Campaign For Liberty: jtworkman

jtworkman
Regular member
Location: Spencerville, IN
Last login: 11/26/10
RSS feed

I've just recently registered, and haven't set up my profile page yet.



jtworkman's weblog


Bookmark and Share
Posted by jtworkman on 09/16/09


I was recently introduced to an article at the Huffington Post webiste (available here).  It detailed the author's view of the difference between "Corporatism" and Capitalism.  While the article seemed great almost the whole way through, at the end, the solution provided was to simply pass socialized health care.  The article raises a lot of good points.  I would like to know; how can the funneling of cash from corporation to politician be stopped in a manner acceptable to libertarians?  Is it possible that ending the Federal Reserve will have an effect on this?  What type of legislation will promote the cause of free market capitalism, while not regulating the market, thus defeating the cause of capitalism?  Didn't we have politicians being bought off even when we did have free markets and sound money?  How do we return to sanity?





Categories: Finance, Health Freedom, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Miscellany, Economy, Congress
Tags:

Showing comments 1—4 of 4

Posted 09/17/09

jtworkman
Spencerville, IN
Does Michael Moore equate corporatism with capitalism? I've also seen that many people oppose "capitalism" while fully supporting free markets, leading me to believe that many people don't know what capitalism really is. But what is the alternative, specifically, to increased government control? Is corporatism a problem, and if so, how can it be stopped?
Posted 09/22/09

sjaye
Chicago, IL
I found the article interesting, and probably the best you can get for a site like Huff-Po. I completely agree that corporatism and capitalism are different, and that corporatism is what we are seeing with the bailouts, WalMart supporting the health care plan because they think it will hurt Target, and systems like the one we have in place in Chicago, where corporate tax rates are high, but big corporations get breaks to move here because they will "bring jobs" here. This has effectively lead to small business and big business being taxed at different rates. Where I differ from the author of the article, as well as some of the posters on the site, is the cause, the reason free market capitalism became corporatism. Corporatism requires a strong government to enforce corporate regulations designed to eliminate competition. Incorrect interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause by all three branches of our federal government appears to be at the heart of the problem. Government needs to not have the power to regulate corporations in any manner other than protecting consumers from fraudulent behavior.


You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by jtworkman on 08/26/09


The following is a message I sent to bobjones68 regarding Dick Durbin's response to my message about S 604:

 

Since you are a my county coordinator, I thought I would share the following with you. This is a reply I received from Dick Durbin regarding an email I sent to him about S 604. It seems obvious that he is opposed to a Federal Reserve audit and satisfied with the Fed as we know it. It's sort of annoying the way they try to educate you on the Fed ... I already know how the Fed was started and what it does.

Thanks,

Jesse Workman

 

 

Dear Mr. Workman:

 

Thank you for contacting me about the Federal Reserve. I appreciate having your comments.

 

Congress created the Federal Reserve Banking System with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Congress deliberately gave the Federal Reserve a large degree of autonomy to ensure that monetary policy is made without undue political pressure.

 

The Federal Reserve is responsible for setting monetary policy and regulating commercial banking activities. It does this by setting reserve requirements, approving discount rates, supervising and regulating member banks, and establishing and administering protective regulations in consumer finance. Policymakers at the Federal Reserve often consult with the President and his administration about economic and financial policy.

 

The Federal Reserve is a part of the government and is subject to governmental review. It reports twice a year to both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and regularly presents testimony to House and Senate committees.

 

I will keep in mind your views as Congress performs its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve.

 

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.


Sincerely,

 

 

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

 

RJD/ms

 





Categories: Federal Legislation, Monetary Policy, Congress
Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by jtworkman on 08/20/09


This one covers it all, no matter who you voted for, didn't vote, care, or not. It's a goodie. And I'm sending it to everybody I know, no matter which side of the aisle they believe in the most.

 

545 vs. 300,000,000

 

 

EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.


Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and
then campaign against them..

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation
and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on
appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine
Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300
million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible
for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated
its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound
reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to
coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one
cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1
million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or
reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the
legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.


What separates a politician from a normal human being is an

excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole
responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and
approving appropriations and taxes.

 

Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of

the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president,
can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they
can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not
replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of

incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single
domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the
power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists
is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement
plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they
hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and
advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to
regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not
let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied
mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that
prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who
are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.

 

This poem might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax..
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax

Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed
100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in
the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!

GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!

 

 



Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by jtworkman on 08/19/09


Dear Mr. Workman:

 

Thank you for contacting me about the Federal Reserve. I appreciate having your comments.

 

Congress created the Federal Reserve Banking System with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Congress deliberately gave the Federal Reserve a large degree of autonomy to ensure that monetary policy is made without undue political pressure.

 

The Federal Reserve is responsible for setting monetary policy and regulating commercial banking activities. It does this by setting reserve requirements, approving discount rates, supervising and regulating member banks, and establishing and administering protective regulations in consumer finance. Policymakers at the Federal Reserve often consult with the President and his administration about economic and financial policy.

 

The Federal Reserve is a part of the government and is subject to governmental review. It reports twice a year to both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and regularly presents testimony to House and Senate committees.

 

I will keep in mind your views as Congress performs its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve.

 

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.


Sincerely,

 

 

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

 

RJD/ms

 



Tags:

Showing comments 1—1 of 1



You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by jtworkman on 07/10/09


There has been a little talk recently about Tim Geithner going after questionable investment strategies with stricter, more comprehensive regulation.  See here:


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g7ffRdswXTlfgaQS0FCOZmrvbwcAD9
9BMKK00

I know the basic Austrian view on market intervention and regulation, but when we talk about deregulation, are we talking across the board?  I think we all agree that fraud is illegal and should be punished, and we do not consider that to be a negative form of regulation.  How does the Austrian view of market regulation deal with questionable and/or debated investment styles and strategies involving things such as derivatives?  I would like to see some dialogue on this issue.  I can't claim to be anything near an expert on investments and the stock market (or even educated for that matter), but I would love to learn.  I realize that Peter Schiff is technically a hedge fund manager, and I don't necessarily mean that hedge funds in general are wrong.  I think the basic idea behind hedge funds is that they are intended to safeguard your investment with other "safer" strategies and styles.

Also, what about issues such as naked short selling?  I know that naked short selling is technically illegal, but should we endorse increased regulation on the issue, since it can be considered fraud?  Here are a couple of more links to check out:


http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/22/the-truth-about-naked-
shorts.aspx

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aB1jlqmFOTCA


http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2009/06/in-defence-of-naked-short-selling-or.h
tml





Categories: Education, Finance, Ethics, Philosophy, Economy, Monetary Policy, Trade
Tags: economics, Economy, Treasury, Regulation, market, oversight, austrian, Geithner, funds, sec, strategies, investment, hedge, trading

Showing comments 1—1 of 1

Posted 07/14/09

Scott D
Chicago, IL
In my opinion, the entire credit default swap market is just another huge casino. I like Geithner's reform where he wants these contracts to be cleared through a central clearing house on a major exchange. That will provide some transparency over this market and confidence for the players. Knowing open interest, spreads and prices will build confidence in the market and will be a good indicator of a company's overall quality.
Beyond that, I can't see how further regulating what is essentially an insurance scheme is helpful to anyone except the regulators. Giving the Fed more power to regulate just gives them more influence and power to do shady things.

Regarding naked short selling, there used to be a rule that said in order to short a stock, the price needed to tick upwards first. This was called the "uptick rule" and it prevented "shorts" from driving a stock price down unreasonably quickly. The Uptick rule was put in place during the depression i believe and removed under the Bush administration. During the financial crisis, naked short selling became a hot topic of discussion because so many stocks had their value decimated by short sellers. I don't think Wall St. will bring back the uptick rule however because it would have a huge impact on program trading operations of the major Wall St. firms. Program Trading(highly complex trading algorithms) makes money on market volume by issuing thousands of trades as quickly as possible depending on the direction of the market. Goldman Sachs recently had their proprietary Program Trading computer code stolen by a former employee. The story has gotten some MSM attention but there has been better detailed coverage on the financial blogs such as here: http://bit.ly/2mMZaz


You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Recent Entries

Corporatism vs. Capitalism
Message to County Coordinator Regarding Dick Durbin's Response
I usually hate email forwards, but this one is painfully true.
My response from Dick Durbin - looks like he's out.
What is the Austrian view on hedge funds and derivatives?

jtworkman's contacts

Showing contacts 1—4 of 4



aic4ever


Statute of Liberty


Jake Mabus











Disclaimer: This website has moved. Please visit campaignforliberty.org






Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no
responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as
representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]