minute of it.

Congress: Just Gimme Two New Parties

Here is Senator McCaskill arguing for extending unemployment benefits. The speech starts out with McCaskill pointing out Republican senators voted for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries without paying for it. It is not very clear, but the argument seems to be if it was OK in the past to avoid worrying about debt, we shouldn’t be worrying about debt today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBAzOEq9r-M

Senator McCaskill mentions cosponsoring PAYGO, but seems to be saying pay as you go can be ignored because of Republican hypocrisy of not paying for programs. All I can gather from this is its OK to be hypocritical, as long as the opposition is more hypocritical.

It’s a safe bet that soon there will be a Republican senator pointing to Democratic hypocrisy on debt as an excuse more debt. I want at least two completely new parties to take power just so we can get away from this justification via hypocrisy arguments. Two new parties would at least hit the reset button on finger pointing for a few years–maybe even long enough to fix DC.

ObamaCare – You’ll be in control, except when you aren’t.

Out of morbid curiosity, I looked at the Presidents new health care proposal. I wanted to know if the word “mandate” was used in the proposal. Mandate is in there, but it’s not used in the portion describing what the cost is to each person. If you choose to remain uninsured you have to make a payment. In other words, buying health insurance isn’t mandatory, but paying for it is mandatory.

There are other carefully chosen words and phrases in this proposal, like the very first line:

The President’s Proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care.

Taking away control of choosing to purchase health insurance now puts you in control of health insurance. Just as forcing everyone to purchase a fitness club membership (or make a payment if they choose to remain unfit) puts them in control of their fitness. You will now be in control, except when you aren’t.

Health care costs are described as inevitable as in “make a payment to offset the cost of care they will inevitably need.” Using life insurance is inevitable; using health care insurance is not inevitable. Even using catastrophic health insurance is not inevitable. Not everyone will have an accident and not everyone spends the last year of their life under medical care.

The part titled Improve Individual Responsibility has two paragraphs covering the cost to each person; the cost is not described as a tax, fine, or a penalty. The choice of words to describe the cost is payment, alternative payment and assessment. It’s not a tax, fine, or a penalty; it’s simply a transfer of money from you to your government, and anyone who says otherwise is just itching for a fight.

The proposal mentions curbing insurance company abuses. Its pretty low when insurance contracts have ambiguous, difficult to decipher, or hidden intentions. I’m assuming thats what the President means abuses along the lines of technical language the layperson doesn’t understand or adding hidden meanings, terms, conditions, or unexpressed intentions. Only a lowlife like an insurance company would stoop to those shady tactics.

Below are the two paragraphs covering the transfer of wealth.

Improve Individual Responsibility. All Americans should have affordable health insurance coverage. This helps everyone, both insured and uninsured, by reducing cost shifting, where people with insurance end up covering the inevitable health care costs of the uninsured, and making possible robust health insurance reforms that will curb insurance company abuses and increase the security and stability of health insurance for all Americans. The House and Senate bills require individuals who have affordable options but who choose to remain uninsured to make a payment to offset the cost of care they will inevitably need. The House bill’s payment is a percentage of income. The Senate sets the payment as a flat dollar amount or percentage of income, whichever is higher (although not higher than the lowest premium in the area). Both the House and Senate bill provide a low-income exemption, for those individuals with incomes below the tax filing threshold (House) or below the poverty threshold (Senate).The Senate also includes a “hardship” exemption for people who cannot afford insurance, included in the President’s Proposal. It protects those who would face premiums of more than 8 percent of their income from having to pay any assessment and they can purchase a low-cost catastrophic plan in the exchange if they choose.

The President’s Proposal adopts the Senate approach but lowers the flat dollar assessments, and raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured. Specifically, it lowers the flat dollar amounts from $495 to $325 in 2015 and $750 to $695 in 2016. Subsequent years are indexed to $695 rather than $750, so the flat dollar amounts in later years are lower than the Senate bill as well. The President’s Proposal raises the percent of income that is an alternative payment amount from 0.5 to 1.0% in 2014, 1.0 to 2.0% in 2015, and 2.0 to 2.5% for 2016 and subsequent years – the same percent of income as in the House bill, which makes the assessment more progressive. For ease of administration, the President’s Proposal changes the payment exemption from the Senate policy (individuals with income below the poverty threshold) to individuals with income below the tax filing threshold (the House policy). In other words, a married couple with income below $18,700 will not have to pay the assessment. The President’s Proposal also adopts the Senate’s “hardship” exemption.

Should I Slit My Wrists

I struggled for some time to understand what went wrong in the economic collapse.

I listened to a great deal of debate about who should be blamed.

The suspects for the collapse were speculators, mortgage bankers, the FED, Wall Street, Washington D.C., and borrowers.

It turns out the collapse was caused by all the above.

Here is Peter Schiff at the Mortgage Bankers Speech from 2006, with one of the best explanations for the crash before it happened.

Somalis too Skinny for Libertarians

When the subject of smaller government comes up, it is often met with the love it or leave attitude. If you think the government is spending too much or invading individual liberty, then you’re told to move to Somalia where they have basically no government and live in a fantasy paradise of no government.

Wanting a smaller and less powerful government does not equal wanting to live in Somalia. Its just another “love it or leave it” argument. Wanting to change something shows you care about it. If you didn’t care about this country you would move away or just not say anything. Asking a family member to stop drinking too much doesn’t mean you hate them; it shows you care.

Shrinking government is far from wanting no government. Taking away the government’s power to decide what constitutes victimless crime or power to appropriate away more wealth is not calling for the destruction of government. The if government isn’t big, it will be like Somalia argument sounds like someone overweight saying if they don’t eat donuts, they will become anorexic.

Political partisans can agree the government is too big and powerful, but they don’t see the government as a whole body and instead focus on individual body parts. Listening to pundits speak about how “the right side of the body is fat,” countered with “no it’s the left side of the body that’s fat” is like listening to firemen argue which side of a building needs water while the building burns down.

The huge federal budget is an example of a gluttonous government. Forty-three cents out of every dollar that it spends is borrowed. The solution to the deficit isn’t giving the government more donuts–it’s telling it to eat less. The government wanting to raise taxes is like a fat guy saying, “If I was 10 feet tall, I wouldn’t be considered fat.” The problem is when the government gets bigger, its appetite also grows; it will only turn into a fat giant if it grows any larger.

The gluttonous power of the government needs to be reigned in also. Their hunger of power is that of eating Chinese food: soon after they have the power, they hunger for even more. Taking away victimless crime laws won’t leave the government as skin-and-bones any more than drinking diet pop will suddenly make you skinny. It won’t be anarchy, as in Somalia; there will just be fewer things for which the government needs to be fed.

Don’t starve the government to death. Just see it has a healthier tax and power index.

In Everyone’s Best Interest

When is “in everyone’s best interest” just an excuse to have it your way?

Here are some of examples from U.S. history where individuals suffered “in everyone’s best interest:”

Sedition Act – censoring malicious writing against the government was in everyone’s best interest.
Slavery- keeping the country united was in everyone’s best interest.
Japanese, German, and Italian internment camps – national security was everyone’s best interest.
Americanization of Native Americans – “civilizing” or a standard set of cultural values was in everyone’s best interest.
Racial segregation – keeping races separate protected all races and therefore was in everyone’s best interest.
Women’s suffrage – keeping a women in her separate, domestic sphere was in everyone’s best interest.

Its easy to look back on these and see the underlying dynamic of the majority rationalizing control of the minority. Keep in mind at some point, the majority passionately defended and protected all the above laws as being in everyone’s best interest.

Here are some current issues which claim to be in everyone’s best interest that ignore the impact on individuals and minorities:

Gun Control Laws
Defense of Marriage Act
Bailouts for banks and auto industry
Mandatory Health Insurance
Sin taxes
Illicit drug laws
Deficit spending

If you can’t figure out who is, has been, or will be harmed by any of the items above, then you have fallen for the benefit of all argument. You have been blinded by the ends if you can’t see the harm of the means.

If are having trouble figuring out who has been harmed, ask yourself these questions:

When is it OK for you specifically to be forced to do something against your will by the government?
Where do taxes come from?
Has someone ever threatened your life?
Is there anything you do that is considered immoral by others?
Should the majority do anything it likes?

The phrase in everyone’s best interest is often a red flag for bad legislation; because there is little government can do that is beneficial to all without bringing harm to at least one person. Its easy to rationalize just about any action for the benefit of all, as long as you completely ignore those harmed by the benefit.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul on compromise

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are questioned by Anderson Cooper about congress and compromise.

Ron Paul “they compromise on the welfare state, they compromise on the warfare state, they compromise endorsing the monetary system”

Rand Paul “we are compromising, but we are compromising for more spending”

Congress should be willing to compromise on what gets cut from the budget, but cutting the budget should not be compromised.

Would a Politician Mind Being Slimed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QbhfbLUtQs

On You Can’t do That on Television, slime was poured whenever someone said, “I don’t know.”

Politicians have no qualms about modifying citizens’ behavior, so it would only be fair to treat them likewise. There should be a political talk show along these same lines as YCDTOTV, but with these rules for when the slime flows:

Accuse opponents of being hypocrites.
Ignores questions to repeat the same talking points they’ve already spouted.
Make appeals to popularity.
Villainize those with differing opinions.
Preach about being a better parent, citizen, student, or spouse.

Saying, “I don’t know” would be perfectly safe on the show, because it’s refreshing when politicians admit they don’t have an answer for everything.

Shaping the Next Generation

Overweight children is only one area where American parents are failing their children. With parents doing such a poor job of raising children, I think it’s time for others to follow Washington D.C.’s example and step up to the plate to help. Bastions of self control and discipline–like Washington D.C.–can’t shape the next generation alone.

Here are some suggestions where others can follow DC’s example and pitch in to help parents raise their children.

John Edwards, Tiger Woods and Mark Sanford could tour schools together and explain the importance of fidelity.
Bernie Madoff could teach the importance of sharing.
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert could explain the harm caused by teasing.
Mary Kay Letourneau and Debra Lafave could warn children about sexual abuse.
Lindsay Lohan should scold children about underage drinking.
John Mayer and Mel Gibson could teach racial sensitivity.
Bristol Palin and Jamie Lynn Spears could explain the dangers of underage sex.
Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner can teach the importance of savings accounts.
A bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans could let children know the damage done by name calling.
Andy Dick could explain good touch/bad touch.
President Obama could speak about the importance of keeping promises.
Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity could explain logical fallacies, such as the Straw Man and Appeal to Popularity.
Kanye West could talk about the importance of waiting your turn to speak.