Should We Really Be Waging A ‘War’ On Drugs?

(This was my final English Assignment so the grammer's actually good :P)

It seems the Federal Government has declared war on just about everything: The War on Poverty, the War on Terror, the War on Bulging Waistlines (well not really but at our growing rate of obesity it’s coming), and the War on Drugs. I will focus on the Drug ‘War’ in this paper and explore the consequences of this public policy and its whether or not it actually works. I will try to show how making what should be a personal and moral choice into a criminal act does not solve any problems but actually causes more.

Government restrictions on substance usage began with alcohol and we can study the effects of this case to understand our current situations. From 1919 to 1933, the United States prohibited the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcoholic beverages—the reasons mainly being driven by religious groups who wished to rid society of the ills of alcohol consumption. However, unlike the current laws against drug use, a Constitutional Amendment had to be passed for this law to take effect. This means that first two-thirds of the Congress must approve of the bill and then it sent to the states for voting. From there it requires three-fourths of the states approval for the bill to pass—neither a short nor easy process. Once the amendment passed in 1919, its damaging effects became evident quickly.

Before Prohibition, Mafias limited themselves to gambling and petty thievery. Once the new law took effect, new business opportunities presented themselves to the groups and organized crime became a national problem. Crime lords such as Al Capone controlled entire cities using the vast profits from illegal sales of alcohol to control both political leaders and the police. High rates of violence plagued cities these crime lords ruled and most citizens participated in the illegal practice of drinking at speakeasies. This mirrors exactly the situation we see now in countries such as Mexico and Columbia where the drug cartels control entire regions of the countries. They use the enormous profits from the drug trade to buy large amounts of weapons and also to control the local government agencies. These large profits come directly from the illegality of the drugs.

By making a substance illegal you immediately create a black market for the good. Since participants have to deal outside of the rule of law there exist no regulation in these black markets. Dealers start producing higher potency drugs so that smaller portions can be used since they conceal easier. During Prohibition the popularity of stronger potency drinks increased dramatically. Spirits such as "White Mule Whiskey" and “Moonshine” allowed drinkers to become inebriated much quicker and cheaper than regular alcoholic beverages such as beer or wine. Today, dealers sell these extremely potent forms of drugs since buyers do not have to buy as much and dealers can carry less. Users then risk the hazard of overdose and greater addiction from these higher, more dangerous doses.

Legalizing drugs would produce immediate differences. Instead of back-alley dealers and violent cartels controlling the supply of drugs, private business would begin to enter the industry and provide competition. This competition would drive the prices of drugs down and eliminate the monopoly profits the drug cartels enjoy now and also eliminate most of the violence associated with the drug trade. People would then have a choice to continue buying from the violent, unsafe dealers or from local businesses in actual stores. These legal companies would provide “safer” types of drugs in terms of potency and quality to users as compared to the current forms of drugs available. Since drugs would be legal, people would have the full protection of the law when they dealt with companies and outside agencies could review them to ensure they provide “safer” drugs to users. The current illegality of drugs makes these types of market securities impossible since all drug providers have to work outside legal markets and laws.

However, many will argue such a policy (or more correctly, lack of policy) does not address the issue of actual drug use and government intervention must be used. Using history and empirical evidence, the case for drug laws seems impressively weak when compared to non-government involvement. Take the example of cigarette smoking over the past century. Before any medical studies dealt with the effects of smoking, a majority of American’s smoked. Since then however, studies done revealed the damaging long-term effects of smoking and educated the public. The smoking rate decreased from over 50% to roughly around 25% today. This dramatic decrease happened without the intervention of government, but rather due to the increase in public knowledge and allowing individuals to make personal choices about their living habits.

By not letting an individual choose how they treat their body you eliminate the only truly effective method of changing a person’s habit—their own free choice. Instead of spending money enforcing laws against personal choice, we should use those billions for educational programs that will allow a person to possess full knowledge of their actions and make a personal choice about their habits. People will always resist force aimed against preventing them from making personal choices and we should recognize that the Drug ‘War’ will not change minds but only further keep people from changing their lives for the better. It takes the moral issue of drug use and places on it the excessive burden of illegality.

The country of Portugal provides a perfect case study into the changing views on the ‘War’ on drugs since they decided in 2001 to decriminalize all drugs. To clarify, “decriminalize” does not mean “legalize”, drugs are still illegal to use and traffic but instead of jail time for use, drug users only face administrative fines. The drug usage in Portugal grew steady worse so that in 1998 the government hired a committee of experts to find the most effective way to deal with the problem. The committee concluded the best option would be to remove the criminal aspect of taking drugs and reduce the penalties to mere fines. In a report done about this policy change, it states that “Since decriminalization, life-time prevalence rates (which measure how many people have consumed a particular drug or drugs over the course of their lifetime) in Portugal have decreased for various age groups.” Contrary to fears that Portugal would become a drug haven for users the world over, 95% of the drug takers fined are Portuguese, showing no change from before the policy. Many other countries such as Spain and Germany have incorporated aspects of drug decimalization within their laws to help deal with their own drug problems.

Removing the stigma of being convicted of a criminal offense is a major reason for the effectiveness of this policy. Those who have drug problems no longer fear the penalty of jail and can seek medical help without fear. As the report states, “Portuguese decriminalization was never seen as a concession to the inevitability of drug abuse. To the contrary, it was, and is, seen as the most effective government policy for reducing addiction and its accompanying harms.” The government policy of criminalization prevented people from receiving help—a problem that went away once the harsh penalties disappeared. These real results, evident in the example of Portugal, can be achieved when we treat drug use not as a criminal act, but as a personal choice that should be addressed as a moral issue.

The current Drug ‘War’ waged by the American government needs to be majorly reanalyzed and rethought. According to recent studies by Harvard, the total cost of the ‘War’ ranges around $77 Billion and grows each year. By criminalizing drugs the government only creates violence in the forms of gangs and cartels, extremely high enforcement costs, and does nothing to address the moral issues of such choices. Countries such as Portugal should serve as leading examples of the beneficial effects decriminalizing has on actually reducing drug use. However, I feel the government thinks it can actually regulate personal behavior effectively and to cannot abandon their ‘War’ do to the government’s apparent inability to shrink. The Drug ‘War’ allows the government to expand its military presence and increase its ever-growing control over our lives. It uses what seem to be “self-evident” laws to infringe on personal liberties and try to further control our lives. Regardless of all that, the government policies do not even work to effectively reduce drug use or violence but rather cause more. I believe it is time we look to other, proven options to deal with drug use and try to end this failing ‘War’.

Tea Parties? Tea-baggers? Whats All the Fuss About?

Last Wednesday there was a bunch of "Tea" Parties in cities across the country. I was not apart of any, since I was golfing, but greatly wished to go to one. I did do my own personal part, writing up a short "Federal Government Fact Sheet" outlining the size of the national debt, future obligations, and the nature of the federal reserve. I didn't leave my name or anything because I didn't want people judging the facts on preconceived connotations. Much like the MSM (Mainstream Media) has labeled these Tea Parties as "Right-Wing, Conservative" posturing. This makes me frankly, a little pissed off. Not so much at the MSM, but at the Republicans.

What's really going on? The Republicans are simply jumping on the bandwagon of anti-big government spending and control. These Parties are not about taxes, they are about BIG-government. If the Republicans had any intelligence they would realize they are just to blame as the Democrats currently in office. Here's a great video of a Republican Congressman being booed as he tries to speak at a South Carolina Tea Party. This is exactly what we need: anger, frustration, and a large crowd. Enough with the politics of old. It's time for real action, and REAL change. The Republicans and Democrats are not at opposite sides of the political spectrum, they are both on the far left. Let me explain.

The Political Spectrum is presented the following way. On the left you have Liberalism: freedom in personal choices but highly regulated business. The extreme to the left is Socialism. On the right you have Conservatism: highly regulated personal choices but freedom in business. The extreme to the right is Fascism. However we see the problem being that the two extremes are really two names for the same thing: Totalitarianism, complete governmental control. The way to remedy this seeming conflict is to re-imagine what the political spectrum is. Instead of liberal vs. conservative, we place total government control on the left and zero government control on the right. Modern liberalism and conservatism would lie near the middle-left on this spectrum.

So now that we see that the two "competing" ideologies in our country are really much more similar than we imagine them, we should start looking at other options. Libertarianism offers a real change to these failing ideologies. Libertarianism says we should have no regulations on personal behavior (drugs, prostitution, religion, etc) and no regulations on business (no central bank, no SEC, no IRS). Basically, NO government, the far right of the new political spectrum. It truly is the only way to bring about real change in our country today. We have to start realizing that our problems lie not in greed, lack of regulation, crooked banksters, etc.; but that government causes all these problems to manifest into the financial disasters we are experiencing today. I will try to address specific ways this is true in future posts.

So the tea parties were a start. A start to a hopefully growing sense of resentment at our government. Enough with the current conservative, republican calls to a "limited" government. Don't you realize there will never exist such a paradigm? Government will always grow out of its restraints, and become large once again. I believe that the only way to really fix our problems is to purge the source of the disease, the State.

Happy Tax Freedom Day!

Congrats America! Today is the day that we have "technically" earned enough wages to pay all the government tax, but the CBO calculated that actually if you factor in the $1.5 trillion deficit (almost forgot about that little detail) tax freedom day is actually another 45 days away, on May 29th. But thats not that bad... working half the year just to pay the government, is it? I mean think about all the great things they're doing for us: buying "toxic" assets (what does that even mean?), buying trillions of dollars of failed mortgages and government securities (I believe the Onion ran a piece on this kind of spending...), firing CEOs, and who can forget Bo? ( I sure hope Obama kept his promise of keeping it a purebred, because God knows thats what we care about...)

Well maybe those things aren't quite working out so great, but at least the state is spending the rest of our tax dollars wisely... aren't they? Then how come in Hawaii residents used their own money and labor to fix a park that the government said would take millions of dollars and years to fix? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that private enterprise is both cost efficient and actually gets the job done.

The Reason Foundation has put together a couple videos for tax day to remind us what we're paying for: "Tax Facts to Make Your Head Explode" and "3 Great Reasons to Pay Your Taxes".

I already blogged about why taxes are legal theft here, so please read that to get my basic overview on how the government legally steals from you. Just think about it, if I came up to you, demanded 30% of your money, and pulled a gun on you if you didn't comply I would be thrown in jail as a petty crook! So how can we give the state power we as indivduals do not possess? We can't, it doesn't make moral, ethical, or logic sense whatsoever, but we accept it anyways.

The State is force, the State is aggression. I do not care what services they provide (they all suck anyways) the simple truth is they act with force and not by choice. Would anyone in their right mind actually pay their taxes if they had a real choice? Hell no! Everyone knows half the money is wasted on needless bureaucracy and after all of that we still get a half finished product.

Arguments for taxes I've heard have included: "If the government didn't provide roads, schools, or police we wouldn't have them", or "I don't mind paying taxes for health care and schools, I just don't support things like the War". Well both arguments are flawed. It's ridiculous to think the government is the only entity that could provide these services. If that's true we wouldn't have private schools, private highways, or private security... which we have them all and they provide vastly better service. And to say you support some things but not others the government does is to say you don't support the government at all. Because you are partly realizing the lack of choice that comes from forced taxes, and that the government has total control over your money and how it spends it. We must follow this to its logical end that the State is aggression and is no better than a gang or the Mafia.

Well this is not the most well put together blog post, but I'm glad I got some thoughts down. I also think I've set a new personal record for links (go me). Please comment and read! Thanks.

$77 Billion - The true cost of the Drug War

More and more people are starting to question the so called "War on Drugs" and its true costs to society. In this above video, a Harvard (yes 'the' Harvard) professor of economics argues that around $77 billion could be saved if Marijuana was legalized. This issue has been a hot topic recently with videos like Ron Paul discussing Marijuana on Larry King. My question is: If Prohibition did not work in the 1920s with alcohol, how do we expect prohibition to work today with drugs?

This is a very interesting topic to myself because I use to scoff at arguments that drugs should be legalized. "How can we legalize hard drugs?" I would ask, "There has to be a limit to what people are allowed to take shouldn't there?". But then one has to ask, with prescription drugs now the fourth leading cause of death in america, is the system really working?

You can look at the issue a few different ways. One way is to say that by legalizing drugs would add enormous revenue to the government by way of taxes on the drugs, and by the amount of funds not spent on fighting drug cartels. Another way is to argue about the benefits drugs like marijuana have in treating pain especially in cancer patients, and how it lacks the dangerous side-effects of most prescription drugs. But I think the most important way to look at the issue is it is a matter of personal choice.

By creating a law the government is simply saying all the obvious side effects of drug abuse (loss of job, broken family relations, deteriorating health, addiction, extreme money cost, death...) are not enough for people. Instead the State has to pile on fines and jail time to add to such costs. But instead of all cost being put squarely on the individual who decides to take drugs, all of society has to pay for one persons choice through the funding of the "War of Drugs". But its ludicrous. If a person thinks they can avoid all the inherent costs already associated with taking drugs, what is a fine or jail time to them? If they think they can avoid the inherent costs, then they most assuredly think they can avoid any state induced costs. Why do I have to pay for a choice someone has already decided to take regardless of a law? I shouldn't because the State has no right to force someone not to make that choice.

By taking drugs, that person has made the choice to accept the costs inherent with drug use, and that is their choice to make. It is obvious that a 'law' does not keep someone from not making such a choice or we wouldn't spend billions fighting drug use. Whenever the State tries to tell people they cannot do something, they usually do exactly that. We should have learned our lesson with the failed policy of alcohol Prohibition (at least that was Constitutionally amended unlike the current drug prohibition). People will not stop taking drugs because of a law, just like people will not stop speeding or stealing because its against the law. The only way to effectively combat such aberrant behavior is through education and letting people make choices on their own. Sometimes letting someone fail is the only way they can learn. The freedom to fail is how we can only truly succeed.

Bailouts and Bull**** - 20/20 special

Youtube Link

John Stossel tells it how it is again. This special starts out by exposing the "consensus" opinion about stimulus packages then deals with other government influenced issues: roads, education, the American Dream, and immigration. Honestly I don't know how people actually think the government can do a better job than the private sector. I think its because people equate it this way: private=profits=evil.... But people fail to see the backward thinking this is.

Profits are not "evil" but actually serve the interest of the people much, much better than the public sector. When profits are the driving force it is the consumer who decides how well the company does. If the company cannot provide a service that suits a consumer their profits will drop and the company will either change for the better, change their business to something profitable, or fail. However, if the government is in charge they are not driven by profits, so they are not driven by the consumer. Instead they rely on tax dollars -- money that is not earned by providing a superior product but instead by forcefully taking money from citizens. What would you prefer? A company that responds to your decision to buy its product or not? Or a company that does not care whether or not its product is what's best for the consumer because it will get money for it regardless?

Contrary to popular belief, services such as roads, health care, and education do not have to be provided by the government. In fact, history shows us that when put in the care of the private sector all of these services are provided better, cheaper, and to more people. Again I think the best way to think about it is to change how we view "profits". To profit from something is not to take advantage of people. Profits are indications that people have chosen the goods or services a particular company offers over other companies. In order to keep profits companies need to keep providing this superior service or they will lose their consumers to competing firms. In a free society there can be no "taking advantage" of consumers because they can choose not to buy from a company that doesn't provide a superior good or service. However, when the government provides something we have no choice -- we have to pay taxes, regardless if we feel the good or service we receive is worth it or not. Now if that isn't "taking advantage" of people I don't know what is.

Nationalized Citibank Commercial - Funny

The New F***ing Citibank - watch more funny videos

Obama's Budget: A Visual View

Visual Look at Obama's Huge Budget

Had to post something today. These link provides a very straight forward and easy to read overview of the Whitehouse budget. I could go into a long discussion of each line but I'd rather let you look and judge for yourself.

Don't you wish you could spend more than you earn and have it be perfectly fine? It doesn't work for individuals and it doesn't work for governments. It is the same result for both... bankruptcy. When that happens to a government, bad things happen (think back to World War II and Germany and you get the picture).

I Am So Fed Up... Why Aren't You!?

*Disclaimer* -- This is a rant, read with caution --

I really am fed up. I don't know how much more I can take. It seems every single day I am utterly amazed at the complete bullshit that comes from Washington. I can't count how many times I have said "this is ridiculous", only to have to repeat myself the next day. I'm so fed up at the obvious lack of common sense prevalent in our politicians, our media, our schools, and our country. I am so fed up at being called "radical" or having "interesting ideas". I am especially fed up with the complete lack of interest and knowledge shown by almost all of my peers.

I just don't understand why issues I find so vitally important to my future and our country's future go unnoticed by the vast majority of today's youth. So many people my age were so eager and excited to be involved in politics for the first time--especially when it came to Obama-- but trying asking them their stance on a particular policy or viewpoint I was met with a rather blank stare, or more directly, a honest "I don't really know". I don't know... but I have an opinion on it. I don't know but I'll cast my vote for him because I have to right? I mean... I can't vote for that other guy!

I guess I can't blame my generation that much. We are products of the culture around us. A culture that idolizes short-term pleasure and cannot plan any further than the weekend. We hold childhood beliefs, yet conform to the latest trends, never really decided on what we actually believe but rather letting our emotions guide our actions. We easily profess faith in leaders who promise everything, and disregard those who promise nothing they cannot do or should do.

Of course, many will say they aren't quite as shallow as I suggest, and they are correct. It's not so much that we're shallow but that we really aren't anything. We don't like to study things or take a particular stance that may be considered "out of the norm" because we like to fit in; "don't rock the boat" we are told, leave such issues to adults.

Well the adults fucked up... big time. I have lost all respect for any leader responsible for getting us into this situation, then having the audacity to tell us how to fix it. I refuse to let myself listen to the rhetoric one day longer, the lies, and broken promises have been spoken one to many times. Everyday I just want to scream at my tv, at the talking heads on the talk shows, at the corrupt politicians who make the situation worse everyday, at the mindless sheep who believe everything they are told without an oz. of mental effort put into really understanding it. But hey, why the hell do I care so much? There's nothing I can do about it right? Life's to short to be stressed out...

Well, I do care. I haven't cared about anything quite as much as this, and to ignore it would be an insult to my intelligence. These aren't irrelevant issues--they affect my life and the lives of everyone. I can't just sit still--or worse ignore--these people who are deciding things that will affect how I live my life. Damnit! Only I should be able to make those kind of decisions. I don't want some asshole in Washington who knows nothing about me telling me how to live my life!

People... wake up! Seriously, you have no excuses anymore. Research, discuss, debate, learn, admit when you don't know something, have the courage to stand up for what you believe in, and even more important, have the courage to actually put your belief in something. These are extraordinary times we are living in. Stop watching history and take an active part in it. You only have one life on earth... are you going to let the forces around you control your life? Or do you have the strength to determine your own path? I hope you do.

Taxes: Legalized Theft

Taxes are legalized thief, plain and simple. The government is “legally” forcing money from you and we are expected not only to peacefully comply, but we are actually told that it is patriotic to pay taxes. I think I might drown in the bullshit…

Let me tell you why taxes are legalized thief in a simple example. Say you are walking home one night and suddenly feel a gun pressed into your skull. A man then asks you to either give him your wallet, or he will take it from your dead body (to reference Godfather, he is making you “an offer you couldn’t refuse”). Now do you really have a choice in this situation? Not really. You either lose your wallet or you lose your life, and a high majority of people would chose to save their life. Now I’m going to do this same example but change it up a little bit. Again you are walking home and a man comes up to you. He tells you to give him his wallet but gives you the explanation that he will use your money to pay for your kid’s school, your roads, provide healthcare to the needy, and protect you from terrorists. If say that sounds great but I would rather get those services from someone who specializes in each of those services. The man replies that if you don’t hand over the wallet he will shoot you, once again bringing up the lack of choice you had in the last scenario. Now I think we can all agree that the situation is the same, the man is still forcefully taking your money, but in the second scenario the man claims his motives are for your best interest.

To bring this back to the topic at hand all one has to do is replace the man with the government in the second situation and you have what we call taxes. The government tells you that you must give a predetermined percentage of your wages to the government or you will face the consequences. First being fines, then if you refuse to pay the fines you face jail time, and if you try to refuse the jail time? When then you will actually find a gun pointed at your head, except this time instead of a thief pointing the gun it’s a policeman (who is controlled by the government, but I think you get the point). But just like the second situation the government tells you that this is necessary for them to provide all those wondrous benefits they bestow upon us; public roads, public education, Medicare & Medicaid, national defense (which has somehow extended to well beyond our national borders), and so on with the thousands of government programs implemented in today’s society. But hold on… I thought we determined in the examples that regardless of what the man’s intentions were to use your money, that it was still wrong for him to forcefully take it from you?

Logically my next question is then how do we make this major exception for the government? How is it when the government takes your money in the form of taxes and does so with the stipulation that if you do not pay you will face punishment, that we just lie back and accept it? Quite simply I think we are both ignorant and fearful. We are ignorant of the alternatives to taxation and government control in general. And we are fearful of the implications of not paying taxes and also what would happen if government was not given money to fund all of its programs. Also a major factor is that of inertia. The fact is as long as there has ever been an entity label “government”, that entity has collected taxes on its members and this has remained true for thousands of years. So, taxes, having been around for as long as current written history, this force of inertia makes most people not even stop and consider the implications taxation truly has and whether or not it is just or not. The force needed to stop something such as taxation is so great that most people do not even bother to worry about it.

Regardless, I feel that there are things people should know about taxation and the government in general – firstly, that taxes are inherently wrong (which I feel I’ve already made a simple case for); second, that the government should not provide all the services it does and thus should have no need for taxes in the first place; and thirdly, that private enterprise can both provide for all the services government offers but do so at an incredibly efficient and fair fashion.

What If? -- Ron Paul Speech

Great Video made about Ron Paul's "What If?" speech. This will be famous one day.

here's the link to the actual speech

Longer School Years?

Department of Education Chief wants to make school year longer

Yet another bright idea comes out of Washington (these guys just love "reform" and "change", that I can believe in). New Education Chief Arne Duncan feels that America school children are not in school enough and that is why we are falling behind China and India (and a lot of other countries too) in educational rankings. It makes perfect sense--kids receive terrible public education and teaching, but if we just leave them in the school for an extra month they'll magically perform better. That is of course, if the school district is given more money (and kids are our future so why would you deny them money?).

No our school systems don't need more money, they need less bureaucracy. Education is perhaps the best thing a child will ever receive in his/her lifetime and we want to put that responsibility in the hands of the same people who run the post office and the IRS? Are we insane? No, just ignorant to the fact that the laws of economics don't just apply to Wall St., but rather the principles extend into most facets of life. The problem with our schools isn't the the length of the school year, it's the lack of competition and accountability within the system. When you combine both the teacher's unions with government bureaucracy, you suddenly have thousands of barriers put up between children receiving the best education.

Think of it this way. Schools are no different than any other business--they offer a service, education. In order to make profits they have to offer a superior service than the other schools--this is called competition. If the school cannot keep up with the other schools and offers only a 50% graduation rate (true of a vast amount of public high schools) no one would want their kids to go there and that school would fail. That possibility of failing is what would motivate teachers and school officials to really invest in children's education since their pay depends on it. This is not the case today. The opposite is true actually. If a school district receives horrible marks it doesn't close down, it receives more money. The teachers have no motivation to provide the best service possible because of the job security teacher's unions provide, making it almost impossible to fire a teacher. This is not how a successful business is run and not how education (our most important asset) should be run.

This special report "Stupid In America" by John Stossel sums up the problems well.

White House Releases Monstrous Budget

White House delivers $3.6 Trillion Budget to Congress

In a time where everyone is forced to spend less in order to effectively deal with the current economic crises, Washington has decided to cut loose with one of the largest federal budgets in history. The budget includes plan for increased health care benefits, shifting the energy economy from oil and gas, and boosting federal aid to education. But, some good news is Obama is committed to taking the troops out of Iraq... by sending them straight to Afghanistan (he's still keeping his promise right?). So much for "increased diplomacy". Where is all the money for this budget going to come from?? Higher Taxes on those "plenty of rich people" Barney Frank hates so much.

It's all part of "trickle-up" Keynesian Economic thinking politicians have fallen in love with: simply put, by giving money to the lowest class they will in turn immediately spend the money, business will have more profits and hire more people, more people have jobs so they spend more money, and so on. Problem is in order for the government to give the lower classes money they need to take it from somewhere: the upper and middle classes. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone deserves a tax break. Everyone. For god's sake half the country doesn't even pay income tax! No, the problem is not the rich have to much money--the problem is the government has too much power. It is the only entity to have positive growth last year, the highest employer last year, and with no coincidence, the biggest debtor in World History.

The government has become the dead beat junkie relative, always needing just a little more money, then he'll sober up. But if you don't hand over your money he won't survive, so he says. The thing is you have the choice to not give your dead beat relative money, but with the government they don't give you a choice. There is never a choice with the government, they hold all the power and can force you to do anything. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with a single thing the government does... you still have to pay your taxes or face the penalty. The worst, and saddest, part of it all is people actually believe the government isn't a dead beat, but rather they see Salvation. But the reality is, no matter how much you want to believe and hope--2+2 will always = 4... even if the government says its 5.

Federal Obligations Exceed World GDP (aka we're screwed)

U.S. Obligations exceed $65 Trillion

You think you might have a debt problem? It's nothing compared to the kind of debt the U.S. federal government has racked up. This is really gotten beyond ridiculous. I can't believe we talk about "stimulus packages" and not about "debt packages" which is exactly what they are. I don't know how to put it any more simply: the government has NO money, none, zip, nadda, zelch-- all they have is T-Bonds and a printing press. Foreign countries have to buy our bonds (our debt) in order for us to actually have a "stimulus" package and it seems China will continue to do that-for now- but has shown apprehension in the past. Once China wakes up (which may take years) then there will be no one left to afford our debt. That's when the printing presses start rolling non-stop. This isn't something that "could never happen to the US"... we are not immune to the laws of economics. All one has to do is look at the current situation in Zimbabwe to see the endgame to this inflation game.