Federal Reserve Blog

The Federal Reserve is a bad thing. Here is why: The Federal Reserve is a central bank that implements monetary policy. Monetary policy is how the Federal Reaerve creates and destroys money and the rate at which it is put into the system. The Federal Reserve controls inflation and deflation to help stabilize the economy. Initially, the Federal Reserve seems like a beneficial thing for the United States. This is not the case. The Federal Reserve has hindered the United States for all generations to come. Almost 200 years has passed after one of our founding fathers warned us against it. Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd president of the United States and one of this nation's founding fathers said this in 1816;"To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." Jefferson knew that establishing a central bank would create these kinds of problems. The Federal Reaerve piles on the debt by printing money through the monetary policy, charges interest after the government loans it from the Reserve, which is why the government has to raise and lower taxes. This gives ghe Federal Reserve complete control over all issues dealing with money in the United States. Jefferson went on to say that it is vital that as each generation passes, they pay their debt off to ensure that the following generations are initially debt free. Because the Federal Reserve has cashed us into perpetual debt, paying it off is nearly impossible as the government's debt grows past $18 trillion this year. The last thing Jefferson warned us about is if we let the Federal Reserve, or any central bank for that matter, control the economy and the money it is fueled by, "(our) children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered". The essential message that Jefferson is trying to say that if a central bank controls the flow of currency, the Federal Reserve will bound us by debt, depriving the citizens of the United States of their freedom. It is clear that the Federal Reserve does not operate to serve the public, but private corporations. This is why people believe corporations run the United States, a type of anti-capitalism. The Government needed to find a way to pay these private interests back. This is how the IRS was formed. The taxes put in place by the Governemnt are being payed to the IRS, a system put into place to pay back the Federal Reserve. They work hand in hand to increase inflation which allows the IRS to obtain more money. This is why the Federal Reserve needs to be stopped. In 1963 JFK signed the executive order 1110 to try and dismantle the Federal Reserve by allowing the government to print money. Six months later President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Texas. Though a conspiracy, it does raise some eyebrows about the Federal Reserve, especially because Lyndon B. Johnson threw out the executive order and no President since John F. Kennedy. This may be partly due to the fact that the Federal Reseve lends out derivatives so "exotic" the not even the congressmen trying to put restrictions on them understand what they are dealing with (Forbes.com). This is a method of the Federal Reserve to continue its rouse over the American people and more. Finally, the Federal Reserve must be ended because it hurts the middle-class the most because of its inflation, which is why most people in the middle class stay there (Freedomworks.com). Most information taken from the Exposing the Federal Reserve YouTube Video from class http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-10-reasons-end-federal-reserve http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/05/07/how-the-federal-reserve-became-historys-biggest-bad-bank/

The Underground Economy

The underground economy is a hidden, in the shadows economy composed of those who can't finda full-time job. These people working in the underground economy are desperate for money, which is why they opt into these illegal fraudulent working conditions. Since workers are payed under the table they don't have to report their income, therefore they do not have to pay taxes. There are pros and cons of the underground economy. The underground economy nettted roughly $2 trillion last year. This means $2 trillion is left untaxed with nothing going to the government. Also, the workers a part of this underground economy are not receiving social security or health benefits. The only pros of the underground economy are that it is fairly profitable, evident by the two trillion it netted last year, but also because it is another outlet for minimum wage workers to snag another job. Also, it is beneficial for the owners of the establishment because it is cheaper for them. Though both the pros and cons entail illegal activity.

Spoils vs. Merit

The federal bureaucracy, since the Pendleton act passed after the assassination of President Garfield, put into place a merit based system of election for offices in the government. This act requires potential office members to take a test to make sure they are actually qualified to take an exam to prove their merit. This was not always the case. During the early stages of our nation, Presidents took advantage of the spoils system. The victor did indeed reap the benefits, for they usually appointed members of their own party, friends, or relatives to office instead of those who were the most qualified. For example, when Washington was president, he appointed mostly federalists to office. When Jefferson took over, he dismissed many of the federalists in exchange for members of his respective party. This system of patronage assured people office jobs so long as the president had their support down the road. Jackson argued that the spoils system "brought a rotation" into the government, however, this rotation often featured corruption and was not productive. The assassination of President Garfield prompted the institution of the Merit System. There are certainly examples of the spoils system today. President Obama has dished out 47 administration jobs to those who raised a significant amount of money for his election(s). Although the spoils system is still alive today, it is not as bad as it was back in the late 18th-early 19th centuries. Sources: http://www.thewire.com/national/2012/03/obama-likes-spoils-system-much-any-president/49661/

Cell Phone Blog I believe that police should not be able to search one's phone without a warrant because it is an invasion of privacy. Just as police are not allowed to search one's house or car, the cell phone is a possession which properties solely belong to it's owner. Police should not be able to search the cell phone whenever they want because it is a clear disturbance to someone's privacy.The article stated that the Supreme Court's decision on the case of David Riley is an example of how the Supreme Court is trying to balance the antique properties of the constitution with the issues of modern day and the technology that has come with it (Article). This is true, the Supreme Court's role is to interpret the constitution, and with the constitution getting newer and the world everchanging, it is becoming difficult for them to make decisions like this. The article also raised the question about students and if they should be punished for discrediting their teachers on Facebook (Article). The answer to this question is no. The Internet is the most free thing in the world, a place where people can openly voice their opinions. Punishing students would be a violation of freedom of speech, which goes against the constitution. The Internet should be governed using the laisez-fairs method. Lastly,the article discusses how people have the right to tell authorities no if they ask you to pass up your house, car, phone, or anything for search (Article). This is just another testament as to why the government must have a warrant to search your phone.

Electoral College

The electoral college was created to create a filter between the votes of the citizens of the united states and the election of the president. Envision yourself at the beach playing in the sand, the electoral college acts as a sift, that has influence of which sand particles it chooses to fall through, but is heavily influenced by the weight of the sand. In the real world, the electoral college is heavily influenced by the popular vote, but ultimately gets to choose who they cast their vote for. I believe this is fair because some people who vote are not educated enough and may cast their vote willy nilly. For example, people may have voted for Romney because they are racist and did not want Obama, or vice versa. The electoral college is largely better educated in politics. Also, the electoral college runs parallel with the federal government as far as a republic goes, having a sort of screen between the public and their direct influence over the inner workings of the government. The electoral college generally succeeds in modern day elections because, typically, we have only two candidates. Most of the time the popular vote indicates how the electoral college will vote. The electoral college failed in the election of 1824 because there were 4 candidates who all received a respectable amount of electoral votes. It was left to the House of Representatives to decide, based on the will of the public, who to elect as president. In the end, John Quincy Adams was decided over Andrew Jackson to become the 6th president. In this example, we see how the electoral college initially failed to elect a president. Then, we see how he House of Representatives, with influence of the public, decided who to elect.

Baker vs Coakley

IF I were 18 and eligible to vote, I would cast my vote to elect Mr. Charles Baker to become the next governor of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. I wouald not vote for Martha Coakley because I believe her paritcular focuses are out of touch and would put Massachusetts behind in the ever lasting race to become the best commonwealth in the nation. There are many reasons, however, I would vote for Charley Baker. I believe that Education is important in the early stages of life, where Coakley focuses, but I believe the most opportune time to learn is during grades 9-12, where young minds strive to reach the pinnacle of their childhood educations. Raising the states limits on charter schools would allow for better learning environments for young minds. Higher education is just as important as a secondary education for this is where young minds test the waters of adulthood, trying to get their foot in the door that leads to the real world. Accelerated bachelors and Masters programs for higher achieving students allows them to get an edge on the competition. I believe that higher achieving minds should be rewarded for their achievements and hard work, which is why I would vote Charley Baker in this aspect. This would also reduce the cost of the programs, and get the students out the door earlier. This way they have a smaller debt and a jump start to paying it off. I for one believe that sick time for workers should not be a major point of discussion in an election because it seems like common sense that if someone is really sick they deserve to take time out, however, working in the food business in an establishment of over 100 employees (on the payroll) I have seen firsthand the fraudulent nature of taking a sick day. People should earn their sick days when they are healthy, and to ensure that these days would be paid days, I would vote for Baker's Policy of this being implemented in workplaces with 50+ workers to ensure small businesses aren't hindered by paying these days. One of the main reasons I think Martha Coakley is not right for this position is her criticism of Baker on focusing too much on Welfare Reform. Welfare is a major source of fraud nationwide and requires action to fix it. Coakley doens't seem to think so, why? I do not know, but that is her business. Stricter welfare policies and incentives for businesses to higher welfare recipients A reduces fraud and B gives work to welfare recipients to get them off of it. Simple as that Coakley doesn't know what she is talking about. Boom.

The Proclomation of the Emancipation

Mr. President Abraham Lincoln was trying to ratify the 13th amendment, but it wasn't as easy as he would have liked it to be. Facing a congress full of ignorant, racist schmucks, President Lincoln was shorthanded in his freedoom-fighting army of actual intelligent representatives. Even his secret arsenal (his cabinet) had a rough time siding with him! WTH!!!! Not to mention he abuses his implied powers by lying about a Peace Convention held in Richmond, Virginia. Not sue honest now, eh, Abe? Another thing, Abe, didn't you bribe members of congress in hopes of swaying them to vote for what YOU wanted? Sure they were lame ducks, but is that morally the right thing to do? Sounds a little corrupt to me................... Honesty is a hard policy to live by wholesomely, but Lincoln had good intentions with his fib. Taking a step back, wouldn't you lie to congress if it meant passing the 13th amendment, wouldn't you lie to congress if it meant righting the wrongs of thousands of Americans over the course of 100 some years? I believe Mr. Lincoln, although not abiding by his coined nickname, did the right thing. On another note, the emancipation proclamation was not only to free the slaves but to piece back the torn country. That's right, many people forget the fact that America was not America during the civil war, it was divided into two sections, the north and south. One of the most notable things from the Gettysburg Address is the way Lincoln does not take sides, but incorporates the North and South as one. He wanted the country to be one again, he wanted America back, which is why he rushed so quickly to pass the amendment, to end the war and reconstruct America!