Free Market

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1178817730001/karl-marxs-warning/

The Ron Paul Solution by Brian Wilson

The Ron Paul Solution by Brian Wilson

John Lott's Website: $500,000 Stimulus Grant Produces 1.72 jobs (Not counting jobs lost where the money would have otherwise been spent)

John Lott's Website: $500,000 Stimulus Grant Produces 1.72 jobs (Not counting jobs lost where the money would have otherwise been spent)

When a cut is not a cut - The Hill's Congress Blog

When a cut is not a cut - The Hill's Congress Blog

John Lott's Website: The National Institutes of Health Gives $90 million to China

John Lott's Website: The National Institutes of Health Gives $90 million to China

TSA & Texas: Breaking Down the Threats

TSA & Texas: Breaking Down the Threats

Another Federal Failure

Another Federal Failure

Shut it Down

Shut it Down

Taking property without Due Process and most likely no search warrant. And the attorney general claims large amounts of cash are "probable Cause". Probable cause is the level of suspicion needed to obtain a search warrant and must be related to a crime, NOT a level to seize property.

social security

I have never heard anyone, including Ron Paul, say they do not want to meet the Social Security obligation to those dependent on this forced Ponzi scheme.  I have heard of those who would like people to chose to opt out if they desire, I have even heard 40 somethings who would opt out.  

SS is mandated by law to loan any excess funds to the general fund.  The so called trust fund is a stack of IOU's.  

Ron Paul on SS

From Wikipedia

Social Security

Paul says that Social Security is in "bad shape ... The numbers aren't there"; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the Social Security fund every year to fund its budget.[14] He considers himself the rare member of Congress who has voted for such little spending that it has never required borrowing from existing Social Security funds. To stem the Social Security crisis and meet the commitment to elderly citizens who depend on it, he requires that Congress cut down on spending, reassess monetary and spending policies, and stop borrowing heavily from foreign investors, such as those in China, who hold U.S. Treasury bonds. Paul believes young Americans should be able to opt out of the system if they would not like to pay Social Security taxes, in order to protect the system

More info and quotes from

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp

* Perception about Social Security benefits:

I am entitled to the money. It's my money. I've saved it.[190] [191]

* All taxes that have been paid into the Social Security system since its inception have already been (1) spent to pay for benefits, (2) spent to fund the administrative overhead of the program, or (3) loaned to the federal government.[192] [193] [194] [195]

* The website of United States Social Security Administration states:

There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense.… Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. ... Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn.…[196]

      

* In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right.[197]

└ Taxes on Social Security Benefits

 * Currently, recipients of old-age benefits with incomes of more than $25,000/year and couples with incomes of more than $32,000/year must pay income taxes on up to 50% of their old-age benefits. Half of an individual's or couple's old-age benefits are counted as income when determining if they meet these $25,000 and $32,000 thresholds.[75] [76] These income taxes on Social Security benefits are used to fund Social Security.[77]

 

* Recipients of old-age benefits with incomes of more than $34,000/year and couples with incomes of more than $44,000/year must pay income taxes on up to 85% of their old-age benefits. Half of an individual's or couple's old-age benefits are counted as income when determining if they meet these $34,000 and $44,000 thresholds.[78]

 

* The thresholds at which people are required to pay income taxes on their old-age benefits are not automatically indexed to account for inflation or wage growth.[79]

Over payments

Would a private company, who you chose to invest with, get away with this?  Would they have and incentive to not over pay or pay dead people?

* Once the Social Security Administration mistakenly overpays a beneficiary for more than four years, it does not correct the error if discovered, except in cases of fraud.[182] This policy is called "administrative finality," and it is governed by regulations issued by the Commissioner of Social Security,[183] who is appointed by the U.S. President once every six years.[184]

* In 2007, the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration released the results of an audit that found 77,969 Social Security beneficiaries "whose benefit records indicated that administrative finality was involved."

* In a random sample of 275 of these beneficiaries,[185] the investigators found that:

• 57% were paid more in Social Security benefits "than they otherwise would have been paid because of administrative finality."

• 36% "may" have been overpaid because of administrative finality, but the investigators "were unable to quantify the amount because there was insufficient information available."

• 7 percent "were unaffected by administrative finality."[186]

* Based on the overpayment amounts of this survey group, the Office of the Inspector General estimated that as of June 2005, 44,230 active beneficiaries had their benefits

incorrectly calculated, but the Agency did not revise the amounts because of its administrative finality rules. As a result, we estimate these individuals were paid about $140.5 million more in [Social Security] benefits than they otherwise would have been paid had the errors not occurred. We also estimate about 25,801 of these beneficiaries will be paid an additional $49.8 million in the future because their ongoing benefits were not corrected when the Agency identified the calculation errors.[187]

* In the "Conclusion and Recommendation" section of the audit report, the Inspector General wrote that Social Security

beneficiaries should be paid the benefits they were intended to receive based on the formulas provided in the Social Security Act. … By invoking administrative finality and not correcting the errors, the beneficiaries receive extra monies that cost the [Social Security] trust funds millions of dollars.[188]

* The Commissioner of Social Security rejected this suggestion and responded in part:

Correcting a record more than four years in the past could cause undue hardship for our beneficiaries, as well as create extensive public relations issues for the Agency.[189]

John Lott's Website: With Fed ban on 100 Watt bulbs looming, substitute LED bulbs cost $50

John Lott's Website: With Fed ban on 100 Watt bulbs looming, substitute LED bulbs cost $50

CBO: Taxing Mileage is "Practical"

CBO: Taxing Mileage is "Practical"

Even if We Had No Second Amendment. . .

Even if We Had No Second Amendment. . .

Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.

John Lott's Website: $105.46 Billion Hidden to fund Obamacare

John Lott's Website: $105.46 Billion Hidden to fund Obamacare

More interventionist activity

Maybe the Libyans want to take care of themselves?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-06/world/libya.british.troops_1_special-forces-moammar-gadhafi-libyan-opposition?_s=PM:WORLD

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=210993

And here we go, senators looking for another unjust, unconstitutional war.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/03/07/20110307libya-senators-action-0307.html

'Clean Energy' and the Depressed Economy

'Clean Energy' and the Depressed Economy

Conservatives Fail Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Challenge

Conservatives Fail Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Challenge

Layers...

Why do concepts, which seem 'self evident' to me, take so long to get across to others? I asked myself that question a few weeks ago and it has taken me this long to come up with an answer. The fact that it took me a few weeks is itself a hint of what the answer is. Layers.

Knowledge and insight comes in layers. Let's say there is a concept that is several layers deep, we'll use 'Non-interventionist Foreign Policy (NIFP)' for an example. In my case, the foreign wars were justified because of the reasons given for their necessity such as

• we would rather fight them over there
• they are trying to kill us because we are free
• they are trying to kill us because of our lack of morals
• to fight them is patriotic

These layers are pretty shallow and easy to get behind, so when an alternate view comes to light, it may be rejected out-of-hand. After all, I have already come to a logical, reasoned conclusion. But then I hear from this person whom I respect for other policy positions, so I listen to these conflicting theories:

• we can't afford to police the world
• we're less safe because our resources are spread out all over the world
• we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other countries
• they are angry because we are over there
• our relations would be better with other countries if we would simply trade with them, visit with them, go to their picnics, and keep our nose out of their business

Of course I reject these notions. It's not our fault that they want to kill us. But I do get the one about not being able to afford to police the world, so perhaps I have absorbed one of the layers.

As the border debate heats up, I realize the importance of border security. If millions of Mexicans can cross, then it is not a stretch to think that thousands of terrorists can cross. Securing the border is a duty of the federal government and, politics aside, having our troops deployed overseas means they can't be deployed at the borders. If Al-Qaeda draws our troops over there, large security holes are created over here. Divide and conquer. Now I'm starting to pick up on another layer of the NIFP.

As time goes by, I see freedoms and liberties being yanked out from under me and my government forcing upon me that which it thinks is best. It's a huge snowball, and I saw it coming years before, but it did not look threatening at the time so I went on about my business. Now I don't know how to stop it! Why can't they just perform their enumerated duties and leave this other stuff to the states? If this federal control of my life is upsetting to me, maybe there is something to the idea that people in other countries get upset when we try to interfere in their affairs. Now I'm starting to understand another layer of the NIFP.

So how can these people be angry at us for being over there? We're just there to help! I suppose that an Afghani mother could have misguided anger toward the US if a drone strike inadvertently hits her house and kills her family. She might be angry along with her friends and extended family. The fact that her family was not the target will have no effect on her anger. On a broader scale, we have troops in foreign countries to keep the peace, or perhaps it is a benign presence except for the implicit 'I dare you'. Then we send money to support governments such as Israel, but we also send money to their enemies. We're playing both sides! Perhaps the people of foreign countries think that they are smart enough to determine their own destiny without the help of the US; just like some of us in the US think that we can determine our own destiny without the help of the federal government. I'm starting to understand the motivation of rebels in other countries.

I look at our prior foreign manipulations and conflicts with the benefit of hindsight. We have worked to overthrow Iranian governments (careful what you wish for). We have also armed the Iranians because they were fighting Iraq, and at other times supported Iraq because they were fighting Iran. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. We have been allies with Saddam, then we tried to kill him, allies with Bin-Laden, now we're trying to kill him, for 30 years we have propped up Mubarik, now it appears that our efforts were not appreciated by the Egyptian people. So why not mind our own affairs and leave others to mind theirs? Recent events prove that they are willing and able. I'm starting to grasp another layer of the NIFP.

My turning point was when I watched a video and the question was asked, "What would your reaction be if Chinese tanks were roaming through your city telling you when you could and could not come out, and Chinese troops were busting in to your house at will? Do you think you would retaliate"? That was the light-bulb moment for me.

The theory of layers explains why it can take months and years of repetition before a person's opinions change. Concepts with few or shallow layers can be picked up more quickly which is why sound bites are so effective, they are one layer deep. I've reflected on my own political progression and I have watched the slow, incremental absorption of layers by people around me. I have watched people mature (politically) in areas such as foreign policy, gun rights, and economics and that reflection has led me to this article.

If my Theory of Layers is correct, it proves that my theory is at best incomplete, and at worst inaccurate. Oh my, a recursive theory. I'm so confused!

-- Jim

DOMA

The Obama administration has determined the DOMA is unconstitutional.  I agree, where in the constitution is there anything about ANY government being involved with marriage?

I too believe marriage is between one man and one woman.  it  is not a role of government to regulate the personal life of others, tho they do regulate most of what we do. (what kind of toilet can you have)

So now that a precedent has been set, does that mean we can expect the non enforcement of other unconstitutional laws (no more incandescent bulbs) and dismantling of unconstitutional departments?(Dept of ED)

just a thought