Virgil the Roman
Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .
- Jan 14, 2006
- 11,413
- 1,299
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Has Dr Ron Paul dropped out as of yet? If He has, I shall make the choice that aligns with my Catholic faith and choose the most moral candidate that I believe coincides with Catholic Teaching on Subsidiarity and Morals:
Hence, I am going with the Constitution Party and voting for the former Democrat and former Representative from Virginia for president: Mr Virgil Goode.
Mr Goode would be the only candidate for whom I might be able to cast a ballot for in good conscience.
Why? Namely the following:
-He is solidly Pro-Life.
-He is pro-gun/pro-Second Amendment
(I believe as the Roman Catechism says that we've a right to self-defense, as well as to protect others around us from harm; particularly if those include our family, friends, or loved ones; let alone strangers).
-He is pro-Protectionism to some degree.
He wants avoid the mire of Freetradism that The Republicans and Democrats have used to sell out our jobs overseas via out-sourcing.
(Think Nafta and Cafta; they out-sourced jobs to Mexico, because no matter how good quality of a product and low of a price, American workers cannot work for the substandard and dirt-wage that many Third-world labourers could. There can be No competition, no matter what the Freetraders (be they Neocon Republican, Libertarian, or Democrat) say. It's not a 'fair competition'; the deck of cards are already stacked against the American worker without some sort of 'help' to protect the American economy from the outsourcing by the predatory policies of some Mega-corporations, whose primary goal is profit. Profit or 'How cheaply made a product can be manufactured for the lowest possible price, with the highest profit margin'; the people or average worker's well-being does not factor in here. They are but a cog in the wheel of the great machine of Usurious Capitalism or Wage-Slavery.)
-He wants to return power to the states.
(States Rights' decentralises the power of the government amongst the many states and reserves some rights (via the Tenth Amendment) to the states. This is alignment with subsidiarity; giving the lowest competent level of authority the right to govern a particular sphere or utilise a particular power.
-He wants to reform the tax system and plethora of business regulations.
It has been said by some business, that the uncertain regulatory climate and the overly-complicated tax system inhibits business and job growth. (As well as the spectre of tax increases to take place at the beginning of 2013.) I think perhaps, that by simplifying the tax code and code of regulations surrounding, one could create an environment whereby less taxes are not paid and more certainty with regards to business environment.
(E.g. A hypothetical example would be all businesses paying a flat 15% corporate or business income tax regardless of income bracket or size; with no exemptions of any kind whatsoever. This would eliminate any uncertainty and ensure that all companies regardless of size would pay their own share of taxes. Whereas with the current system some businesses pay the top bracket of 35%, with others paying something close to or virtually 0% in Business income taxes).
Now, if the business and economic environment is stablised and businesses are therefore more inclined to hire, then the economy could be, as it were, 'kick-started' again; or otherwise permitted to recover to some degree.
-He wants to phase out and eventually abolish the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve system is a private corporation which has control of America's currency. This is illegal under the Constitution, as this power is reserved by Congress to issue currency. Additionally, since the Federal Reserve has been in existence, it has throughout 20th century by various policies of inflating the currency, printing too many dollars, or artificially controlling the rate of Interest--- has worsened recessions and prevented faster recovery and has devalued the Dollar's worth by some 98% since 1913. The degree to which they had made recessions (e.g. The 'Great Depression) worse is debatable. However, their financial policies directly affect the flow and amount of currency in the economy. That is to say, if they print more money the dollar is devalued, inflation occurs; if they print less money or destroy or take some currency out of circulation, deflation occurs. Both inflation and deflation negatively affect the average citizen, adversely affecting in different ways his wage and his ability to provide for himself and his family.
(N.B. Obama is pro-choice; as is Romney. Despite Romney's opportunistic flipping flopping to the contrary position, given his flipping flopping on numerous issues [e.g. The bailouts of the Auto Industry, T.A.R.P., backing the Union-busting initiative in Ohio under Gov. Kasich, His Anti-gun record, Healthcare [He gave us Romneycare in Massachussets; I see no reason why he won't go back upon his word and do the same for all of America.] Now, I know I cannot in good conscience vote Obama; I do not believe that I can do so for Romney. I do not see much of a difference between He and Obama in economic or social policy. I see them both as spend-thrift Keynesians. And Keynes economics holds the notions that the government must go into debt by intervening in the economy to encourage spending the private sector. To 'jump the economy's engine, if you will. However, such crushing debt, combined with malinvestment do not help or heal the economy but mask the woes of the economy by creating a perceived recovery, artificially. Rather, a 'bubble' is created. Instead of a true recovery, a bubble mask the economic malinvestment. With such bad investments, it will be only a matter of time before the bubble 'bursts' causing another recession (or if it is bad enough, a depression). The solution would to correct the malinvestment and permit the economy to recover naturally, without the artificial intervention of the government that encourages or instigates improper investment. An example of this would the housing bubble. This was encouraged by government intervention in several ways. One Congress mandated that Banks would be REQUIRED by law (or face high fines) to give out loans to lower-income families. Now, the banks knew that such would be a bad investment (i.e. malinvestment); As lower-income families would not be able to pay back the loans (in all likelihood). Now, to help with the housing situation and ensure that every ought to have a home to buy; the Fed. Gov't. had the Fed suppress the interest rate low, to encourage the Housing industry to build a plethora of houses. Now this created a glut of housing. However, this was masked by the plethora of loans given out by banks, who spread out the loans (and the risk) by selling the loans to other banks and other companies. Whenever, too many persons defaulted on or could not pay their loans or investers saw that 'malinvestment', they chose to divest themselves of the housing market and causing the bubble to cave in and eventually collapse.)
This is my view. Granted some of it is opining, whereas other statements are facts (though not cited by specific sources in this post).
Whether one agrees or disagrees with my views regarding this; that is up to them.
Hence, I am going with the Constitution Party and voting for the former Democrat and former Representative from Virginia for president: Mr Virgil Goode.
Mr Goode would be the only candidate for whom I might be able to cast a ballot for in good conscience.
Why? Namely the following:
-He is solidly Pro-Life.
-He is pro-gun/pro-Second Amendment
(I believe as the Roman Catechism says that we've a right to self-defense, as well as to protect others around us from harm; particularly if those include our family, friends, or loved ones; let alone strangers).
-He is pro-Protectionism to some degree.
He wants avoid the mire of Freetradism that The Republicans and Democrats have used to sell out our jobs overseas via out-sourcing.
(Think Nafta and Cafta; they out-sourced jobs to Mexico, because no matter how good quality of a product and low of a price, American workers cannot work for the substandard and dirt-wage that many Third-world labourers could. There can be No competition, no matter what the Freetraders (be they Neocon Republican, Libertarian, or Democrat) say. It's not a 'fair competition'; the deck of cards are already stacked against the American worker without some sort of 'help' to protect the American economy from the outsourcing by the predatory policies of some Mega-corporations, whose primary goal is profit. Profit or 'How cheaply made a product can be manufactured for the lowest possible price, with the highest profit margin'; the people or average worker's well-being does not factor in here. They are but a cog in the wheel of the great machine of Usurious Capitalism or Wage-Slavery.)
-He wants to return power to the states.
(States Rights' decentralises the power of the government amongst the many states and reserves some rights (via the Tenth Amendment) to the states. This is alignment with subsidiarity; giving the lowest competent level of authority the right to govern a particular sphere or utilise a particular power.
-He wants to reform the tax system and plethora of business regulations.
It has been said by some business, that the uncertain regulatory climate and the overly-complicated tax system inhibits business and job growth. (As well as the spectre of tax increases to take place at the beginning of 2013.) I think perhaps, that by simplifying the tax code and code of regulations surrounding, one could create an environment whereby less taxes are not paid and more certainty with regards to business environment.
(E.g. A hypothetical example would be all businesses paying a flat 15% corporate or business income tax regardless of income bracket or size; with no exemptions of any kind whatsoever. This would eliminate any uncertainty and ensure that all companies regardless of size would pay their own share of taxes. Whereas with the current system some businesses pay the top bracket of 35%, with others paying something close to or virtually 0% in Business income taxes).
Now, if the business and economic environment is stablised and businesses are therefore more inclined to hire, then the economy could be, as it were, 'kick-started' again; or otherwise permitted to recover to some degree.
-He wants to phase out and eventually abolish the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve system is a private corporation which has control of America's currency. This is illegal under the Constitution, as this power is reserved by Congress to issue currency. Additionally, since the Federal Reserve has been in existence, it has throughout 20th century by various policies of inflating the currency, printing too many dollars, or artificially controlling the rate of Interest--- has worsened recessions and prevented faster recovery and has devalued the Dollar's worth by some 98% since 1913. The degree to which they had made recessions (e.g. The 'Great Depression) worse is debatable. However, their financial policies directly affect the flow and amount of currency in the economy. That is to say, if they print more money the dollar is devalued, inflation occurs; if they print less money or destroy or take some currency out of circulation, deflation occurs. Both inflation and deflation negatively affect the average citizen, adversely affecting in different ways his wage and his ability to provide for himself and his family.
(N.B. Obama is pro-choice; as is Romney. Despite Romney's opportunistic flipping flopping to the contrary position, given his flipping flopping on numerous issues [e.g. The bailouts of the Auto Industry, T.A.R.P., backing the Union-busting initiative in Ohio under Gov. Kasich, His Anti-gun record, Healthcare [He gave us Romneycare in Massachussets; I see no reason why he won't go back upon his word and do the same for all of America.] Now, I know I cannot in good conscience vote Obama; I do not believe that I can do so for Romney. I do not see much of a difference between He and Obama in economic or social policy. I see them both as spend-thrift Keynesians. And Keynes economics holds the notions that the government must go into debt by intervening in the economy to encourage spending the private sector. To 'jump the economy's engine, if you will. However, such crushing debt, combined with malinvestment do not help or heal the economy but mask the woes of the economy by creating a perceived recovery, artificially. Rather, a 'bubble' is created. Instead of a true recovery, a bubble mask the economic malinvestment. With such bad investments, it will be only a matter of time before the bubble 'bursts' causing another recession (or if it is bad enough, a depression). The solution would to correct the malinvestment and permit the economy to recover naturally, without the artificial intervention of the government that encourages or instigates improper investment. An example of this would the housing bubble. This was encouraged by government intervention in several ways. One Congress mandated that Banks would be REQUIRED by law (or face high fines) to give out loans to lower-income families. Now, the banks knew that such would be a bad investment (i.e. malinvestment); As lower-income families would not be able to pay back the loans (in all likelihood). Now, to help with the housing situation and ensure that every ought to have a home to buy; the Fed. Gov't. had the Fed suppress the interest rate low, to encourage the Housing industry to build a plethora of houses. Now this created a glut of housing. However, this was masked by the plethora of loans given out by banks, who spread out the loans (and the risk) by selling the loans to other banks and other companies. Whenever, too many persons defaulted on or could not pay their loans or investers saw that 'malinvestment', they chose to divest themselves of the housing market and causing the bubble to cave in and eventually collapse.)
This is my view. Granted some of it is opining, whereas other statements are facts (though not cited by specific sources in this post).
Whether one agrees or disagrees with my views regarding this; that is up to them.
Upvote
0
