|
legalizeliberty favorited a video
(2 days ago)
http://RonPaul201...
http://paul.house...
http://DailyPaul.com
http://Campa...
more
http://RonPaul201...
http://paul.house...
http://DailyPaul.com
http://CampaignFo...
http://RunRonPaul...
Fed Up with the Fed
by Ron Paul
While the Fed has recently released an unprecedented amount of information on its activities, there is still much that remains unknown. Predictably, every push towards transparency has been fought tooth and nail. It took disclosure requirements enacted within the Dodd-Frank Act to get the Fed to provide data on its emergency lending facilities. It took lawsuits filed by Bloomberg and Fox News to provide data on discount window lending during the worst parts of the financial crisis. And it will take further concerted action on the part of Congress, the media, and the public to keep up pressure on the Fed to become and remain transparent.
Transparency is not a panacea, however, as a fully transparent organization is still capable of engaging in all sorts of mischief. Ironically, one of the Fed's more egregious recent actions, adopting an explicit inflation target, was hailed by many as another wonderful example of transparency. Yet if you think about what this 2% inflation target actually is, you realize that it is an explicit policy to devalue the dollar and reduce its purchasing power. And it adds up quickly over time. Two percent annual price inflation means that prices rise 22% within a decade, and nearly 50% within two decades.
It is worse than that, however. This explicit 2% target also fails to take into account that whatever measure is used to determine price inflation, be it CPI, core CPI, PCE, etc., will always be chosen with an eye towards underreporting the true rate of inflation and price rises. Pressure will be exerted on those calculating the price indices, so as not to alarm the public when prices begin to accelerate.
Of course, government officials claim that price increases do not affect the average American because they can always substitute hamburger for steak, or have cereal instead of bacon to protect their family budget as prices rise. But the American people don't overlook the fact that their quality of life has suffered because of the Federal Reserve and price inflation. What will they substitute when hamburger and cereal go sky high?
The Federal Reserve continues to keep interest rates low in the hopes of boosting lending and consumption. But keeping interest rates at zero discourages saving. Why stick money in a savings account earning 0.05% if it is guaranteed to lose at least 2% every year? The Federal Reserve created the largest debt bubble the world has ever known with these sorts of policies. The extended zero interest rate policy only eviscerates thrift and savings—the true building blocks of prosperity. Capital will continue to be depleted, infrastructure will fall into disrepair, and the United States will be a mere shadow of its former self.
It is well past time to end the failed monetary policy that encourages this mistaken preference for cheap money now, rather than real wealth in the long run. Transparency and a full audit of the Federal Reserve is a start and something we must continue to pursue. And, if those in power don't have the stomach to bring the Fed out into full daylight, the American people deserve at least the right to conduct their economic transactions in the medium of exchange of their choosing.
less
|
|
| |
|
|
legalizeliberty liked a video
(2 days ago)
http://RonPaul201...
http://paul.house...
http://DailyPaul.com
http://Campa...
more
http://RonPaul201...
http://paul.house...
http://DailyPaul.com
http://CampaignFo...
http://RunRonPaul...
Fed Up with the Fed
by Ron Paul
While the Fed has recently released an unprecedented amount of information on its activities, there is still much that remains unknown. Predictably, every push towards transparency has been fought tooth and nail. It took disclosure requirements enacted within the Dodd-Frank Act to get the Fed to provide data on its emergency lending facilities. It took lawsuits filed by Bloomberg and Fox News to provide data on discount window lending during the worst parts of the financial crisis. And it will take further concerted action on the part of Congress, the media, and the public to keep up pressure on the Fed to become and remain transparent.
Transparency is not a panacea, however, as a fully transparent organization is still capable of engaging in all sorts of mischief. Ironically, one of the Fed's more egregious recent actions, adopting an explicit inflation target, was hailed by many as another wonderful example of transparency. Yet if you think about what this 2% inflation target actually is, you realize that it is an explicit policy to devalue the dollar and reduce its purchasing power. And it adds up quickly over time. Two percent annual price inflation means that prices rise 22% within a decade, and nearly 50% within two decades.
It is worse than that, however. This explicit 2% target also fails to take into account that whatever measure is used to determine price inflation, be it CPI, core CPI, PCE, etc., will always be chosen with an eye towards underreporting the true rate of inflation and price rises. Pressure will be exerted on those calculating the price indices, so as not to alarm the public when prices begin to accelerate.
Of course, government officials claim that price increases do not affect the average American because they can always substitute hamburger for steak, or have cereal instead of bacon to protect their family budget as prices rise. But the American people don't overlook the fact that their quality of life has suffered because of the Federal Reserve and price inflation. What will they substitute when hamburger and cereal go sky high?
The Federal Reserve continues to keep interest rates low in the hopes of boosting lending and consumption. But keeping interest rates at zero discourages saving. Why stick money in a savings account earning 0.05% if it is guaranteed to lose at least 2% every year? The Federal Reserve created the largest debt bubble the world has ever known with these sorts of policies. The extended zero interest rate policy only eviscerates thrift and savings—the true building blocks of prosperity. Capital will continue to be depleted, infrastructure will fall into disrepair, and the United States will be a mere shadow of its former self.
It is well past time to end the failed monetary policy that encourages this mistaken preference for cheap money now, rather than real wealth in the long run. Transparency and a full audit of the Federal Reserve is a start and something we must continue to pursue. And, if those in power don't have the stomach to bring the Fed out into full daylight, the American people deserve at least the right to conduct their economic transactions in the medium of exchange of their choosing.
less
|
|
| |
|
|
legalizeliberty favorited a video
(2 weeks ago)
http://RonPaul201...
http://paul.house...
http://DailyPaul.com
http://Campa...
more
http://RonPaul201...
http://paul.house...
http://DailyPaul.com
http://CampaignFo...
http://Revolution...
http://RunRonPaul...
The administration recently released its 2013 budget proposal, and conservatives are correctly alarmed that it calls for unprecedented spending and continued annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion. But the same conservatives complain that the budget does not devote enough funds to overseas adventurism.
I continue to be dismayed that in spite of our economic problems, most of those who call themselves fiscal conservatives refuse to consider any reductions in military spending. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute very aptly addresses this in his recent article for the American Conservative entitled "Attack of the Pork Hawks". He points out that conservatives are using a tired liberal argument to defend the bloated military budget: namely, that more spending equals better results. The federal education morass is merely one example that clearly disproves this.
The facts are that the President's budget calls for an 18% increase versus the previously planned 20% increase. This is not a cut, yet Pentagon hawks continue to issue dire warnings that this "draconian" decrease in proposed future spending will seriously threaten our national security. In truth, the majority of DOD spending goes to protect other nations, including prosperous allies like Europe and Japan and South Korea - nations that could and should take more responsibility for their own defense.
Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the hawks and the neoconservatives? Even adjusted for inflation, military spending is 17% higher now than when Obama took office. Even the worst case scenarios of Obama's "cuts", adjusted for inflation, still put outlays at 2007 levels, which are 40% higher than a decade ago. Our total spending on overseas adventurism and nation building equals more than the next 13 highest spending countries in the world combined. Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, we would still be the world's dominant military power, by far.
In reality, the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about has become every bit the voracious monolith he feared. It wastes as much as any other arm of government, if not more, because it knows it can depend on unlimited blank checks from a terrified Congress.
Mr. Bandow concludes that America is more secure today than at any point since before WWII, and that military outlays should be reduced accordingly. We should, Mr. Bandow argues,
"stop garrisoning the globe, subsidizing rich friends, and reconstructing poor enemies. Instead, it's about time Washington focused on defending American and its people."
I couldn't agree more. Wasting money on overseas adventurism and nation building threatens our national security by massively contributing to our debt. Both welfare and warfare spending are tipping our economy into a serious currency and debt crisis. We can afford no sacred cows in our budget. One only has to look to the violence and civil unrest in Greece and ask - is that the sort of security we envision for our nation's future?
less
|
|
| |
|
|
legalizeliberty liked a video
(2 weeks ago)
http://RonPaul201...
http://paul.house...
http://DailyPaul.com
http://Campa...
more
http://RonPaul201...
http://paul.house...
http://DailyPaul.com
http://CampaignFo...
http://Revolution...
http://RunRonPaul...
The administration recently released its 2013 budget proposal, and conservatives are correctly alarmed that it calls for unprecedented spending and continued annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion. But the same conservatives complain that the budget does not devote enough funds to overseas adventurism.
I continue to be dismayed that in spite of our economic problems, most of those who call themselves fiscal conservatives refuse to consider any reductions in military spending. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute very aptly addresses this in his recent article for the American Conservative entitled "Attack of the Pork Hawks". He points out that conservatives are using a tired liberal argument to defend the bloated military budget: namely, that more spending equals better results. The federal education morass is merely one example that clearly disproves this.
The facts are that the President's budget calls for an 18% increase versus the previously planned 20% increase. This is not a cut, yet Pentagon hawks continue to issue dire warnings that this "draconian" decrease in proposed future spending will seriously threaten our national security. In truth, the majority of DOD spending goes to protect other nations, including prosperous allies like Europe and Japan and South Korea - nations that could and should take more responsibility for their own defense.
Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the hawks and the neoconservatives? Even adjusted for inflation, military spending is 17% higher now than when Obama took office. Even the worst case scenarios of Obama's "cuts", adjusted for inflation, still put outlays at 2007 levels, which are 40% higher than a decade ago. Our total spending on overseas adventurism and nation building equals more than the next 13 highest spending countries in the world combined. Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, we would still be the world's dominant military power, by far.
In reality, the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about has become every bit the voracious monolith he feared. It wastes as much as any other arm of government, if not more, because it knows it can depend on unlimited blank checks from a terrified Congress.
Mr. Bandow concludes that America is more secure today than at any point since before WWII, and that military outlays should be reduced accordingly. We should, Mr. Bandow argues,
"stop garrisoning the globe, subsidizing rich friends, and reconstructing poor enemies. Instead, it's about time Washington focused on defending American and its people."
I couldn't agree more. Wasting money on overseas adventurism and nation building threatens our national security by massively contributing to our debt. Both welfare and warfare spending are tipping our economy into a serious currency and debt crisis. We can afford no sacred cows in our budget. One only has to look to the violence and civil unrest in Greece and ask - is that the sort of security we envision for our nation's future?
less
|
|
| |
|
|
legalizeliberty liked a video
(3 weeks ago)
http://RonPaul201...
http://paul.house...
http://Revolution...
http://Campa...
more
http://RonPaul201...
http://paul.house...
http://Revolution...
http://CampaignFo...
http://DailyPaul.com
http://RunRonPaul...
The Latest Obamacare Overreach
by Ron Paul
Many religious conservatives understandably are upset with the latest Obamacare mandate, which will require religious employers (including Catholic employers) to provide birth control to workers receiving healthcare benefits. This mandate includes certain birth control devices that are considered abortifacients, like IUDs and the "morning after" pill.
Of course Catholic teachings forbid the use of any sort of contraceptive devices, so this rule is anathema to the religious beliefs of Catholic employers. Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars.
Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions. Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is "denying access" to healthcare. If employers don't provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?
In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right.
So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values. This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand.
But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith. This terrible imposition has resonated with many Americans, and now the Obama administration finds itself having to defend the terrible cultural baggage of the anti-religious left.
Of course many Catholic leaders originally supported Obamacare because they naively believe against all evidence that benign angels in government will improve medical care for the poor. And many religious leaders support federal welfare programs generally without understanding that recipients of those dollars can use them for abortions, contraceptives, or any number of activities that conflict deeply with religious teachings. This is why private charity is so vitally important and morally superior to a government-run medical system.
The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.
less
|
|
Just fyi.. they're getting rid of the people who are trying to warn others about their health- pretty frickin' sad.