Archive for the 'Capitalism' Category


The Minimum Wage and Magical Thinking

My mother always told me that money doesn’t grow on trees, but apparently it does in some people’s world. It is baffling to think that people think that if you raise the minimum wage that there won’t be effects felt elsewhere. Do they think that companies (owners and CEOs) are just simply going to eat the loss? Or that patrons will simply buy the same food, at the same rate, for an increase fare? Magical thinking indeed. Original by  is found here.

If all other factors remain equal, the higher the price of a good, the less people will demand it. That’s the law of demand, a fundamental idea in economics. And yet there is no shortage of politicians, pundits, policy wonks, and members of the public who insist that raising the price of labor will not have the effect of lessening the demand for workers. In his 2014 State of the Union Address, for example, President Barack Obama called on Congress to raise the national minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour. He argued that increasing the minimum wage would “grow the economy for everyone” by giving “businesses customers with more spending money.” A January 2015 working paper by two economists, Robert Pollin and Jeanette Wicks-Lim at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, claims that raising the minimum wage of fast food workers to $15 per hour over a four-year transition period would not necessarily result in “shedding jobs.” The two acknowledge that the “raising the price of anything will reduce demand for that thing, all else equal.” But they believe they’ve found a way to “relax” the all-else-being-equal part, at least as far as the wages of fast food workers go. Pollin and Wicks-Lim argue that “the fast-food industry could fully absorb these wage bill increases through a combination of turnover reductions; trend increases in sales growth; and modest annual price increases over the four-year period.” They further claim that a $15/hour minimum wage would not result in lower profits or the reallocation of funds away from other operations, such as marketing. Amazing. Pollin and Wicks-Lim calculate that doubling the minimum wage for 2.5 million fast food workers would cost the industry an additional $33 billion annually. They further calculate that reduced turnover will lower costs by $5.2 billion annually and that three years of sales growth at 2.5 percent per year and price hikes at 3 percent per year will yield $30 billion in extra revenues. Let’s consider turnover first. Pollin and Wicks-Lim claim that an increased minimum wage will substantially reduce the costs of employee turnover, saving money that can now go to pay higher wages. The two fail to grapple with, much less refute, a devastating response to this idea from no less a liberal than the Nobel-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. In his review of Pollin’s 1998 book The Living Wage, Krugman wrote: “The obvious economist’s reply is, if paying higher wages is such a good idea, why aren’t companies doing it voluntarily?” (That question goes unaddressed in the current study.) Krugman continues, “But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage ‘compared with other companies’—and that is precisely what mandating an increase in the minimum wage for all companies cannot accomplish.” So scratch $5.2 billion. What about Pollin and Wicks-Lim’s sales growth projections? Well, sales don’t always grow. McDonalds reported a sales decrease of one percent in 2014. Some analysts think that fast food sales may have peaked in the United States. But there’s a deeper problem. In the absence of the higher minimum wage, employers would generally hire more workers to meet any increased demand for fast food. Boosting the minimum wage means that the revenues that wohave otherwise been used to hire new workers is not available. The end result: fewer jobs created and more folks unemployed. Pollin and Wicks-Lim recognize that raising the price means that people will eat fewer hamburgers and fries. They calculate that a 3 percent per year price increase results in a 1.5 percent per year decline in what sales would have been, which means that revenues would increase by 1.5 percent. Then they assume that the price increases won’t affect the underlying 2.5 percent annual sales growth rate. (Rising prices never slow sales, apparently.) Pollin and Wicks-Lim roughly generate the revenues they want to cover the higher wages by calculating that a three-year increase in prices and sales growth will net $10.6 band $19.8 billion, respectively. Adding these to the postulated turnover savings of $5.2 billion yields $35.6 billion, which handily covers the extra wage costs of $33 billion. Voila. Since all companies would have to pay the new minimum wage, they argue that all fast food joints wouldn’t have to fear that competitors would try to lure their customers away by lowering their prices. In this scenario, the restaurants get to sell fewer burgers than they would otherwise have done while making more money which they then fork over as higher wages. Aficionados of cheap tacos, hot dogs, and burgers are the big losers. But doesn’t selling fewer burgers imply a need for fewer employees? Never mind. Going through the artful assumptions in this scenario brings to mind the hoary old joke where a physicist, a chemist, and an economist are stranded on an island with just a can of soup to eat. The physicist says, “Let’s smash the can open with a rock.” The chemist says, “Let’s build a fire and heat the can first.” The economist says, “Let’s assume that we have a can-opener…” Meanwhile, two new studies by economists using actual wage and employment data have just been published. Both find that in the real world, the law of demand still applies to labor. In the first paper, Andrew Hanson of Marquette University and Zack Hawley of Texas Christian University analyzed how low wage employment would be affected in each state by the imposition of a national $10.10 per hour minimum wage supported by President Obama. The Hanson/Hawley study takes into account how wages relate to the varying cost-of-living levels among the states. First they report the number of workers in a state that earn less $10.10 per hour. Next they apply the widely agreed upon formula that for every 10 percent increase in wages there is a corresponding 1 to 2 percent decrease in demand for labor. They then straightforwardly estimate that boosting the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour would result the loss of between 550,000 and 1.5 million jobs. States with higher numbers of workers making less than $10.10 per hour would lose the most jobs. Georgia, for example, would lose 51,000; Illinois would lose 65,000; Texas would lose 31,000; and Wisconsin would lose 34,000. The second study, published in December by Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither of the University of California, San Diego, parses how the actual increase of the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour between July 2007 and July 2009 affected the employment rates of low-skilled workers. Using U.S. Census employment data, they can focus specifically on how low-skilled workers fared when the minimum wage rose as the Great Recession proceeded. They compare what happened to the employment rates of low-skilled workers in states where they were generally earning below the new minimum wage versus those where low-skilled wages were already higher. They refer to the first set of 27 states as being “bound” by the increase and the second set as being “unbound” by it. The minimum wage, they show, exacerbated unemployment. Their analysis starts in December 2006, when the employment-to-population ratio—defined as the portion of working-age Americans (ages to 16 to 64) in the labor market—stood at 63.4 percent and ends in December 2012 when it had dropped to 58.6 percent. They estimate that by the second year following the $7.25 minimum’s implementation, the employment rates of low-skilled workers “had fallen by 6 percentage points more in bound than in unbound states.” In other words, job losses were considerably higher in states where unskilled workers had been earning less than the new minimum. Overall, they estimate that the minimum wage increase “reduced the employment-to-population ratio of working age adults by 0.7 percentage points.” That would have boosted the 2012 employment-to-population ratio from 58.6 to 59.3, which implies that there were 1.4 million fewer jobs than there would have been had the minimum not been increased. The conclusion is clear. Defying the law of demand will end up harming lots of the people minimum wage proponents aim to help.


Why Mitt Romney is not a Conservative

First off, I want to be clear here. I’m not saying who you should vote for. The main thing I want is for you to vote AND know who you are voting for and why. If you don’t know who you are voting for or why then I don’t really see a point in voting except to pat yourself on the back, put on your “I voted sticker,” and feel all warm inside that you were a good-American doing your duty.

For far too long I’ve heard people say that they are tired of having crappy politicians to vote between. That neither candidate really matches their views and that all politicians are snakes in the grass. Long has America been ensnared in the two-party system of a false-dichotomy logical fallacy. You don’t have to vote for someone just because they have a (D) or (R) behind their name. As we know many politicians say what they want, when they want, to whatever audience they need to pander to. I for one am done with that.

I am a Conservative Libertarian. My general belief is that all people who are free should do as they wish so long as it doesn’t affect (aka harm) someone else. Likewise, a freeman’s government should respect other countries even if they are in disagreement. We aren’t in a Utopia and warring with people – domestic or foreign – isn’t going to get us that Utopia. The following list is something that I’ve attempted to compile in showing why I believe that Romney is not a Conservative and thus not a candidate that I can cast my vote for even though he is the acclaimed Republican nominee. In the interest of fairness, I tried to provide as many links as I could to provide evidence of my claims.

Why Mitt Romney is not a Conservative – not now, not as a President.

YES: Interfere and intervene with other countries policies and politics 1
NO: End the Afghanistan war, do not obtain a Constitutional Declaration of War 2, 34
YES: Support Israel unilaterally (even though they are Nuclear), including financial and weapon backing 3, 33
YES: Remain in the United Nations, although scale back 7
YES: Invade Iran. 5, 8
YES: Agenda 21 by United Nations 24, 25, 26
YES: Unilateral and unchecked foreign aid 37

I believe that a true Conservative believes in sovereignty, both domestic and foreign. To have a policy or belief that we need to fix, manipulate, or save other countries from their own political issues is simply Unamerican. America is who she is today because we threw off our own [British] chains – not because some country came and liberated us. If we are going to demand that they recognize and respect our sovereignty, laws, and freedoms than a Conservative should also recognize and respect other countries sovereignty, laws, and freedoms even if we don’t agree with them. Last but not least, we are able to act and retaliate for acts of aggression towards the United States and that is outlined in the Constitution via a Congressional Declaration of War (the President isn’t a dictator who takes us to war when he feels like it). I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that American government should actively interfere and police the world and does not believe in the CIA’s findings on blowback. Furthermore, he does not respect other country’s sovereignty while demanding they recognize ours.

YES: Subsidize farms 9, 11, 12
YES: Bailouts 13, 14
YES: TARP 27, 28, 29, 30
YES: Cap and trade 10, 31
YES: Managed trade (aka “fair trade”), not free trade. Supports CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO, Fast Track TPA, and other “free-trade” agreements. 6, 32

I believe that a true Conservative believes in a free market (with very few regulations), both domestic and foreign. It is free trade that demands that we cooperate. If we don’t cooperate, then we can’t obtain or produce what we need. By supporting “fair trade” we create bureaucratic nonsense in dictating who gets what and how and what is right and wrong. The only thing a Conservative should believe is right is the law of capitalism – supply and demand. When you begin to regulate an economy you being to introduce corporatism which in turn stifles innovation and threatens property rights. I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that government should heavily interfere with society and capitalism in an attempt to “create a better and more fair world.”

YES: Gun control laws and bans – took no stand on the United Nations Gun Ban. GOA gave him a D- rating (lowest of all GOP candidates) and NRA did not endorse him until after the first debate (political move). 4, 19, 20, 21
YES: Continue the War on Drugs 22, 23
NO: Legalization of recreational or medical marijuana. 23

I believe that a true Conservative leads a laissez-faire attitude towards it’s people and their domestic doings. It is of no interest to the government to mandate and dictate how we carry our personal lives. And if it is, where is that right given to the federal government in the Constitution? To grope, spy on, and threaten people with the suspicion that they could be dangerous is an abomination. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty, unreasonable search, or probable cause? Of course any American wants to be safe but as Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Conservatives should afford it’s people freedom to do as they wish in the privacy of their lives. Only fascists demand that they dictate society and it’s morality. I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that government should treat all Americans with suspicion and disallow them to live their lives as they see fit, as freemen.

YES: Romneycare, will not repeal Obamacare 15, 16, 17
NO: Legalize medical marijuana 23, 35, 36

I believe that a true Conservative should have nearly no say in how a citizen treats their body. Let’s face the facts, Obamacare was based off of Romneycare. Romney cannot campaign against something he created. But even so, he’s doesn’t even want to repeal it… just “amend it.” With the Supreme Court ruling that it was a tax this is another point – Romney will campaign that he wants to lower taxes but if Obamacare is still in place… then he will still be taxing us. I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that despite the scientific research showing the bad of some vaccines and the good of [illegal] drugs that he still believes that the government should dictate what we can and cannot put into our own bodies. Of all property that we have our body is the most sacred and enduring. To mandate our medicine through the FDA and doctor laws (i.e. they can only prescribe Rx, not “unproven” treatments such as Gerson Therapy) is essentially saying that we don’t have the right to our body. This is utmost unacceptable, especially of a Conservative.

I have not included things such as taxes and the Federal Reserve because I’m not sure if those are really “Conservative” values. I do know that I agree strongly with many of the Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson when he states,  “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” Nevertheless, the financial issues are a huge point to me as well. I truly don’t believe that Romney, despite all his business sense, has a clue about federal economies and/or federal debt management. His financial outline surely is less damaging than Obama’s but it still creates an increasing Federal deficit – we need someone that is eagerly aggressive to fix the debt issue. We can’t spend our way out of the problem like Obama wants to do and we can’t slow down spending like Romney wants to do and expect us to magically rebound. CUT spending aggressively.  It is that simple. And this isn’t even touching on the Federal Reserve abomination that needs to be cut (also, not an issue Romney even addresses).

Last but not least because of this I have long since chosen to support Ron Paul. However, because Ron Paul was not selected by the GOP, I am now endorsing the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.


We Are All Libertarians Now

For some time now I have advocated that many people, regardless of how they personally currently affiliate, are actually Libertarians deep down. I believe my belief stems from the muddied party platforms that jockey for votes and parry to repay favors instead of actually doing anything. Enter this article written by Susan Westfall where she primarily says the same thing.

So the question is… are you a Libertarian too? Original article found here.

Recently, I was asked to explain whether or not it was “a common libertarian belief that any government is bad.” This sticking point was one that in the questioners’ own words caused them to “lose interest,” and despite being “in agreement with a lot of libertarian thinking…talking about deregulating everything,” turned them off. I was asked this because of my support for and recent article about Ron Paul, who despite decades of serving as a Republican Congressman, is still consistently labeled as a libertarian in almost every media interview with him or discussion about him. The subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, implication by the media is that either the word libertarian in and of itself (or perhaps just the idea of being a libertarian) is somehow not quite right, maybe even unacceptable, and most certainly not electable.

Continue reading ‘We Are All Libertarians Now’


Republicans: Stop mailing me

It is almost every day that I get something from the Republicans or some sort of Republican group. They always want to know what they can do to have me continue my support or what issues to tackle.

I don’t think they get it at all.

First off, I am not even a registered Republican. I registered Republican during the primary to try to get Ron Paul (TX) the nod. He did not, so I moved my political affiliation back to Independent. I am not the only one that has done this. In fact, I hate much of the Republican party today.

I get told a lot that Ron Paul is a Libertarian and that they don’t understand why he ran on a Republican ticket. I think that Ron Paul is a Republican, it just happens that all the Republicans are no longer Republicans – they are Lite-Democrats. Maybe this is all unfair to say. Maybe I can’t say who is and who is not a Republican so maybe it is more fair to say that Ron Paul is a traditional or Constitutional Republican. Who knows. All I know is that Republicans today are not Conservatives, with a few exceptions of course.

This is not the base of this article though. What I really want to say is… quit wasting your money sending me stupid mail when you really have no intention of being a Conservative, Constitutional Republican.

What does this mean? I means things like reforming health care to get government out of health care. It does not mean reforming heal care to comprimise on how much extra government intervention we are going to have. It means lowering taxes or eliminating taxes so that people have more to spend and businesses have more money to hire people and expand their ideas. It does not mean deciding on who gets a tax break and who gets their taxes raised – everyone gets a break. It does not mean that we decide on what failing businesses we prop up and which we do not “because if we don’t then they all will fall.” It does not mean that we have to superman the climate.

C’mon… be a real Conservative like I want.


Conservatives Donate With Their Hearts


Conservatives donate with their hearts. Liberals donate through taxation of the rich.


Forced Health Coverage

Excellent! Mandated (read: forced) health coverage, whether or not you want it or need it!

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s dream of dramatically remaking the nation’s health-care system is still a long way from reality. But if lawmakers can reach an accord, one thing is virtually certain: For the first time ever, every American would be required to carry health insurance.

The requirement, known as an individual mandate, is among the most far-reaching changes envisioned this year by those pushing for health-care reform. And it is one of the few common threads running through all three bills being considered in Congress, greatly increasing the likelihood it will survive the legislative process. Obama continued Tuesday to push lawmakers struggling with the large costs and scope of health legislation to move forward, pronouncing reform to be “closer than ever.”

Just as drivers must purchase auto insurance, the medical system of the future would put responsibility for health coverage first and foremost on every adult.

For the vast majority of Americans who have health insurance, the change would mean little more than submitting a form with their tax returns proving that the plan they carry meets certain minimum standards. Many of the nation’s 47 million uninsured people, however, would be required to purchase a health policy or face financial penalties, though waivers or discounts would be provided for lower-income Americans.

The concept is modeled after a requirement instituted in Massachusetts three years ago as part of that state’s broad health-care overhaul. And like the Massachusetts law, the individual mandate proposed by congressional Democrats would be paired with a much more controversial new requirement that nearly every employer contribute to the total cost of care.

‘More affordable for everyone’
“Without an individual mandate, you’re never going to get to universal coverage,” said Bradley Herring, a health economist at Johns Hopkins University.

Bringing everyone into the insurance pool — particularly young, healthy customers — spreads the risk and lowers overall costs. “That will make it more affordable for everyone,” Herring said.

Some proponents of a European-style, nationalized single-payer approach say an individual mandate places an unfair financial burden on lower-income consumers. Some conservative analysts argue that such a requirement forces individuals into an overpriced, underperforming health system.

Yet in a nation that prides itself on having freedom of choice, it is striking that such a wide and diverse coalition has formed around the individual mandate. Labor unions, economists, the medical industry, big business, some prominent Republicans and Obama all support the requirement, which has its roots in the conservative philosophy of self-reliance.

In the debate over Massachusetts’s measure, then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican with presidential aspirations, touted the approach as a “personal responsibility system.”

Ferocious lobbying
Hospitals, insurers and drug manufacturers — salivating at the prospect of up to 50 million newly insured customers — have lobbied ferociously for the federal provision.

Obama, after sparring last year with his Democratic presidential primary opponents over the concept, is a convert, as long as there are “hardship exemptions” for those least able to pay.

“I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was, the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they will come,” he said in a recent interview with CBS. “I’ve been persuaded that there are enough young, uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down.”

Nearly one-third of the uninsured in the United States in 2007 were between the ages of 19 and 29, and 42 percent were between 30 and 54, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A fair number of young, healthy workers choose not to purchase insurance, believing they do not need it.

Advocates of universal coverage want to lure that group into the insurance pool because they tend to use fewer medical services and help keep premiums down. If only the sick buy coverage, premiums will be high. And visits to emergency rooms by uninsured patients increase premiums for the insured — by $1,000 per person per year, according to some estimates.

The Massachusetts experience with an individual mandate has provided a model, as well as some unexpected results.

“Massachusetts changed everything in the policy community and the political arena,” said Karen Ignagni, president of the industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The penalty for Massachusetts residents who do not carry health insurance was $220 in late 2007 and rose to about $1,020 this year. Still, relatively few residents have balked at the idea — and an additional 432,000 people have signed up for health coverage.

Today, less than 3 percent of Bay State residents lack health insurance, compared with about 16 percent nationwide.

Out of the 3.9 million people who filed taxes in Massachusetts in 2008, 86,000 paid the penalty, and 71,000 were exempted because they did not meet the minimum income levels.

One of the great surprises is how many more people — an additional 148,000 — have enrolled in plans offered through the workplace, most likely nudged by the individual mandate.

“It’s worked out better than I would have guessed,” said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who serves on the board of the Massachusetts program. “We didn’t anticipate the increase in employer-sponsored insurance.”

Last year, the average price nationwide for health insurance purchased through an employer was $12,680 for a family plan and $4,700 for an individual, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In Congress, lawmakers are weighing slightly different proposals. A bill being debated in the House this week would charge individuals a penalty of 2.5 percent of income above $9,000, up to the price of the average premium sold nationwide. The fines would begin in 2013.

A bill passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week would set the penalty at $750 per person. Individuals earning less than 150 percent of the poverty level, or about $16,245, would be exempt.

Negotiations are continuing in the Senate Finance Committee, where Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has argued for months that an individual mandate is central to achieving Obama’s goal of near-universal coverage and cost controls.

Stuart Butler, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees that bringing everyone — especially young, healthy patients — into the risk pool would be advantageous.

But he advocates beginning with a voluntary “opt out” approach similar to automatic enrollment programs for retirement accounts. If policies are reasonably priced, he expects that few will turn down the coverage.

The challenge, said Butler and experts in Massachusetts, is designing a basic benefits package that is affordable. Writing a law that requires individuals to purchase something they cannot afford is “inhumane,” Herring said.

When Massachusetts approved its individual mandate, proponents of the new law braced for a modern-day Tea Party. It never materialized.

“I don’t see people revolting over having to have a driver’s license or insurance to drive a car,” Gruber said. “And we haven’t seen it with the mandate.” (link)

Important or interesting parts bolded by me. So this is what I get out of this whole idea. Regardless of who you are, regardless of what care you need, regardless of what you choose to do… you are going to have to enroll. What the article does not tell you is that there are plenty of people that are enrolled and that don’t use their coverage – like me. I am covered by a nice plan and go to the doctor probably once every five years. Hell, I don’t even take medicine – OTC or perscription – unless I am near my deathbed. I do not use my medical coverage and never really will. It is my individual and personal choice to not participate in the system – partly because I prefer eastern/homeopathic medicine over western medicine and also because I have faith in my body to naturally recover from whatever ailment.

Quite frankly, I am not sure why I have not opted out of my coverage and pocketed the money.

So, why should I be forced into remaining in a plan? The answer they give is that people like me will help lower the cost for everyone. I doubt it. Like I alluded to above, I doubt that I am the only one that has coverage and does not use it. Yet, the coverage remains the same. The real answer is that the government wants to play games with us. They want to control what we can and cannot do. What a better way to control us than to control our health? As the article says above, they will require some sort of minimum coverage. So what does that mean? They will take care of you if you have the flu, but not if you need emergency surgery to remove your appendix? Or maybe that cancer that just popped up, well, that isn’t included in the minimum… but hey, thanks for paying anyways, schmuck.

History has shown and continues to show that the only way to drive prices down and quality up is to do it through competition. You read it right – free-markets. I’m not talking about this molested “free-market” we have now either, I am talking about free free-markets. When people are directly exposed to the prices of a product or service, they are directly responsible for the demand (and indirectly, the supply).  This balance is what gives us progression of products and service, not the enforcement of government to participate.

Furthermore, multiple studies have been shown that there is a large amount of people that are uninsured, can afford it, they just don’t want to enroll. If you don’t understand what I just said, then go watch the videos on my old posts, “Who is uninsured in America?” and “Gillespie Plan: If you want health insurance, get some.”

Wake up America.


How Did America Become Great -RL

Over the last few years I have obtained a new respect for Mr. Rush Limbaugh. For years I admittedly didn’t like him. However, the more I listen to him or read what he writes, the more I understand where he is coming from. Below is a piece about America, and why we are great. I agree.

I’d like to ask this question again since I have your attention. There have been populations of people organized as countries since the founding of the planet, since it was created, and since humanity first appeared. People have organized themselves in various ways: groups, families, nations. Now, the earth and humanity, depending on who you talk to, is millions of years old, billions of years old, and throughout the history of human beings, no group of human beings has ever produced the wealth, the freedom, the opportunity, the prosperity, the security, as Americans. The United States of America, throughout human history, is the greatest nation however you wish to define it, in history. Now, how did this happen? We, the United States of America, are just human beings. There are countries that exist at the same time we have, there are countries that existed long before we came into being, of course in Europe and Asia, Africa, Australia, the subcontinents.

How is it that in less than 250 years, this group of human beings called Americans has revolutionized everything about life? We’ve produced the greatest standard of living and shared how to do it with others. We have produced a standard of living unheard of and undreamed of even by people who were alive 100 years ago. We have produced a country where the occupants, the residents have the highest expectations of opportunity, security, wealth, all of these things, education, than any group of human beings has ever had. I really would like for you to take a moment and, when you have a moment, ask yourselves how this can be. And do it honestly. How can it be? And not to besmirch some of these other countries, but just to give you an example. China, Japan, Russia, the satellite countries, Rome, Italy, take your pick, France, all these countries have been around much, much longer than we have. And admittedly, people that founded this country came from Europe. Why were they not able to do where they lived what they did here? You realize our Founding Fathers were Brits. Why were they not able to turn Great Britain or England into the United States when they lived there?

Continue reading ‘How Did America Become Great -RL’


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain