This seems like a good a time as any to ask how the super-rich-multi-billionaire types come into existence. There are some who are marching on cities citing the egregious concentration of 40% of wealth within the 1% as a problem of the so-called free markets, but it’s all a lie.
Radical leftists are hell bent on bringing socialism to America claiming that our system is unfairly tilted in favor of the rich, and I just might agree with them. That is clearly a symptom of a much larger disease. What ails us is big, anti-market government. I have long contended that America has not had capitalism for 80-100 years, starting with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, yet we are constantly hearing capitalism blamed for all and every economic woe.
Government Intervention Creates The Super Rich
When government intervenes into the market place, it often time creates a new set of mandates by which corporations that wish to be seen as law abiding must adhere to. The problem is, the market is then unable to innovate as fast because smaller upstart competitors cannot keep up with the rising cost of never ending government interventions. 
Considering how quickly government spending has gone up enforcing regulations, the only players equipped to battle to government are large, established businesses and business people.
Lets say you are Amish and want to sell fresh, unpasteurized milk to neighbors and others who believe that major nutritional value is lost through this government mandated process. The FDA can come and shut you down. In fact, all across America the FDA has been shutting down small town farmers and Amish who sell unpasteurized milk to an educated public who want the product as it is being sold. No one is being duped, tricked or forced. However, the federal government in all its wisdom has shut down a small dairy businesses, leaving milk customers to take their dollars elsewhere. While there is no evidence to suggest that the FDA was in collusion with Big Dairy, it inadvertently helped out that 1% group. If something like this were to happen to a major dairy farmer, they would have the fiscal staying power to combat accusations in court, and if the demand for unpasteurized milk was great enough, hire a lobbyist to get the needed laws overturned to protect their share of the unpasteurized milk market after the federal government did the dirty work of eliminating their low level competition. Sounds like something out of a mob movie does it not? In this and most scenarios, the government essentially acts an enforcer, protecting the turf of the five families and putting any enterprising start-ups down, or at the very least leaving the new comers with no choice but to be bought out by the big dogs.
It comes as no surprise then that as 
government intervention grew, the wealth gap widened significantly.
The same could be said of banking regulations. Massive regulations were put into place to protect the consumer, starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and several subsequent usurpations of power by the federal government can directly be attributed to the financial collapse of 2008 and the destruction of smaller banks leaving the consumer with little or no choice in some regions and higher banking costs all around. Yet, who does the consumer blame? The CEOs making billions of dollars, not the government who illicitly cultivated the banking environment, unintended or otherwise.
Isn’t This Capitalism?
No. This is not capitalism, this is something far different. The basis for our current system lies in the idea that the consumer needs protecting because all who are profit seeking are automatically dangerous. The basis of all government interventions into the market are considered to be heroic and not thuggery. What the little guy gets, however, is thuggery rebranded as heroism. There is a legitimate case to be made that certain nutrients are lost during pasteurization. Yet the government steps in to protect the consumer to the detriment of the small business person and against the natural choice of the consumer.
Obviously, the examples could go on in perpetuity. The government creates the environment for the super rich to spawn by muscling out small timers with heavy handed laws and regulation , and then blame the free market. The government creates laws, mandates and regulations to protect the consumer, but ultimately remove the greatest mechanism for consumer protection already built into the market, a market correction. Sure, in the past corrections did create small bubbles and recessions once every decade, however the market was organically repairing itself at the will of the consumers. Now bureaucrats have that control, not the people. Free market capitalism is a system in which an individual is free to make choices regardless of the opinion of the government, yet that is not what we have. Can it even be called capitalism anymore? Are we ready to finally hold the real thieves accountable?
Well, isn’t this grand? Housing is a right, and the government is the arbiter of all the things you are due. This sounds like it is right of the Van Jones playbook. In fact, it is. Wow, it is like Van never left office. I feel as though there might be some sort of Glenn Beck style conspiracy here that I could point to, equipped with pictures of organization’s logos and lines drawn between them. It may very be the case; however that would assume that the progressives in power recognize that the free market works and the best way to manipulate it to represent their spread-the-misery ideology is to creep in with government entities.
In case this comes to you as a surprise, The Federal Housing Finance Agency is looking into how they can rent homes that Fannie and Freddie own:
The U.S. government rescued Fannie and Freddie in September 2008 and has funded them since the financial crisis. The mortgage giants own or guarantee about half of the nation’s mortgages and nearly all new mortgages.
…
Many foreclosures have been stalled so attorneys general and federal regulators can investigate whether lenders cut corners and improperly handled thousands of cases. Once a settlement is finalized, foreclosures are expected to pick up again and further depress home prices.
Converting the homes into rentals may reduce “credit losses and help stabilize neighborhoods and home values,” said Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie.
If you are unaware, Freddie and Fannie were responsible for the housing bubble that has reset inflated housing prices as of late. They purchased mortgage backed securities that no one else really wanted to touch. This is the perfect play for the oh-so desperate Obama.
Redistributing Your Home
According to Bloomberg last year:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled companies that issued and guaranteed more than 71 percent of mortgage-backed bonds last year. Between those companies and Ginnie Mae, which guarantees loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, the government backed nearly 97 percent of U.S. mortgages in 2009.
We have all heard the horror stories of major banks randomly foreclosing on homes they had no right to. What if the government decides in all of its wisdom that your house is simply to lavish? What if your home sits on a large piece of land that could better serve the community by becoming a massive housing ghetto? Sure, this sounds very black-helicopter-Alex-Jones, but is it that far off?
The constitutional scholar that is Obama has found ways to make us do all sorts of wrong things, such as forcing people into insurance as a requirement of good citizenship and sending troops into battle without congressional approval. Sure, brown shirts will not show up to your door and force you out of your home and into a FEMA camp. Even progressives realize that small localized government is the most expedient, so they will nudge you out with small legislation enacted by regional planning boards and committees created and appointed by elected officials. The EPA creates silly standards every day; and these laws have the same force as any law passed by the federal government or your local one.
There are two conclusions one can draw from this scenario. Either, the federal government is completely incompetent and ought to be thrown out of office or just ignored or, this is done by design in order to create a new society.
With much of the talk surrounding the debt ceiling, I had little to say. Even when the deal was reached, I remained silent. I mean, how could I do anything else? No one knew what was in the bill. The Dow has now dipped roughly 500 points, negating any gains it has made this year. A credit down grade is also looming. Let’s play a quick round of blame-storming.
The Credit Down Grade
Prior to the secret debt ceiling agreement, we were warned by many liberal pundits and so-called economists that without an increase in the debt ceiling, that our nations credit rating would surely be down-graded thereby hindering the already in progress stellar recovery.
It would shame us around the globe and make it harder for the government to make its payments. I do not understand the rationale of using new debt to pay off old debts and calling it sound fiscal doctrine, but hey it is DC.
It is equally DC-eque that as our nations looming credit down grade was the fact, the very same folks who used decided that it was NBD (no big deal) now that Obama had won on the debt ceiling.
Credit agencies are still suggesting that America may face a credit downgrade. Progressives are handing us a messaging-win on a platter yet we keep walking away as though we love failure.
Who We Shall Blame
I think it is clear who I will be blaming. First, I blame every republican, not just the ones who voted for it. The sheer lack of consistent and clear messaging was a problem. I also take issue with the egos and personalities that we placed ahead of the actual deal. It seemed like every leading GOP character was dropping a debt deal with their name on it and forcing a vote. Now, it sure was hilarious watching democrats continually voting against balanced budget deals. I mean, who does not like balanced budgets? It is like saying that you hate cute puppies or the elderly.
The republicans really should stop being in office. They had just about secured Obama as a one term president, yet sank the entire ship for some raw deal. They also broke a promise by not posting the bill 3 days prior to voting for it. It seems like some establishment types really want a primary challenger. The republicans lost an enormous opportunity to make Obama the first black president and the one of the few to let the US default, if it would come to that. Not to mention the major messaging battle we lost.
Obviously majority of the blame is heaved right onto the democrat leadership as well as the big O man himself.
Default? LOL, JK
We all know that default was never on the table. We bring in $180B in tax revenue a month. If the federal government cannot find a way to survive on that amount of cash, it proves that perhaps anarchy is the way.
We spend $300B every month. Does it really take a genius or even an economist to figure that we can cut foreign aid and salaries to congress and still make good on our word for months to come? Yes, I said cuts to congressional salaries, perhaps even the presidential salary. Shared sacrifice only works if the one calling for it shares in the sacrifice, otherwise he is just a hypocrite.
Of course, Obama would force default and then win the messaging battle and republicans would stand behind speak Carrot with the heads held low whining about something without actually pointing out the democrats have more control and refused any deal. It not really compromise if only one party is expected to change its requests.
What Now
Obviously the deal was bunk. It only slows growth rate of the Voldemort’s dark army federal government, rather than give us actual cuts in government. If anything, it ought to be a lesson to American progressives that their big-government, liberty-sucking ideology is not popular anywhere in the world.
We got an increase in the debt ceiling, not actual cuts in spending, and a massacred the messaging. I think it is time to create a third party and dump the republicans.
State Rep John Kriesel and S.E. Cupp are holding an event in Minneapolis regarding the proposed ballot amendment in the Socialist Democracy of Minnesota this coming Friday prior to RightOnline 2011. When I looked at some of the recent comments on the Facebook page for the event I noticed an individual who resorted to calling those attending progressive liberals, because I guess it is now progressive and liberal to allow free people to choose freely.
Nonetheless, my thoughts on the issue:
First off, I must make it clear that I am not a proponent of any measure legalizing gay marriage. I am strongly opposed to it; in fact I myself am opposed to straight marriage. I think it is fair to note that the only thing that is being proposed at this time is a ballot measure, allowing those in this state to choose. The existing measure is not legalizing anything nor is it solidifying any sort of definition of marriage, it is merely putting the option on the 2012 ballot. It seems like a fair approach to such a hot button issue, letting the people decide what laws they are governed by, but then again life is not fair, right?
–
In nations throughout Europe and in some parts of Canada, Christian ministers and churches have come under fire for espousing on their values when it comes to the topic of sexuality. They are charged and sometimes convicted with crimes of hate speech.
–
In my view, laws legalizing gay marriage would necessarily put gays into a protected class of minorities. The only way I see for churches to combat the possibility of the state or a governing body censoring their views is to fully deregulate marriage. It would limit the possibility that a person’s behavior would shift them into a protected class and allow them undue privileges. The deregulation of marriage would address all sorts of other lifestyle arrangements consisting of polygamous, polyamorus and polyandrous relationships, allowing all of them to engage in the private contract we currently call marriage. The church and those opposed to whatever nastiness (insert your LOL here) people come up with the ability to carry on as they were.
This concept has time and again been brought to the table as the libertarian, or truly conservative perspective. That said, I think it is just as libertarian to allow the citizens of a state to choose what laws govern our society.
I just finished watching Waiting For Superman. I felt it was well done, and above all I feel like it was fair, and that was less than I was expecting considering the films creator also had a hand in the abomination known as The Inconvenient Truth.
The creator of this documentary gives us all the solution to the issues that are evident in our public school systems within the first few minutes. He sends his child to private school. In fact, as of 2004, 1/3 of all public school teachers in Wisconsin did the same thing, and I would guess that number to be much higher now. It is an interesting fact to mention when considering that the state of Wisconsin is being set ablaze by public employees including teachers because they are being asked to pay for a small portion of their own benefits; the total compensation for teachers in the Milwaukee Public School system exceeds $100K. I have no problem with educators being compensated a fair and honest wage; however the system is overrun by union thugs and is rendered inefficient because of it.
I have been a long time anti-college advocate. I recognize education is vital to society, but it is not what made American a super power. It is not enough that American merely competes, we must lead. American was a global leader in everything because American culture encouraged outside-of-the-box thinking that put men in the sky and everyone in cars. When socialism crept in, we started focusing on equalizing society and making sure that bright thinkers are corralled as to not offend the lesser thinkers of our time.
If we desire a strong and steady middle class, we have return to building things, and that means that not every person will get an expensive college education and a desk job, and that is okay. Liberals have a hard time seeing differences; therefore they think there is something wrong if a person does not conform to their ideals. This is why our education system has suffered. Teachers are treated as all the same, when in fact some of them suck.
All in all, it was sad to watch Waiting For Superman because it points out what we already know, provides a solution yet has not caused many educators to realize that privatization is the solution. We can fix the system now, and be the world superpower tomorrow if we just let the market dictate the path forward.
Copyright © 2012 | DKT PRESS | All Rights Reserved.
