So says some “strategist” on NBC.
I’m sure she is. He’s not the typical brain dead puppet like Bush or Obama who just goes along with whatever the Banksters tell him. He seems to actually have at least a basic understanding of what the Fed does and how it affects the economy.My prediction: The Fed will raise rates after the election. They’ll have to. It will crash the markets and we’ll have a bad recession.
If it’s President Trump, the Fed will have nothing to lose so they’ll do it sooner than if Hillary wins. Trump will be blamed for bringing “instability” to the economy. He’ll nominate someone else and eventually replace Yellen. Whether he gets someone in there that will be at least somewhat responsible with the interest rates remains to be seen. I honestly can’t even guess what he’ll do.
If Killery wins they’ll do a very small rate increase. They’ll say we were “due for a recession” so it’s not her fault when the markets crash and people start losing their jobs. If things don’t turn around to where the government can claim GDP growth or lower unemployment in time for her re-election campaign, they’ll fuel another bubble with negative interest rates. Clinton will renominate Yellen if Yellen still wants the job. Otherwise she’ll nominate whoever is next in line from the board of governors.
How’s that for a prediction!
Here is what Joseph Antos, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, had to say about Obamacare, now that major insurance carriers like Aetna are dropping out:
“The idea of somehow repealing it is far-fetched,”
For those not familiar with it, the AEI is a conservative think tank located in Washington, D.C.
This law went into effect less than three years ago. Once something’s been enacted by Congress and gotten past the two year mark, does that mean we have to live with it forever??? It must be “conserved”??? According to establishment conservatives, the answer is yes.
Let’s hope Trump’s takeover of the GOP either pushes political conservatism in new directions or just kills the movement completely. What good is it doing now? The DC think tanks accept any new programs passed by Democrats. They simply want to “tweak” things a little bit so that maybe they cost a little less.
Americans need an actual opposition party to the regime in Washington. Not the McCain-Romney-Ryan axis of stupidity we’ve got now.
I haven’t decided whether I’ll actually vote for the Donald in November. I generally vote third party or abstain completely. But it’s not like one vote is going to sway the election anyway, and I clearly have a rooting interest. Donald Trump is hands down less bad than the Hildabeast. Obviously I come at this from a libertarian perspective so here are my reasons:
Taxes: As far as I can tell, Trump’s basically an old fashioned Northeast Rockefeller, Limousine Republican when it comes to taxes. So my best guess is a slight reduction on income taxes and maybe a lower Corporate tax. The difference will probably be made up through tariffs or fees of some sort. I don’t see any real improvement here, but Democrats as a rule always want to raise taxes everywhere and anywhere. So Republicans, whether Trump or McCain or Romney or whoever, get the nod here as being the lesser evil.
Spending: This is a tough call because Trump makes a lot of crazy promises about building walls, and I think he mentioned increased military spending in one of his rants. He’s running what amounts to a sort of right wing populist campaign, and part of that entails promising to keep the gravy train flowing for entitlements that are popular among middle class whites like social security and medicare. So I’d have to assume spending will continue to balloon out of control during a Trump administration. But again, just look at the alternative. Has Shillery ever found a welfare program or a weapon or a foreign government/rebellion she didn’t want to fund with the money Washington loots from its subjects? If you want spending to grow less fast, then Trump is your man.
Police State: They’re both horrible. They both favor a giant police state. I’m still giving a slight edge to Donald Trump because at least he’s not threatening to disarm us. He’s also less likely to start wars which the government always use as an excuse to clamp down on dissent and increase surveillance.
Culture/Education: Trump’s a loud obnoxious vulgar clown. But I do applaud his efforts to reduce the effect of political correctness on our lives. Hilla the Hun on the other hand seems like she’d continue down the path of the SJW takeover of our entire educational system and media. Dare to criticize a minority? Refuse to bake a cake for a LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ wedding? Say something nice about a dead white male? Not on Hillary’s watch!
Immigration: I know many so called “left libertarians” will disagree with me here, but I’m in favor of a massive reduction in immigration to the United States. Sure, if we had no welfare and the regime respected property rights 100%, we could have open borders. Hell, there would be no reason for any border in the first place and the regime in DC would have no reason to exist or any way to fund itself. Yay! But that’s not the world we live in. Current US immigration policy is to import as many people as possible from anywhere on the planet and force us all to subsidize it. Obomber even bombed the hell out of a few formerly respectable Arab countries to encourage the survivors to leave and move here.
I don’t know about you, but I can do without a “Little Mogadishu” or a “Little Honduras” sprouting up in my town. Or are you a half-libertarian, half-SJW who thinks you can give some Salvadoran peasant a copy of The Road to Serfdom and get him to vote for Gary Johnson? Trump wants less immigration. He actually seems naive enough to think the US government should take care of people form the US rather than the people from Central America. To be clear I don’t favor his promise to round up and deport millions of people already here, but I certainly would support cutting off any federal benefits they receive as well as efforts to reduce the numbers coming in.
Hillary wants more immigrants, she wants them to eventually vote Democrat, she doesn’t care what local communities think about it, and she wants to force American tax victims to pay for it.
Foreign Policy: Killery is probably tied with John McCain for the most unhinged warmonger to ever win a major party’s nomination for president. The last time she pretended to disapprove of a war was over 40 years ago and no one had heard of her yet. Oh, and she pretended to regret supporting the Iraq War for a brief period in 2007-08 I think. But other than that has there eve been a war she didn’t want to plunge America into? She badgered her husband into intervening in the Balkans and bombing Serbia. Not to mention the periodic bombing of Iraq in the 1990s and the sanctions that killed half a million children. She voted for Bush’s Iraq war. Supposedly “serving” under the weak kneed Obama, she masterminded the Libyan disaster. She got the US to help finance the Syrian mess that continues to this day. She’s probably more responsible for the rise of ISIS than any other person outside of the Muslim world. She let her underlings overthrow the Ukrainian government and ruined that country. She compared Putin to Hitler (as if Putin’s responsible for as many deaths as she and her husband are). This is a woman who would probably consider an actual war against Russia just to overthrow the Syrian government or prop up some unpopular regime in Georgia or Ukraine. And don’t even get me started on her obedience to Israel.
Trump is far from perfect. He’s consistently threatened to “smash ISIS” whatever exactly that means. And he’s pledged allegiance to Israel. But he’s wholeheartedly condemned the recent wars in Iraq and Libya. He’s questioned the need for NATO. He’s repeatedly come out against Nation Building and unnecessary wars in general No matter how bad he turns out to be on Foreign Policy I am 99.9999% sure he’d be less bad than Hitlery.
Conclusion: I can’t say I’m an enthusiastic supporter of Donald Trump. Even with my low expectations it’s certainly possible he could still disappoint a libertarian who is feeling any sympathy for his candidacy. But on every issue, Hillary Clinton is the antithesis of everything a freedom loving American should believe in.
Unfortunately my prediction is Hillary will win (or possibly steal) the election. But hey, maybe I’m wrong. I thought Trump would be out of the GOP race in February.
I have no issue with the Pope visiting the United States per se. I’m sure lots of Americans want to see Francis in person and listen to his fairy tales about Jesus being a communist or his lectures on how Germany should encourage more Muslims to immigrate there. I once attended a conference where the former governor of Utah was paid a handsome fee to speak about healthcare for some reason. So I’m well aware that people like to listen to celebrities say idiotic things on topics they know little about. It’s certainly not limited to Catholics and their infatuation with the papacy.
However, why should the US government spend millions of dollars on security and other measures to accommodate His Holiness visit? I’ll put aside any dogmatic libertarian theory here and look at this from a more conservative “is it good for the taxpayer?” argument.
- The Catholic Church has literally billions of dollars at its disposal. If Church leaders think it’s important for the Pope to wander all over the planet, they can certainly afford to pay for his security. Why does the Washington Regime find it necessary to provide Secret Service protection for a foreign priest?
- If Francis was assassinated, that would be a shame. I’m against violence (unlike the Pope incidentally, as he has indicated he’d like global government which would require massive amounts of violence to bring about). But how is his safety a vital national interest for American citizens? If he died tomorrow, it wouldn’t affect the average person in this country. A new Pope would be elected in an orderly fashion and life for everyone else would move on.
- We’re constantly told by the DC Regime and its Media mouthpieces that we live in a democracy where the will of the majority prevails. But if you polled New Yorkers would most of them say they were okay with the traffic jams that will ensue? Only about 20% of Americans are Catholic. Less than half indicate they have any connection to the faith at all. If you asked Americans to voluntarily contribute $10 each to pay for the Pope’s East Coast visit, do you really think anywhere near half would pony up? I’m sure the answer is no, so why then is it appropriate to use their tax dollars for that purpose?
- There is no economic benefit that justifies the expenditure of public funds. Many businesses are likely to be disrupted to make way for the Pope which will cost them money (and potentially lower the amount of taxes they pay to the various governments that rule over them). Any crowds he draws into a city are likely to be mainly poor people who will not spend much so even the old Super-Bowl-as-an-economic-engine argument doesn’t hold water here.
So Pope Francis, with all due respect (which is none), enter the United States at your own risk and follow the same laws Americans are forced to endure or stay the fuck out!
The annual influenza scare is upon us. It’s rather tame by 21st century standards. The powers that be aren’t claiming it’s going to kill all of us this time. But that isn’t stopping Uncle Sam from handing out some big fat checks to one of their favorite special interests, the American farmer.
Several Midwestern governors have declared states of emergency, opening the door for Federal funds. Why is it the State’s job to bail out poultry farmers when some chickens get sick? Is that somehow going to increase the supply of chickens? No, the sick ones are dead or dying. Money isn’t going to change that. The price of eggs, turkey, and chicken has already increased in accordance with the law of supply and demand. If you want chicken, you’ll have to pay a little more for it. Some people will choose not to buy chicken, and therefore people who really want it and are willing to pay the higher prices can still get it. The market works.
So what are the federal funds for? My guess is they’re just to help some of these giant agriculture corporations continue to turn a profit. I mean if they didn’t bail them out and Tyson or Perdue took a loss this year, does that mean the poultry industry would cease to exist? No one would ever raise a chicken again? Of course not.
I assume one argument is that it will help them deal with the outbreak so it doesn’t continue to spread, but again I have to ask, don’t Tyson and Perdue have the resources to deal with this? If the Feds didn’t hand over a couple billion, would they really just sit back and watch every single chicken in the USA die of bird flu? I think these questions answer themselves.
The GOP already controlled the House even before their landslide election last month. So here are a few items those “fiscally conservative” Republicans decided to pay for with the money they will be stealing from you next year. This is part of a bill that wastes over $1 trillion. And I mean the entire $1.1 trillion because every last dime is a waste of money as far as I’m concerned including so called “Defense,” “Homeland Security,” “Social Security,” and every other scheme these thieves use to buy votes. I admit to basing this all on the Washington Post which is basically just Government propaganda. So that’s why there aren’t dollar amounts next to some of the more expensive items.
1. Obamacare (Fully Funded).
2. War in Afghanistan (conditioned on the Afghan government letting the American military stay there forever)
3. Amtrak $1.39 billion. Anyone outside of the Boston/NYC/DC area ridden one of these in their entire lives?
4. CDC $7 billion. (including $42 million to fight Ebola) I’m sure we’d all die of disease without billions spent on a center to control it.
5. Fighting Ebola $5.4 billion. This is a disease that killed a whole 1 person in America who wasn’t even an American.
6. Egypt about $1.5 billion.
7. US Embassies $5.4 billion.
8. EPA $8.1 billion. If the State didn’t protect the environment we’d have all died of pollution long ago. Just ask any Democrat.
9. Eric Cantor’s pet project to fund pediatrics $12.6 million. Someone should tell Eric he lost his reelection.
10. Pay raise for federal
11. FDA $2.6 billion. This is important because otherwise people would be obese and abuse prescription drugs.
12. Torture chambers in Guantanamo Bay.
13. Fighting heroin $7 million. I’m sure they’ll finally eradicate the scourge of heroin. They just needed a few more million dollars.
14. Immigration (Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants) $1 billion+
16. Israel $3.7 Billion (If you suggest this is too much you are a racist anti-Semite).
17. Libya (as long as it rubber stamps the US Benghazi investigation).
18. Jordan $1 billion+
19. Keeping marijuana illegal in DC
20. Transportation: $11 billion (including $150 million for DC subways).
21. Pay raise for our “heroes” who join the military and agree to kill foreigners as directed by Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama.
22. National Institute of Health $30.3 billion. I don’t even know what this is supposed to be. Didn’t they already give the CDC $7 billion?
23. Various Military Empire Building boondoggles: $9.7 Billion. Includes fighting ISIS, training Syrian Rebels to kill (I thought ISIS was Syrian rebels???), training Iraqis to kill, training Kurds to kill, “ongoing operations” in Europe (I don’t even want to know what this is), and bribing the Ukrainians to pick a fight with Russia that they can’t win.
24. Palestinian Authority
25. Pensions (not yours unless you work in some kind of Union job).
26. Post Office (Including the all important Saturday deliveries that must never end).
27. WIC $6.6 billion (this is like extra food stamps for poor women who have kids, but the fathers don’t bother to stick around).
28. Dept of Education $70.5 billion
30. Bureau of Land Management efforts to conserve sage-grouse habitats $15 million (don’t ask).
31. School lunch program
32. Preventing sexual assault in the military $257 million (Good Luck!)
33. United Nations
34. US Capitol Police: $348 million ($196K per officer)
35. Restoring the Capitol Dome: $21 million
36. Veterans of the Military Empire
37. Enforcing whistleblower laws $500,000. Hopefully that doesn’t mean punishing whistleblowers, but that’s the only thing I can think of that would cost money.
38. White House: $222 million. I have an idea to save this money. Sell it to the highest bidder and let Emperor Obama pay for his own damn house!!!
39. Paying ranchers whose livestock are eaten by wolves $1 million.
40. Yucca Mountain. Just in case they decide to stuff it with Nuclear waste at a later date.
Thank you GOP and all you Republican voters for flushing another trillion dollars down the toilet!!! Oh well, I’m sure there’s more where that came from!
Several states are pushing bills to allow gold to be used as legal tender. This is a good thing, although it won’t in its own right stop the Federal Reserve from draining the nation’s wealth.
It should be obvious to thoughtful people we are not a free people if we are forced to accept government paper as currency to conduct business. If we are truly “free” why can’t we use whatever we want?
The answer is obvious. The government wouldn’t be able to spend endlessly if they didn’t force us to use a fiat currency. This would bring down the Empire and all hope would be lost for creating the “New World Order” we’ve been hearing so much about lately.
You often hear pundits on the right state that so called “tea party” Republicans are voices for liberty in Congress. One of the most prominent among them is Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
Now the guy is basically a warmonger and Israel-Firster. But even if we put that aside and analyze his views on domestic policies through the eyes of a red state, tea partying, support-the-troops Republican, the idea he stands for freedom doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
For example a quick glance at his website illustrates his views on Health Care. He says he wants to allow individuals to control their own healthcare choices, but in the same sentence says he wants to give control to the States. Now giving smaller state governments control over “health policy” may be the lesser of two evils compared to something like Obamacare, but it’s certainly not the same as allowing individuals to control it so he sounds confused right from the start. He then says he wants to “allow” people to purchase health insurance across state lines. If the states control health care policy I’m not sure how that fits in with the Feds allowing people to purchase from outside their states. It would be up to the state the person lives in would it not?
He goes onto list a bunch of ways he wants to “incentivize” the state governments or individuals to do this or that regarding healthcare. So basically he’s still advocating taxing people who don’t do what the Feds say higher than those who do.
Finally he says he wants to develop a “sensible” plan to cover people with pre-existing conditions. So despite all the talk earlier on this same page about free market solutions, he doesn’t really believe in that at all. Giving “insurance” to people who are guaranteed to immediately start making large financial claims on the policy is not insurance at all. A private firm can’t make money that way so there is no “sensible” plan other than the government taxing healthy people or forcing them to buy insurance they may not want.
I think articles like these are written just to outrage Libertarians and Conservatives.
The Federal Workers’ Union is demanding that Congress leave them out of any deal related to the so-called “Fiscal Cliff”.
“Federal and postal employees and their families are hardworking, middle-class Americans who are struggling during these tough times just like other Americans,” the group wrote. “No other group has been asked to financially contribute the way they have, and it is time our nation’s leaders found other ways to reduce the deficit than continually taking from those who have dedicated their lives to public service.”
Right. No other group has been asked to contribute to their pensions. These poor babies have to contribute 2.3%. What group of productive citizens has any pension at all?
And the idea that any of these parasites dedicated their lives to public service insults our intelligence beyond belief. The majority of them provide no service to the public at all. They are bureaucrats who assist the state in punishing productive citizens and extracting our money for their own benefit. The ones that do actually provide a service such as postal workers cannot survive on user fees like a private company and must be heavily subsidized by those of us who rarely use their service. Meanwhile there are obvious private alternatives that provide the same service better and more efficiently while making a profit. They do not extract money from the public through violence the way every government agency does.
Then there’s this:
After President Obama’s reelection, top federal unions said they were confident their members would not be targeted in such a deal and a pay raise would be instituted.
Big surprise. Government workers vote for the Democrats and expect to be rewarded with a raise. That’s the major reason why you need to shut all government offices on election day, so it’s more convenient for these guys to go vote themselves more money.
Finally the article throws in this gem:
In recent negotiations, Republicans are beginning to show signs they will agree to create new revenues from top earners, while specifics of spending cuts still are being hammered out.
So obviously all these Republicans that have been claiming raising taxes on the “rich” will hurt the economy were lying and never believed that at all. Either that or they are willing to hurt the economy to avoid any potential cuts to their beloved merchants of death.