I'm calling "bullshit" on this town hall meeting thing. Obama is already planning on pushing through his new mortally expensive budget. He has no concern for what The People think. He won't change the bill, it's already out there. It'll pass just the way it is.
I'm beginning to see that this is all just a diversion from the real problems in this country. Town Halls, Campaign Ads promoting bills, all these things. To me, it seems like Obama realizes he is losing the trust of the American people. Slowly, people who pay attention and realize he doesn't know what he's doing. He's feeling it out as he goes. Not good for him.
I hate making predictions, but I'd say he drops in the "approval polls" significantly.
While this abusive spending bill goes through, regardless of this "Town Hall Meeting", I think now is a good time to turn light to H.R. 1207, which is receiving the snowball effect. The last time I checked, there were 33 cosponsors on the bill. Democrats and Republicans. This is fantastic. For more info, see the gadget on the right side of the screen dedicated to this.
LibertyCatalyst
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
"Toxic Assets"
Why is it that when I hear and watch Obama speak, I still feel like hes on the campaign trail? It's now beginning to show that he's not even confident in himself.
This whole "toxic asset" thing is really confusing me, why would it be a good idea for the government to take the hit in a martyr-like fashion? Doesn't anyone realize that we, the taxpayers fund the government? That we, the taxpayers are taking this hit? Proving to be more than martyrdom, but anti-intellectual mass suicide? We will not be able to exist, if we allow the government to absorb the "toxic" assets; the failing assets. So now, instead of correcting the problem by creating a solid currency that will keep things stable, we create a new idea that forces us, the taxpayers, to work off this debt that will undoubtedly last beyond our own lifetimes, beyond our childrens' lifetimes, and beyond their childrens' lifetimes. Who knows if we'll ever rebound from something like this?
I guess we can always pretend like there is no debt...
LibertyCatalyst
This whole "toxic asset" thing is really confusing me, why would it be a good idea for the government to take the hit in a martyr-like fashion? Doesn't anyone realize that we, the taxpayers fund the government? That we, the taxpayers are taking this hit? Proving to be more than martyrdom, but anti-intellectual mass suicide? We will not be able to exist, if we allow the government to absorb the "toxic" assets; the failing assets. So now, instead of correcting the problem by creating a solid currency that will keep things stable, we create a new idea that forces us, the taxpayers, to work off this debt that will undoubtedly last beyond our own lifetimes, beyond our childrens' lifetimes, and beyond their childrens' lifetimes. Who knows if we'll ever rebound from something like this?
I guess we can always pretend like there is no debt...
LibertyCatalyst
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Philosophy of Liberty
Philosophy of Liberty
I was shown this by a fellow patriot. It is very interesting, I encourage you all to watch it.
LibertyCatalyst
I was shown this by a fellow patriot. It is very interesting, I encourage you all to watch it.
LibertyCatalyst
I take a vacation, and this happens
90% bonus tax?
This seals the deal for me. The government officially owns AIG. I mean, it really sucks that they did that, but what sucks even more is that the government gave them the money, wagged their finger, and said "behave."
Who really thought that that was going to work?
Oh wait...
Yeah, change sounds pretty good now, doesn't it?
Does anyone else agree with me when I say that failing businesses don't know how to use money, and therefore do stupid stuff like this?
I feel like that's a pretty solid hypothesis. We can't keep bailing these guys out, they don't know how to use it. At the same time; yes there are companies that are being dragged down by these poorly behaving larger companies. Who's to blame for this? The federal reserve for one; but most importantly, our own federal government. Over time, printing money went from a last-ditch move, to a science. It's the answer to everything. "Fed is in debt. Print more money!" "Wall Street is falling. Print more money!" "The American Dollar is lower than the Canadian Dollar. Print more money!"
Just do us all a favor, and stop. We might not even make it to the next election at this rate
LibertyCatalyst
This seals the deal for me. The government officially owns AIG. I mean, it really sucks that they did that, but what sucks even more is that the government gave them the money, wagged their finger, and said "behave."
Who really thought that that was going to work?
Oh wait...
Yeah, change sounds pretty good now, doesn't it?
Does anyone else agree with me when I say that failing businesses don't know how to use money, and therefore do stupid stuff like this?
I feel like that's a pretty solid hypothesis. We can't keep bailing these guys out, they don't know how to use it. At the same time; yes there are companies that are being dragged down by these poorly behaving larger companies. Who's to blame for this? The federal reserve for one; but most importantly, our own federal government. Over time, printing money went from a last-ditch move, to a science. It's the answer to everything. "Fed is in debt. Print more money!" "Wall Street is falling. Print more money!" "The American Dollar is lower than the Canadian Dollar. Print more money!"
Just do us all a favor, and stop. We might not even make it to the next election at this rate
LibertyCatalyst
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Bullshit in America
My posts have been slowing down, but I'm wrapping up my mid-terms, so it'll pick up again.
Plus, the uselessness of Congress is nauseating. I can't imagine how I'd be if I was an actual congressman, I think I'd lose my mind. Watching C-SPAN this much is disturbing me. I mean, I like the fact that congress is at my fingertips. That's perfect. Opencongress.org is also awesome. I can find anything I want, and then write. I'm really excited about H.R. 1207. It's probably the best idea to hit the floor in some time. I know it'll open people's eyes too. Which is great.
Only if it will pass...
But anyway, I really want to do something on gun rights, I feel like it's very important. I'm going to do a bunch of research first, expect an entry in a few days involving that.
Also, 20/20's Bullshit in America, hosted by John Stossel and Drew Carey, will be airing on Friday, March 13, at 10 PM on ABC. It should be awesome. I'll be watching it.
LibertyCatalyst
Plus, the uselessness of Congress is nauseating. I can't imagine how I'd be if I was an actual congressman, I think I'd lose my mind. Watching C-SPAN this much is disturbing me. I mean, I like the fact that congress is at my fingertips. That's perfect. Opencongress.org is also awesome. I can find anything I want, and then write. I'm really excited about H.R. 1207. It's probably the best idea to hit the floor in some time. I know it'll open people's eyes too. Which is great.
Only if it will pass...
But anyway, I really want to do something on gun rights, I feel like it's very important. I'm going to do a bunch of research first, expect an entry in a few days involving that.
Also, 20/20's Bullshit in America, hosted by John Stossel and Drew Carey, will be airing on Friday, March 13, at 10 PM on ABC. It should be awesome. I'll be watching it.
LibertyCatalyst
Monday, March 9, 2009
A little bit of Math
Federal Representatives and Senators receive roughly $168,000 a year, the two party leaders in each chamber receive roughly 186,600 a year, and the Speaker receives 215,700 a year.
There are 100 Senators
There are 435 Representatives
There are two party leaders per each chamber, who are also senators and representatives.
The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is also a representative.
With this in mind there are 98 Senators at roughly base pay
And there are 432 representatives at roughly base pay
98 x 168,000 = 16,464,000
432 x 168,000 = 72,576,000
4 x 186,600 = 746,400
1 x 215,700 = 215,700
= 90,002,100
In summary, we pay the Legislative branch alone to stand around for 40+ minutes doing this: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hr58/show
During an economic crisis, the most important thing is to commend a football team for winning.
Thank you congress, I'm glad that you choose to waste my tax dollars voting and discussing useless bills over and over again instead of actually attempting to "change" things. Please continue to be useless and take much more of my money with new taxes that you seem to make all the room for to line your pockets. I'm glad I can trust you all to be so fiscally responsible
LibertyCatalyst
Afterthought: Don't you think we pay them a bit too much to sit around and do stuff like this? There are 535 congressmen total. How many do you think actually contribute something to the matter, instead of just voting with their party?
There are 100 Senators
There are 435 Representatives
There are two party leaders per each chamber, who are also senators and representatives.
The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is also a representative.
With this in mind there are 98 Senators at roughly base pay
And there are 432 representatives at roughly base pay
98 x 168,000 = 16,464,000
432 x 168,000 = 72,576,000
4 x 186,600 = 746,400
1 x 215,700 = 215,700
= 90,002,100
In summary, we pay the Legislative branch alone to stand around for 40+ minutes doing this: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hr58/show
During an economic crisis, the most important thing is to commend a football team for winning.
Thank you congress, I'm glad that you choose to waste my tax dollars voting and discussing useless bills over and over again instead of actually attempting to "change" things. Please continue to be useless and take much more of my money with new taxes that you seem to make all the room for to line your pockets. I'm glad I can trust you all to be so fiscally responsible
LibertyCatalyst
Afterthought: Don't you think we pay them a bit too much to sit around and do stuff like this? There are 535 congressmen total. How many do you think actually contribute something to the matter, instead of just voting with their party?
Being a Libertarian is healthy for the mind
We libertarians put ourselves in a philosophical position where we give ourselves enough breathing room to change opinions on something without backing out on our core values.
Recently, I was approached with the issue of abortion, but given another angle on it. What if what matters most in the end, is the child's right to life and liberty? This completely turns my opinion upside down, and makes me have to reconsider what I stand for as a humanitarian and as a libertarian. I've now become undecided on abortion, but I still have to stand on absolute zero government intervention. That is key. Allow patients and their doctors to decide options, not government checks and funds.
Can someone by law be prescribed an abortion if deemed unfit to be a mother?
Hell no.
Let that be her decision. Unfortunately, this child may be neglected, but that does not mean that the mother's right to liberty can be decided in a court of law.
Of course, she can still be convicted and be a mother. I think adoption agencies would end up being her best choice; but hey, I'm not her.
So once again, I have to weigh the values of life and make up my mind. Isn't philosophy fun?
At least I'm not bound by party rule, and can think for myself.
--Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, and ideas are bullet proof.
LibertyCatalyst
Recently, I was approached with the issue of abortion, but given another angle on it. What if what matters most in the end, is the child's right to life and liberty? This completely turns my opinion upside down, and makes me have to reconsider what I stand for as a humanitarian and as a libertarian. I've now become undecided on abortion, but I still have to stand on absolute zero government intervention. That is key. Allow patients and their doctors to decide options, not government checks and funds.
Can someone by law be prescribed an abortion if deemed unfit to be a mother?
Hell no.
Let that be her decision. Unfortunately, this child may be neglected, but that does not mean that the mother's right to liberty can be decided in a court of law.
Of course, she can still be convicted and be a mother. I think adoption agencies would end up being her best choice; but hey, I'm not her.
So once again, I have to weigh the values of life and make up my mind. Isn't philosophy fun?
At least I'm not bound by party rule, and can think for myself.
--Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, and ideas are bullet proof.
LibertyCatalyst
Friday, March 6, 2009
New Gadgets
I've added several new gadgets, including a "Bills to Watch" Gadget, where I will post bills on the current floor that are important to the liberty movement. At this time there is only one bill on there, H.R. 1207,the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Take a look at it. More bills to come.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
It doesn't matter what you spend it on, it's still spending.
There's this strange theory going around, that what makes Obama different from Bush is: what he chooses to spend all this money on is for social programs, rather than intense foreign policy. I have two problems with this issue:
1) the title says it all.
2) Obama is keeping Bush's foreign policy, just altering it slightly (moving occupation to the other side of the scale) PLUS spending more on social programs.
It's entirely a mess because we are repeating the past 8 years in spending, and only making it worse. I have this theory of a economic lag as well, where the market takes a few years to directly react, rather than instantly. I'm sure that Obama's mistakes with money will drive us further down below, but it will take time. This isn't good. I think if this federal reserve audit bill passes (H.R.1207 - Federal Reserve Transparency Act), people will notice the problem.
--Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof.
1) the title says it all.
2) Obama is keeping Bush's foreign policy, just altering it slightly (moving occupation to the other side of the scale) PLUS spending more on social programs.
It's entirely a mess because we are repeating the past 8 years in spending, and only making it worse. I have this theory of a economic lag as well, where the market takes a few years to directly react, rather than instantly. I'm sure that Obama's mistakes with money will drive us further down below, but it will take time. This isn't good. I think if this federal reserve audit bill passes (H.R.1207 - Federal Reserve Transparency Act), people will notice the problem.
--Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof.
What if?
A fellow patriot sent me this video, and I have to say, it makes a lot of sense. It is probably one of the strongest floor speeches given in the past decade. I encourage you to watch it
couldn't have said it better myself.
couldn't have said it better myself.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Gripes with Mass Law
I've always disliked Massachusetts State Law, it's usually ridiculous and stupid. It's gotten so bad, some of us residents have nicknamed it the "No Fun State". No fireworks, no smoking in public places, almost no smoking in private places, no driving without seatbelts/helmets, no cigar bars, no purchasing of violent video games without a valid ID (seriously. I never thought I'd ever be carded trying to pick up a copy of Resident evil {rated M for fantasy blood, gore and violence. Seriously. Zombies don't even exist. How can a kid even begin to try and legitimize something like that}). This state is just ridiculous.
On top of this, we are looking at a new bill and a new law.
The bill: for parking at Logan Airport, a $1 charge per day for carbon emissions. I'm a bit of a global warming/climate change skepticist; I'm not ready to declare that the climate change is human caused, or how much is human caused, I don't know. But I do know that it isn't right to charge someone a carbon emission toll, especially when the money is going to other state programs, and not anything to try and counter carbon emissions (if you can even really do that).
The law: Permits are now required to have open trenches in your area, and they must be properly boarded up. So now you have to pay the government to dig a hole in your lawn (no standardization of what constitutes a trench, laws are often misinterpreted around here, so a hole will suffice), and you must board it up to protect yourself from it.
Piece of advice from me: If anyone tells you theyre signing a bill to protect lives of people, and it results in them fining you in any way, it's a scam.
I'll always remember the click-it-or-ticket commercial, "cops give tickets to save lives". Yeah right. I don't need the government to try and save my life and tell me how to live. I use a seatbelt because i choose to, not because someone makes me. Allow common sense to rule, and we won't have to waste hours on these stupid bills. But then again, we're in the "No Fun State" that taxes the crap out of everything.
If that's the case, then why do we still need the money? I say cut programs. This state is not living within its means. There are too many government programs. If we just cut some, we can actually have some sort of revenue. We won't have to worry about doing too much more with taxation, seeing as we're already being taxed like crazy. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think common sense and beuracracy mix too well.
On top of this, we are looking at a new bill and a new law.
The bill: for parking at Logan Airport, a $1 charge per day for carbon emissions. I'm a bit of a global warming/climate change skepticist; I'm not ready to declare that the climate change is human caused, or how much is human caused, I don't know. But I do know that it isn't right to charge someone a carbon emission toll, especially when the money is going to other state programs, and not anything to try and counter carbon emissions (if you can even really do that).
The law: Permits are now required to have open trenches in your area, and they must be properly boarded up. So now you have to pay the government to dig a hole in your lawn (no standardization of what constitutes a trench, laws are often misinterpreted around here, so a hole will suffice), and you must board it up to protect yourself from it.
Piece of advice from me: If anyone tells you theyre signing a bill to protect lives of people, and it results in them fining you in any way, it's a scam.
I'll always remember the click-it-or-ticket commercial, "cops give tickets to save lives". Yeah right. I don't need the government to try and save my life and tell me how to live. I use a seatbelt because i choose to, not because someone makes me. Allow common sense to rule, and we won't have to waste hours on these stupid bills. But then again, we're in the "No Fun State" that taxes the crap out of everything.
If that's the case, then why do we still need the money? I say cut programs. This state is not living within its means. There are too many government programs. If we just cut some, we can actually have some sort of revenue. We won't have to worry about doing too much more with taxation, seeing as we're already being taxed like crazy. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think common sense and beuracracy mix too well.
A Brief List of wasted money and time by Congress (week of March 2)
H.R. 548
H.R. 146
H.R. 1105
More to come later, too tired of sifting through the useless resolutions the House passes every 5 seconds.
On the top two, you can get two birds with one stone. These bills work to preserve historic revolution and civil war battlefields. Instead of putting government money toward it, the government should move to sell the land to caretakers, allow caretakers to hire workers to stimulate the economy.
Mainly, I'm stopping short with only three bills because I'm watching Larry King Live, and this snide democratic woman is on. She's shooting down a historian who has numbers to prove that the New Deal didn't stimulate the economy as much as everyone anticipated.
Why is she attacking him?
Not because he may be right (that's the secret truth), but because he's a Republican.
I'm tired of this "we've tried it your way" mentality, as if conservatives use group-think (like liberals). Sure, some do, and that's why the neoconservatives hit this rut when they took control of the Republican Party.
Doing as you're told instead of what's right never leads to a strong political force. This past election only reinforces that.
If only the Republicans could see why they lost their way.
It's not only because they gave into group-think, it's because they failed to see it. More importantly, those who pointed it out before McCain's predicted loss are now being ignored. That's dangerous.
But anyway, that historian had some great points. I feel like the Republicans are starting to get where they need to go, by cutting spending and cutting unnecessary programs, as opposed to job creation within the government. I feel like a bigger government is less reliable. When something bad happens in a big government, like major inflation, everyone feels it. It's not remedied by adding artificial value to currency either. This is the vicious cycle we'll see for atleast the next 2 years. Longer if Republicans don't get it together in time.
More wasted money next week, next time I'll shut the TV off so I can focus, and not get distracted by stupidity.
-Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof.
LibertyCatalyst
H.R. 146
H.R. 1105
More to come later, too tired of sifting through the useless resolutions the House passes every 5 seconds.
On the top two, you can get two birds with one stone. These bills work to preserve historic revolution and civil war battlefields. Instead of putting government money toward it, the government should move to sell the land to caretakers, allow caretakers to hire workers to stimulate the economy.
Mainly, I'm stopping short with only three bills because I'm watching Larry King Live, and this snide democratic woman is on. She's shooting down a historian who has numbers to prove that the New Deal didn't stimulate the economy as much as everyone anticipated.
Why is she attacking him?
Not because he may be right (that's the secret truth), but because he's a Republican.
I'm tired of this "we've tried it your way" mentality, as if conservatives use group-think (like liberals). Sure, some do, and that's why the neoconservatives hit this rut when they took control of the Republican Party.
Doing as you're told instead of what's right never leads to a strong political force. This past election only reinforces that.
If only the Republicans could see why they lost their way.
It's not only because they gave into group-think, it's because they failed to see it. More importantly, those who pointed it out before McCain's predicted loss are now being ignored. That's dangerous.
But anyway, that historian had some great points. I feel like the Republicans are starting to get where they need to go, by cutting spending and cutting unnecessary programs, as opposed to job creation within the government. I feel like a bigger government is less reliable. When something bad happens in a big government, like major inflation, everyone feels it. It's not remedied by adding artificial value to currency either. This is the vicious cycle we'll see for atleast the next 2 years. Longer if Republicans don't get it together in time.
More wasted money next week, next time I'll shut the TV off so I can focus, and not get distracted by stupidity.
-Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof.
LibertyCatalyst
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Introduction
I know I hit the ground running on my first three blogs, because there was a lot going on in the media. Now that we're at the weekend, it tends to be a breathing moment in politics. I'll use this short break to introduce myself and where I stand on things.
I'm a Paleo-Conservative. This means I disagree 100% with the way conservatives ran our government into the ground this past decade. However, this does not by any stretch mean that I agree with the Democrats on much. In essence, I'm a traditional liberal. By this I mean that I believe in social liberties as well as economic liberties. Democrats tend to believe in holding up economic freedoms for the sake of social freedom, while Republicans believe in holding up social freedoms for the sake of economic freedoms.
I'm for having your cake and eating it too.
Not only is it possible to have both social liberties and economic liberties, it needs to be that way. I see it as a mandatory agreement of both. The only way one can truly be free is to share freedoms in enterprise and freedoms in personal life.
This means I'm for gun rights, against censorship, against big government regulation, frivolous taxes, I'm also for a flat tax, as opposed to a fair tax.
On taxation, I take this stand because I believe that it is unfair to tax those who have a higher income more than those who do not. An even tax for everyone would be fantastic.
Of course no tax altogether would be even better.
I oppose the 16th amendment.
I also oppose the 17th amendment. It's the right of the people to appoint officials through special elections, not the right of corrupt governors to play personal politics and choose in favor of a political party, rather than a common good.
I'm opposed to political parties, I believe they exist just to disagree with each other, and for nothing else. In this situation, winning a vote is more important than having morals, which is twisted and wrong.
I am for gay marriage, but not for government regulation. Marriage is a religious institution, if a religion allows it, then it can happen. If not, tough. On that matter, the main issue of marriage in general revolves around the income tax. same sex couples want to receive the same benefits as opposite sex couples when it comes to filing for taxes and all that good stuff. I want to abolish the 16th amendment, so with that in mind, I want to abolish this whole tax incentive thing. That shouldn't be a concern. Outside of that, marriage is all religion from there on.
I am for abortion, but not government regulated or funded abortion. If a doctor chooses to provide that service, they may, but there should be no handouts for anyone in the process. It's a regular form of surgery as far as I'm concerned.
If I think of anything more, I'll be sure to post
LibertyCatalyst
I'm a Paleo-Conservative. This means I disagree 100% with the way conservatives ran our government into the ground this past decade. However, this does not by any stretch mean that I agree with the Democrats on much. In essence, I'm a traditional liberal. By this I mean that I believe in social liberties as well as economic liberties. Democrats tend to believe in holding up economic freedoms for the sake of social freedom, while Republicans believe in holding up social freedoms for the sake of economic freedoms.
I'm for having your cake and eating it too.
Not only is it possible to have both social liberties and economic liberties, it needs to be that way. I see it as a mandatory agreement of both. The only way one can truly be free is to share freedoms in enterprise and freedoms in personal life.
This means I'm for gun rights, against censorship, against big government regulation, frivolous taxes, I'm also for a flat tax, as opposed to a fair tax.
On taxation, I take this stand because I believe that it is unfair to tax those who have a higher income more than those who do not. An even tax for everyone would be fantastic.
Of course no tax altogether would be even better.
I oppose the 16th amendment.
I also oppose the 17th amendment. It's the right of the people to appoint officials through special elections, not the right of corrupt governors to play personal politics and choose in favor of a political party, rather than a common good.
I'm opposed to political parties, I believe they exist just to disagree with each other, and for nothing else. In this situation, winning a vote is more important than having morals, which is twisted and wrong.
I am for gay marriage, but not for government regulation. Marriage is a religious institution, if a religion allows it, then it can happen. If not, tough. On that matter, the main issue of marriage in general revolves around the income tax. same sex couples want to receive the same benefits as opposite sex couples when it comes to filing for taxes and all that good stuff. I want to abolish the 16th amendment, so with that in mind, I want to abolish this whole tax incentive thing. That shouldn't be a concern. Outside of that, marriage is all religion from there on.
I am for abortion, but not government regulated or funded abortion. If a doctor chooses to provide that service, they may, but there should be no handouts for anyone in the process. It's a regular form of surgery as far as I'm concerned.
If I think of anything more, I'll be sure to post
LibertyCatalyst
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
