The government monopolization of student loans should be a warning to every business in America. What began as a government incentive by offering discounted rates to banks who would promise to issue educational loans is now being vilified as ineffective—thus prompting further intervention in the form of private obsolescence favoring public ubiquity.

Any business that now takes a tax cut, tax credit, or some other discount for participating in a government agenda must follow the consequences to their logical conclusion. Our current government will—as it did with student loans—eventually portray your service as the intermediary to their benevolence, and argue for public socialization of your business.

This is already happening with the Health Care Reform law. President Obama knew he needn’t completely nationalize health insurance immediately; by acting as an innocuous intercessor, the path quickly follows to make them a frustrating arbiter, and then finally an oppressive master. They must only convince enough people that it is the private company that serves as middle-man, rather the government, to consumer benefits.

After all (their argument may go), why work for a private corporation, who skims off the top to line their CEO’s pockets while receiving tax benefits, when you may receive employment or benefits directly from their benefactor? Why purchase oil from Chevron when the government may provide it at a reduced price? Why sell shoes when the government may distribute them more fairly?

The real question all along, however, should have been, why was the government artificially propping up complementary prices through their initial intervention? Education tuition costs have skyrocketed since the government’s first involvement in distributing loans; health care costs have skyrocketed since Medicare, Medicaid, and forcing emergency rooms to admit patients; automobile prices have risen drastically since the imposition of stricter emissions and safety standards.

The nationalization of student loans will give more people access to education, the demand for college enrollment will rise exponentially, and tuition costs will necessarily rise in direct correlation in order to maintain order and population ratio on campuses. At that point, the government will intervene once again in the name of fairness, eliminate the educational middle-man, and nationalize college education.

Every concession of liberty is one more authorization of tyranny. By allowing the government to restrict the liberties of banks, schools, and ultimately the consumer in their choice in the loan market, we have given them the authority to control one more aspect of our lives. If any middle-man should be eliminated from business it must be the one whose responsibility it is to protect the pursuit of wealth, not the one who provides the path.

Tagged with:
 

In 1513, the Medici Pope Leo X was facing the likely possibility of a bankrupt Roman Catholic Church. The magnific building projects to bolster the church’s image were begun with no foresight to their long-term economic consequences, and the crusades into the Holy Land and other foreign proselytizing campaigns had drained the papal treasury. Christendom, as any centralized power is wont to do, had become indebted to her constituents and the world.

In order to combat the Holy Deficit, the Pope began to issue indulgences to the lowly sinners of the congregation in order to forgive them—not of their past transgressions, but of their future sins. Of course, this was not an act of spiritual altruism; forgiveness came at a tangible price, which was imposed on a progressive scale determined by one’s wealth and the atrocity of their sin. The Catholic Church had become so dogmatic and authoritative that unsuspecting and fearful Catholics bought into this scheme without question—to oppose this plan could have meant the eternal damnation of one’s earthly soul.

 

History, despite her eternal struggle for progress, has been ordained once again to repeat her orbit around the selfish desires of man. (more…)

AIG, Silas Marner, and a misdirected rage

George Eliot’s “Silas Marner: The Weaver of Raveloe” was published during the Industrial Revolution in England. It tells a tale of virtue, the rewards of hard work, and the inevitable and eventual punishment of evil against your neighbor.
rAIGe

Silas Marner, expressing his rage.

Dunstan Cass is the selfish, deceitful, and corrupt villain in this classic story, and his family is the wealth and government of the city. When his spineless brother Godfrey gets drunk, Dunstan convinces Godfrey to give him money intended for rent. When Godfrey sobers, he demands payment from Dunstan in order to pay his own bills. Unable to return the squandered money, Dunstan convinces him to sell his horse to raise the necessary funds. After the horse is sold, but before it is delivered, Dunstan subsequently kills it during a hunt. Undiscovered in this atrocity, Dunstan burgles the title character’s home, steals his hard-earned fortune, and seemingly gets away with it (he is found dead at the bottom of a well sixteen years later along with the gold he stole).

 

 

Today, President Obama, congress, and the populace publicly cast their outrage at AIG, the multinational insurance corporation of whom the government owns eighty percent. Newswires, bloggers, and commentators went berserk at the revelation of AIG’s disbursement of bonuses to executives, which totaled nearly $165 million. Employees received threats from private citizens and the company had to post armed guards at their headquarters to keep peace. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley even expressed his desire that AIG executives “resign or go commit suicide.” President Obama asked, “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”

(more…)

Obama says economy is sound

Remember on the campaign trail when John McCain said the fundamentals of our economy are strong? Remember how liberals, Democrats, and everyone in the media condemned him as “out of touch” after he said these words? Remember how pundits consistently declared that this was the cause of the GOP ticket’s downfall?

President Obama, in a meeting with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, insisted that “every investor can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States.” Don’t get me wrong, I would much rather hear optimism spew out of the First Vocal Cords than his recent perpetual pessimism, but how can he say this right now when the economy is anything but sound?

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

Obama’s Governmental Philanthropy

Let’s face it. President Obama has a remarkable amount of trust in the American people; people in general, for that matter. And the feeling is reciprocal. His campaign platform of “Hope” and “Change” brought an emotional enthusiasm from his supporters passionately yearning for everything he promised. Millions of Americans voted for him expecting him to new era of transparency, responsibility, and a governmental metamorphosis. The international community hailed his ascension as the World’s Citizen, and his promise to restore America to its global good-standing. His ability to connect equally with a foreign head of state and the common American alike is indeed a remarkable feat worthy of some adulation—at face value, anyway.

 

In theory, his rhetorical abilities and global popularity would enable him to fulfill what he promised—to change the world. In all practicality, however, he will fall short of the magnific expectations he and his supporters have set. The reason for this is simple: governmental altruism does not work and his entire economic philosophy is based on it.

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

Fiscalism is a Hate Crime

As a taxpayer and consumer from corporations who get their money from large conglomerate banks such as Citigroup, I feel I am entitled to a bailout.

 

After all, how can I continue buying from corporations who are getting their loans from large conglomerate banks if I am only paying more in taxes to save the conglomerate banks who provide the loans to the corporations?

 

Or how can I buy from the Small Businesses who purchase their goods from corporations who get loans from large conglomerate banks if they go out of business because of having to pay more in taxes in order to bail out those large conglomerate banks who provide loans to corporations?

 

Or how can I purchase an automobile from the rescued automobile corporations who get their loans from large conglomerate banks who have been bailed out if my money is already going toward bailing out those automobile corporations who get their loans from large conglomerate banks.

 

Or why should I be discriminated against just because I lived within my means, did not take any unnecessary risks, and did not count on the economic bubble to be infinitely elastic. In fact, I should be rewarded for my fiscal conservatism by a government bailout. This is a clear human rights violation against us frugalists. Fiscalism should be a hate crime. The government should be willing to protect all facets of fiscal diversity, not just those who chose to destroy their own companies.

 

By the way, that is sardonic irony…

Tagged with:
 

Less Income, More Spending

Obama is reportedly considering delaying his rollback of the Bush tax cuts to the Upper Class of America. This apparently comes after great consideration of the possibility that raising taxes in an economic flu is not a good thing. Like Republicans have been saying since he announced this policy.

 

A few questions for his supporters: Will you be upset that he has failed to deliver on redistributing the wealth? Will you be upset at his continuing Bush’s policies of unfairness? Will you be upset that he is now showing preferential treatment to the Upper Class? Probably not, because most of you never cared about or understood the issues anyway.

(more…)

Tagged with: