Free Market

Peter Schiff, John Stossel, Ron Paul, Rand Paul on Glenn Beck w/ The Judge

November 6th, 2009 11:24 pm  |  by Marc Gallagher  |  Published in Big Government, Constitution, Economics, FOX news, Free Market, John Stossel, Libertarianism, Liberty, Market Regulation, Money, Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, andrew napolitano, government spending, inflation, rand paul  |  1

Earlier today Judge Andrew Napolitano was the guest host on the Glenn Beck show. Four liberty-loving guests appeared on the show with the Judge. Peter Schiff, John Stossel, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul all appeared. When the Judge hosts Beck’s show it almost turns into an episode of Freedom Watch.

If you don’t know what Freedom Watch is then please check out http://freedomwatchonfox.com/. It’s an online only show hosted by the Judge catering to freedom-loving people everywhere.

Check out the excellent discussions from the show today below.

Ron Paul talks elections, economy, health care and more on Fox

November 4th, 2009 9:00 pm  |  by Marc Gallagher  |  Published in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Economics, FOX news, Federal Reserve, Free Market, Health Care, Liberty, Market Regulation, Money, Ron Paul, congress, government spending, inflation  |  0

Ron Paul appeared on Fox Business News tonight with David Asman on the “Nightly Scoreboard”. They discussed several topics in a nearly 10 minute segment. As usual, Ron Paul just delivers the truth.

Republicans are losing the health care debate

October 30th, 2009 7:33 pm  |  by Marc Gallagher  |  Published in Big Government, Civil Liberties, Commentary, Free Market, Health Care, Liberty, Market Regulation, Maven Commentary, Socialism  |  2 Responses

The House Democrats released their latest attempt at a health care bill yesterday. Feel free to read all 1990 pages of it here in PDF form. I’ve been perusing it all day long because I, apparently, enjoy pain. So much pain that I’m starting to feel sick. Man, they better pass this bill soon or I may die.

Well, that’s what they want you to think. I want to know why the debate is now all about whether or not there should be a public option and little else? This shows us how Obama and his fellow looters are now firmly in the lead on this debate. The argument is no longer about whether we should have the government more involved in health care, but whether the government should provide health care.

The question is no longer “why are we doing this?” Instead, the question is “how do we do it?”

If Pelosi has her way, this is how:

The new House proposal is similar to one drafted by Democrats months ago. It requires Americans to buy health insurance by 2013 or pay a fine, creates a government-run program similar to Medicare to compete with private insurers and lets 15 million additional people enroll in Medicaid by easing eligibility requirements.

But in an effort to make the bill more appealing to moderates in her party, Pelosi altered some of the fine print. The proposed government-run “public option,” for instance, would negotiate for how much to pay doctors and hospitals rather than relying on government-set rates, as Medicare does.

Echoing concerns raised by his Republican colleagues, Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan said the bill’s heft, at 1,990 pages, indicated how it would expand the government’s role in health care: “Families will face higher taxes,” he said.

Replacing the above word “higher” with “astronomical” would be more honest. One need not read past page 4 (3d) to find the most offensive words to free market liberty loving Americans:

initiates shared responsibility among workers, employers, and the Government; so that all Americans have coverage of essential health benefits.”

The word “initiates” should be replaced with the more honest word, “forces”. This phrase is a pure unadulterated call for socialism. When you force someone to share, it’s no longer sharing. It is theft, well-intended theft, but theft nonetheless.

Why do we get put in jail if we steal money to give to the poor yet it is perfectly fine for the government to do it without repercussions? I suppose the answer is: they own the jails.

Why do we get put in jail if we murder someone yet it is perfectly fine for government troops to kill people?

Are government humans more special than civilian humans? They seem to be able to operate outside the scope of morality.

The bill would establish a new federal government department inappropriately called the “Health Choices Administration” with the “Health Choices Commissioner” at the head. I can’t wait for their ad slogan to come out: “The Health Choices Administration: Be Nice, we can choose whether you live or die!”

Under this bill the Health Choices Commissioner has the power to regulate a new “market” they call the “Health Services Exchange”. This is the so-called new “free market” where the government public option health care is to compete with private health insurers. Yet somehow this is supposed to allow private insurers to compete on a level playing field? Please.

This bill becoming law would signal the end of private health insurance. It is only a matter of time before the public option will be the only option.

The government owns the jails now. The government tells you what you can put in your body. With socialized medicine the government is just continuing its assault on individual liberty. There is no “I”, only “We”.

Ron Paul vs. Michael Moore on Larry King

October 29th, 2009 11:08 pm  |  by Marc Gallagher  |  Published in Big Government, Civil Liberties, Commentary, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Free Market, Health Care, Liberty, Market Regulation, Ron Paul, War, congress, terrorism  |  23 Responses

Ron Paul appeared on Larry King Live tonight following Michael Moore to refute (and agree) with some of what Moore said. It was a very good appearance by Paul. He spoke about health care, foreign policy, and the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

Check it out below.

Lecture by Jake Towne – Why the Stimulus Plan Will Fail (and a Better Alternative)

October 17th, 2009 6:36 pm  |  by Jake Towne  |  Published in Big Government, Federal Reserve, Free Market, Liberty, Market Regulation, Money, Politics  |  3 Responses

On October 15, 2009, I gave a lecture at Moravian College in Bethlehem on the horrendous economics of the stimulus plan, and why free market solutions will work far better.  An MP3 is not yet available, but a PDF is here.  The video playing prior to the lecture is below.  This is only the latest in a series of economic lectures, including on the financial crisis.  If you are interested in having me speak with your group, feel free to contact the campaign from the TowneForCongress.com home page.

First, I want to reassure everyone this talk will not be a campaign speech; its based on an economics article that I wrote in January 2009, before the stimulus plan was passed and before my candidacy – although I am from Nazareth, which by the way, was the original settlement the Moravians founded when they arrived from their failed colony in South Carolina – at the time I was living in Shanghai.

Regardless, these days when one looks at the economy, you must clearly also factor in the interventions by government. So much so, it is a wonder that the field has not yet been renamed “governomics.”

Read More »

Liberty Candidates 2010: The Year of HOPE

October 17th, 2009 6:33 pm  |  by Jake Towne  |  Published in Banking, Civil Liberties, Economics, Election, Foreign Policy, Free Market, Liberty, Money, Politics, congress, government spending, national debt  |  0

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and our wealth are in jeopardy.” – Dr. Ron Paul

Originally published October 16, 2009 at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/liberty-candidates-2010-the-year-of-hope-1

Ever wonder what happened to that sense of hope and change that most of the voters in the United States were swept up by last fall?

America does need “hope.” America does need “change.”

However, the mainstream Republican and Democratic party machines are both repeating like bad records – “more spending, more taxes, more war, more debt.”

If you flip the record, all you hear is “less liberty, fewer jobs, less prosperity.”

Why doesn’t America consider a sound money and slashing federal spending?

Why doesn’t America consider auditing and cutting back the powers of the ruinous FED?

Why doesn’t America consider destroying the IMMORAL and UNNECESSARY federal income tax?

Why doesn’t America consider a different foreign policy – where there is third choice besides bombing or economic sanctions? Why not replace the blowback our foreign policy has resulted in with a little love and peaceful trade?

Read More »

Ignorance Is Bliss

October 16th, 2009 3:01 pm  |  by Mike Miller  |  Published in Banking, Debt, Economics, Free Market, Market Regulation, Money, Peter Schiff, Politics, government spending  |  0

Peter Schiffby Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse

While all the talk at present is about economic corners turned and markets charging ahead, no one is paying much notice to an American economy deteriorating before our eyes. These myopic commentators seem to be simply moving past the now almost-universally held conclusion that before the crash of 2008, our economy was on an unsustainable course. If these imbalances had been corrected, then perhaps I too would be joining in the euphoria. But evidence abounds that we have not veered at all from that dangerous path.

Last week, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that consumer spending as a percentage of U.S. GDP has risen to 71%, a post-World War II record. This level is notably higher than other wealthy industrialized countries, and vastly higher than the levels sustained by China and other emerging economies. At the same time, our industrial output is contracting, our trade deficit is expanding once again (after contracting earlier in the year), and our savings rate is plummeting (after an early year surge).

The data confirms that government stimuli are worsening the structural imbalances underlying our economy. The recent ‘rebound’ in GDP is not resulting from increased economic output, but merely from the fact that we are borrowing more than ever. That is precisely how we got ourselves into this mess. An economy cannot grow indefinitely by borrowing more than it produces. Not only is such a course untenable, but the added debt ensures a deeper recession when the bills come due.

This soon-to-be-called depression will not end until the pendulum of consumer spending habits swings violently in the other direction. This will be a jarring change, but it is the splash of cold water that we need to return our economy to viability. I believe that consumer spending as a share of GDP will need to temporarily contract to roughly 50% of GDP, before eventually moving toward its historic mean of 65%. Such a move would indicate a restoration of our personal savings, a decline in borrowing and trade deficits, and an increased industrial output. That would be a real recovery.

In the meantime, the higher the spending percentage climbs, the more painful the ultimate decline becomes.

Read More »

Why can foreigners abandon the dollar but you can’t?

October 9th, 2009 10:32 am  |  by Mike Miller  |  Published in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, DownsizeDC.org, Federal Reserve, Free Market, Liberty, Money, Politics, gold, silver  |  0

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h


This week the UK Independent newspaper reported that a host of countries are planning to abandon the use of Federal Reserve Notes, for oil purchases.

You should ask Congress to give you the same option for your own transactions. Otherwise, you risk losing everything you’ve worked for.

Send another letter to Congress asking them to repeal the legal tender law that forces you to do business ONLY in Federal Reserve Notes. In your personal comments use the latest news about countries dropping the dollar for oil transactions.

Here’s what I wrote in my letter to Congress . . .

Several countries are making plans to stop using Federal Reserve Notes for oil purchases. I want the same freedom for my personal transactions.

The Fed has nearly doubled the money supply since last Fall. This will cut the future value of my savings in half and send my cost of living through the roof. Add to that . . .

* The $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare
* Your big bailout schemes,
* Your so-called stimulus package,
* Your cap and trade boondoggle,
* Your disastrous healthcare plans, and the result is . . .

I see no hope for the dollar. You guys have ruined our currency, and I WANT OUT.

If foreigners can stop using Federal Reserve Notes, I should have the same freedom. Why should foreigners have more right to control their own economic destiny than I do?

Many in Washington claim they want to protect the Fed’s independence. What about my independence? I just want you to repeal the legal tender law so I can use forms of money other than Federal Reserve Notes (like gold and silver for instance). Doing this would also moderate the Fed’s behavior. If they want me to keep using Federal Reserve Notes then they’ll have to stop their legalized counterfeiting activities.

Please represent me. Break the Federal Reserve’s money monopoly. Give me the same right that foreigners have.

You can send your own letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

Read More »

Everyone has become “too big to fail”

October 8th, 2009 8:05 am  |  by Marc Gallagher  |  Published in Big Government, Commentary, Free Market, Individual Responsibility, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Philosophy, Ron Paul  |  0

If America was one big classroom the teacher should be admonishing students, making them stay after school and repeatedly write “Ron Paul is right” on the blackboard until their fingers cramp up. Of course, that would never happen. We’d never allow political indoctrination into our schools, right? America’s decreasing influence in the world and ultimately its downfall can be attributed to our “failure is not an option” culture which fools you into believing you are winning when in reality you have already lost.

This culture is being thrust upon our nation’s young people at an early age. Young children are constantly being reassured that they are doing a “good job” for the most mundane accomplishments. Those who play sports are presented participation trophies. No, we wouldn’t want any of them to actually excel beyond just “showing up”, do we? While playing games it’s always important to make sure each child gets a turn at winning or at least the game ends in a tie where “everyone wins!” We are beginning to see the effects of this mentality.

At some point these children grow up and the realities of life smack them square in their glass jaws. Everyone can never be equal. Life is not fair. Hate will always exist. Yet they were always taught the opposite so they get “active” and try to fulfill the promise of their youth. Their activity naturally progresses toward the one entity they believe has de facto power to fulfill this promise: government.

Yes, everyone wants to take the government drug to be pain free, but everyone remains ignorant of that particular drug’s evil side effects and addictive nature.

Everyone has become “too big to fail”.

I was once asked in a job interview, “Do you think you learn more from your successes or your failures?” I answered “failures, of course.” Failure forces you to reexamine your premises, think outside the box, and try again. In order for failure to “work” it must not be rewarded. Yet this is precisely what our government is doing and has done for quite some time.

In our increasingly more overt politically-correct society, is it perhaps time to reexamine our premises? If someone is born without limbs it doesn’t mean we should go out and round up all of the “limb-full” and amputate their arms and legs in the interests of equality. Sure it’s an extreme metaphor but this is precisely what we are trying to do when we support plans that attempt to make life “more fair” for the underprivileged at the expense of those who worked to make their own lives better. It is class warfare and all classes lose in the end.

The opposite is true too. We should not be funneling taxpayer money to private banks and auto companies. A bad business is a bad business and we’d know it was bad if it were left alone to fail or thrive. Executives and employees will learn from the failure and move on to try again. Once the crying stops, innovation is a by-product of failure.

Rewarding failure makes it a goal rather than a consequence of poor decisions. Failure should not be shunned. It should not be embraced. It should be accepted as a lesson learned. Trying and failing is what makes trying again and succeeding so satisfying.

We need to channel the Founder’s cavalier spirit, end government mollycoddling, and realize if we fall down we can pick ourselves back up again. Sure we may make a mess of things at times but the most important thing is persistence.

FDR famously said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!” If he had instead said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear of failure”, we might be in a much better place today.

A true free market spawns random acts of kindness

October 4th, 2009 10:00 am  |  by Marc Gallagher  |  Published in Big Government, Commentary, Free Market, Individual Responsibility, Liberty, Market Regulation, Maven Commentary, Philosophy, fascism  |  1

Sever the strings-turned-chains between the free market puppet and it’s government master and this heartwarming yet bittersweet story could happen many times over. It could become the norm rather than the exception.

Because of caring people and a caring company, a terminally ill little Green Forest girl was flown home Friday by air ambulance from M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, so she can spend her last days surrounded by the people who love her most.

Jada Harper, who turned seven on Sept. 1, has an inoperable malignant tumor in her brain and is in a coma with a ventilator doing her breathing for her. She has been at the famous cancer center in Houston since July, but her situation is now at the point not much else can be done to help her.

I emphasized the first phrase above to emphasize what is absent: government. It doesn’t say because of some government program. No company was forced to help this poor child and her family. A company made up of individuals with the ability to make a decision to do what is right was responsible for this “random act of kindness”. Perhaps what makes this story more interesting is the company that helped is a direct competitor to a government entity.

Friday afternoon, Jada was flown home to the Ozarks — on a gurney, attached to the machine that breathes for her. FedEx Freight paid the $11,000 bill for the special medical flight her family was unable to afford.

FedEx who competes with the government sponsored United States Postal Service (USPS) acted when others failed. Sure, they may have been acting in their own self-interest to garner “free” advertising and customer goodwill, but how can they be criticized for performing this mutually beneficial act?

$11,000 is chump change for a company like FedEx, but apparently this isn’t an isolated occurrence.

“One thing that impresses me about this company is that the company has a heart,” Reeves said. “Our company does a lot of things like this. It’s been recognized as one of the most admired companies in the world, and this is why.”

It is this phenomenon that represents the best argument for a true free market. If companies weren’t over-regulated and over-taxed perhaps these random acts of kindness would multiply until they become the general rule rather than the exception. Imagine a world where companies all realize that helping people also helps the bottom line. Anyone can make a buck, but not everyone can make a devoted customer.

In a free market the customer acts as regulator. Companies would be trampling over themselves and each other to find the next person (potential customer) to help. When a third party, in this case the government, forces companies (and individuals) to fork over 40-50% of their profit (or income) and then uses it on projects that rarely achieve their intended purpose the result is widespread resentment. In this case companies and individuals become less charitable. The tax and regulatory burden hinders their ability to participate in benevolent actions like FedEx.

Imagine companies that have 50% more profit competing to be number one on the list of most charitable companies. There is no doubt that the result would be a monumental increase in assistance for people and organizations who need it.

We don’t need government to lead, nor follow. We just need government to get out of the way. It’s time to break the government chains of taxes and regulation. This would not only foster economic prosperity but it would also spawn a renaissance of benevolence. This benevolence would come voluntarily and resentment-free from private companies and individuals. It’s good for business, good for the poor, and good for America.