Last-second ad flurry ads hits 6th District

I live in California and I was so outraged by Michele Bachmanns call to investigate members of congress for their anti american views that I sent in 30 dollars to her opponent

If you don’t agree with Bachmann, you are not American, is what she says.

We’ll, I don’t agree with Bachmann, so Michelle, if you want to send investigators to my house, go ahead.

And make sure you have the guts to show up with them so I can give you a piece of my anti american mind.

Ditto here, but I wen’t $50.00 — she represents, to me, everything that has gone wrong with this country AND the church in the last 20 or so years – it’s all “our way, or you’re unAmerican, or will burn in hell”.

These types are dangerous to this, or any country, and handing over our ever diminishing freedoms to the likes of them is the beginning of the end of a truly free America. If I want a religious government, I’ll move to Iran.

Why Retain Michele Bachmann?
Americans seem to speak of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (aka “The Bailout”) as if it were an isolated event in recent history that has cost the American taxpayer exactly $700 billion. However, beginning with the emergency loan made by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to Bear-Stearns in March of this year, the Fed has awarded commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies more than $2 trillion.(To place this number in context, light travels 9.5 trillion kilometers in one year!) Now, credit unions, savings associations, and security brokers and dealers may also avail themselves of “bailout money.” Some of those security brokers and dealers that have now been authorized to trade directly with the Fed include Bank of America Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., J. P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, and UBS Securities LLC. Robert Higgs, who is senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review, who put together this list in his recent article “Every Crisis Becomes a Carnival of Opportunism,” states, “If you don’t see any likely suspects in the recent string of taxpayer robberies on this list, then it’s time you had your eyes checked.”

To meet every new obligation, the Fed will have further expand credit and increase the monetary base. The sum will advance further into the trillions of dollars and likely cause hyperinflation. Moreover, inflation–or hyperinflation–during the bust phase of the business cycle leads to the inequitable redistribution of wealth. For, as Wilhelm Röpke, the Austrian economist whose works influenced Ludwig Erhard and led to the “German Economic Miracle,” observed, when a central bank such as the Fed inflates the supply of money, the new money only benefits those who first receive it. They can spend this money and make their purchases at original price levels. However, as this money works its way through the economy, higher prices result from increasing demand. The persons who receive this money later—or simply not at all—have to pay higher prices and experience a decrease in real wealth. Thus, this distribution of new money will act as a form of taxation on fixed-income, primarily middle-class taxpayers.

On the floor of the Congress, members in Congress who urged defeat of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 were allowed two whole minutes(!) to voice their dissent on behalf of taxpayers. This caused the ranking minority member of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL 6) to have to yield two minutes’ time to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX 14), also of the HFSC, to explain why taxpayers that “…only in Washington could a bill demonstrably worse than its predecessor be brought back for another vote and actually expect to gain votes. That this bailout was initially defeated was a welcome surprise, but the power-brokers in Washington and on Wall Street could not allow that defeat to be permanent.” As Marcy Kaptur (D-OH 9) put it, “We need the right deal, not a fast deal. The White House is counting on fear to propel this Congress into hasty and inappropriate action on a Wall Street bailout that is not in the interest of our Republic. There is a better way. In fact, it is as likely the expenditure of $700 billion will actually stand in the way of the most effective means to remedy the economic challenges facing us.”

The above should convince people that at this time we need increased economic oversight, not less oversight. Rep. Bachmann is a member of the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. As such, she voted against the bailout twice. As Rep. Bachmann stated, “Every American who has played it safe and smart to avoid debt is being asked to spend the rest of his or her life paying off the debts of Washington and Wall Street.” Ron Paul reaches the same conclusion and states, “The invest payments on that debt…will rise, and our children and grandchildren will be burdened with increased taxes to pay off that increased debt.” More importantly, states Bachmann, “We’re well on our way to eliminating moral hazard from economics altogether. This is antithetical not only to the free market basis of our economy, but to the rich heritage of liberty we’ve long enjoyed.” And as Representative Hensarling (R-TX 3) lamented, how do we measure success in this country when failure is no longer allowed?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Ok, Michele Bachmann voted against the bailout, good for her. So does that condone her statements since? It’s this type of conservative bile that has so poisoned the Republican party and those who believed in it. There are career defining moments; unfortunately for Ms. Bachmann, she used her’s to define the end of her career.

El Tinklenberg got my $25.00.

Bachmann Right for Wall Street?

To dispel this myth I only have to turn to a recent op-ed written by Ron Paul in which he states,

“Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear ‘experts’ wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.

“It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.

“The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have ‘It’s perfectly legal’ as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible? Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life. Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.

“These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes ‘what can I get away with,’ and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.”

“Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.”

Bachmann IS antithetical to what Wall Street wants.

Bachmann Against Minimum Wage?

This mythology of the minimum wage is dispelled by Henry Hazlitt in his Economics in One Lesson. Hazlitt writes: “All this is not to argue that there is no way of raising wages. It is merely to point out that the apparently easy method of raising them by government fiat is the wrong way and the worst way.

“This is perhaps as good a place as any to point out that what distinguishes many reformers from those who cannot accept their proposals is not their greater philanthropy, but their greater impatience. The question is not whether we wish to see everybody as well off as possible. Among men of good will such an aim can be taken for granted. The real question concerns the proper means of achieving it. And in trying to answer this we must never lose sight of a few elementary truisms. We cannot distribute more wealth than is created. We cannot in the long run pay labor as a whole more than it produces.

“The best way to raise wages, therefore, is to raise marginal labor productivity. This can be done by many methods: by an increase in capital accumulation — i.e., by an increase in the machines with which the workers are aided; by new inventions and improvements; by more efficient management on the part of employers; by more industriousness and efficiency on the part of workers; by better education and training. The more the individual worker produces, the more he increases the wealth of the whole community. The more he produces, the more his services are worth to consumers, and hence to employers. And the more he is worth to employers, the more he will be paid. Real wages come out of production, not out of government decrees.

“So government policy should be directed, not to imposing more burdensome requirements on employers, but to following policies that encourage profits, that encourage employers to expand, to invest in newer and better machines to increase the productivity of workers — in brief, to encourage capital accumulation, instead of discouraging it—and to increase both employment and wage rates.”

Another good article if the “Mythology of the Minimum Wage,” a Daily Article by D.W. MacKenzie that can be found at http://mises.org/story/2130.

Sorry, people. I’ll stop my ranting now. As an independent and as a Ron Paul supporter, though, I just become tired of hearing people falling for all the big-party, statist politics. I’ll just walk away slowly. ☺

This Woman is DANGEROUS PERIOD!

Her time would have been much better for her if she was around during the era of McCarthy…they belong together!

This woman is what makes decent women’s blood boil. She gives all of us a bad reputation. How I hope She will go down in flames , never to be heard of again. Basically, you might call her Sarah Palin’s twin sister. Together they create “DISASTER.”