Recession, Recession - Please Go Away!

Since December of 2007, the United States of America has been in a - brace yourself - declared Recession. We often hear this word thrown around, scattered in our newspapers and cleverly evaded by our Representatives - even facetiously employed as the proverbial "butt" of Jon Stewart's jokes.

Any school age child could tell you that we are suffering harsh economic times - but what they cannot tell you is why.

In fact, many political pundits could not even tell you what exactly a "recession" entails. Believe it or not, there is a legal definition constituting the rather simplistic component(s): a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. All that flowering nonsense about high unemployment rates, a decline in the stock market, and diminished interest rates are actually what accompany the initial drop in GDP. Persisting long enough, a recession will become a depression.

The troubles American car industry suffered in the past few years is a sufficient analogy to our general economy. Ford, for example, experienced a stark decrease in sales, shrinking profits, and accumulating debt - not unsimilar to the more general and all-encompassing national economic retractions. To marginalize the debt, employees were laid off and salaries were cut - again, just as occurred in the mainstream.

Without the "help" of federal dollars, Ford put out a fiscal report this month indicating earnings of $2.6 billion in the second quarter, with the expectation of further profits. In fact, they predict that by the end of next year, their profits will surpass their debt.

This is the 5th consecutive profitable quarter for the Ford Motor Company - a feat hardly imaginable two years prior. And while debt has surely accumulated, the company is working towards quickly paying it off.

Our federal government (and the Federal Reserve) could take a lesson from this example. Debt is not erased by more debt - it is eliminated through profits. I think it would go too far to assume that the US is bankrupt; but it is certainly headed in that direction. Spending will not, and obviously has not, set our economy back on the path to profitability. If you want to spend money, you have to have money. And the federal government has NONE. In fact, they have less than none - about $10 trillion less, in fact.

But then again, if I had hundreds of millions of blind minions paying my bills, I guess I might just increase their debt to pay for mine...

Don't forget that the largest source of revenue for the US Federal Government is your pocket. Saving is the only solution to this mess of a debt we've gotten ourselves into.

The Cato Institute Has Got it Just Right

Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute outlines the broken promises of our "generous" federal government in this piece published by the New York Post today. Finer words can not have been said on the subject, so here is the direct link:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11998

Happy reading!

So the Tea Party is Now Racist??

Recent attempts at discouraging the muster of the ever-growing Tea Party have only shone a light on how misdirected efforts by the opposition to weaken its credibility are not only outlandish, but they've also failed.

While I personally do not agree with certain aspects of the Tea Party platform, I can appreciate the general movement towards classic liberalism as the first step in a trend for limiting government. Many otherwise disillusioned political activists have been able to form something that is exciting people back into the spirit of our former, more democratic days.

Now, the NAACP has branded the organization as racist - tolerant of bigotry and discrimination. How can they possibly claim such an idea?? Because the Tea Party dispels that certain individuals should have special rights?? Because they outline that government lacks the right to favor one group over another?

Rand Paul ran into trouble of this sort when he claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violated certain aspects of the Constitution, including freedom of speech. Rather than allowing for the possibility of accepting his reasoning, the press immediately labeled him a racist.

Had they listened to his defense, they would have (hopefully) understood that the separation between private and public enterprise is the most important factor in any realm of this seemingly complex debate. For a government agency to deny that black people be allowed into their office building is an entirely different debate from a private restaurant refusing service to a table of Middle Easterners. Rand Paul was simply pointing out the fact that regardless of how he himself feels about such type of discrimination, the right to free speech is always more important.

And who is to say he is wrong? That he can acknowledge a hierarchy of rights does not mean that he is somehow less democratic - it means he has his priorities just right.

And plus, the fact that he is skeptical as to whether government can or cannot legally prohibit racism is not sufficient evidence that he himself is a racist.

And the same applies to the Tea Party.

All in all, another failed attempt to bring down the pro-liberty movement. What is so hard to accept about this way of thinking anyways? Is it the lower taxes? The lack of governmental intrusion in your personal life? The desire for peace??

I guess some people are inclined to let others take care of them. Me? I've always been a believer in self-reliability and personal efficacy. After all, who knows you better than yourself?