Tuesday, December 4, 2012

The Phenomenon of Money

Summary Money is everything, money has history, and everyone has an opinion on money. Money has been around for centuries and no one really knows why it came to be but it’s logical that we need money. We use money for trade, to start a business, and to evaluate current and past economic states. Money is used in government more than any other entity in the world, especially by The United States Government. It is even included in the document that created our government. Money has changed forms but stayed relatively similar since its conception. It takes money to make money and to start a business. Money has a downside because everyone wants it but it is the people that create and use money that makes money immoral and not the actual currency itself. The Federal Reserve System determines how much money is in circulation for the United States but there are critics. There’s one thing for certain: money affects us all, every day. “Money makes the world go round.” “Money is the root of all evil.” “Never use your own money.” You’ve probably heard these statements before. Money is the current medium of exchange for goods and services in the form of coins and banknotes . Money is also the “liquid” (and hence, not frozen from use) form of capital, which is the wealth “owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/) and is typically used in all facets of business. In most countries, money is currently a type of “fiat” currency, meaning it does not represent ownership of a tangible commodity and is really only a way to pay a debt. Money used to come in the form of commodities like gold, silver, or salt. Currencies can be exchanged for capital, which includes labor, equipment, or buildings. Why do we use money, currencies, and commodities instead of everyone just working together to share what they see around them? Do all people need money to survive? Should capital be private or public? Where do you get capital to start and continue running a business? There are many opinions and theories about all of these questions concerning money, and there is a lot to understand about the history and future of money for people around the world. Money has existed for centuries in different forms and is a phenomenon within historic societies. The first coins were not stamped and were a measurement of weight. The first stamped coins are thought to have been stamped around 650 B.C and were typically made of gold or silver. With the introduction of banknotes, or paper representation of commodity money, people could carry more money around with them because the weight was not an issue. The United States dollar was linked to gold until Nixon delinked the U.S. dollar in 1971, and since then the American dollar has drastically lost its value due to the increase of money supply and the printing of fiat money, or inconvertible paper money made legal tender by a government decree (http://www.merriam-webster.com/). No one really knows why humans created money but it seems to be a logical progression of bartering. Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School of Economics states, “As each economizing individual becomes increasingly more aware of his economic interest, he is led by this interest, without any agreement, without legislative compulsion, and even without regard to the public interest, to give his commodities in exchange for other, more saleable, commodities, even if he does not need them for any immediate consumption purpose. With economic progress, therefore, we can everywhere observe the phenomenon of a certain number of goods, especially those that are most easily saleable at a given time and place, becoming, under the powerful influence of custom, acceptable to everyone in trade, and thus capable of being given in exchange for any other commodity.” (Menger, Dingwall, and Hoselitz) An example, to illustrate this concept, might go something like this: Imagine that you lived in a society where you did have to barter and that you were a sheep herder. You could not possibly find someone to trade your sheep or wool for food or health services or whatever individual need you had directly. You would need a way to transfer your goods to an intermediary and then transfer that again for your food or services. Therefore, the only logical explanation is to create that intermediary which could be “most easily saleable at a given time and place”, so that it would be “thus capable of being given in exchange for any other commodity”: money. Different commodities have been used throughout the ages as money. The word “salary” comes from the Latin word “salarium”, and it is believed to have gotten that name because Roman soldiers were paid in salt. (www.ahdictionary.com) Historically though, gold and silver have had the longest run as the sole legal tender for world governments. Gold and silver have played a controversial role in recent years for the leader of the free world and the most powerful capitalist nation today. In Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution it states: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” ("Constitution of the United States of America") Therefore, we should have been using only those two things to trade since 1789. Gold and silver lasted nearly 200 years as our nation’s way to barter before President Nixon changed that. Because of war and shortages of gold and silver, there were reasons to change our monetary system, but today there are many people asking to bring back the gold standard. United States Congressman Ron Paul calls commodity money, or convertible money, “sound money” and is one of the leading voices of the movement in favor of a return to commodity money or, more specifically, gold and silver. The current argument about U.S. money and the price of loans originates between two economic schools of thought: Austrian Economics and Keynesian Economics. John Maynard Keynes theorized that more centralized or “government” spending will increase growth in a more stable manner. The Austrian School, created by Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser and others, asserted that the economy should be treated as laissez-faire (or “leave alone”) as possible. They claim that interest rates, or the “price” of money, should instead be set by companies and banks lending out their capital, and that the “boom and bust” cycles we go through are actually created by an unsustainable amount of credit being loaned out, typically by the Federal Reserve System. When Nixon took America off of the Gold Standard, the New York Times quoted him, saying, “I am now a Keynesian in economics.” Before the Federal Reserve was created, which was 100 years ago next year, the value of gold typically stayed in the range of 27-30 dollars an ounce, but then became suddenly very volatile from the late 1930’s to the mid-40’s due to The Great Depression and World War II. Since 2009 the price of gold has stayed above $1000 per ounce, proving that our dollar doesn’t buy what it used to. Before 1971, our dollar read “Silver Certificate” along the top, but now it reads “Federal Reserve Note”. This illustrates how U.S. money now has only the value that a buyer is willing to take for it and is not linked to any actual commodity. Why were gold and silver used for so long and then suddenly taken away? There have been many writings by various theorists on the issue, but most mainstream scholars now mention that the demand for gold is higher, there are problems associated with the overprinting of the U.S. dollar, and the Federal Reserve has imbalanced and unlimited powers that should be more strictly regulated or taken away altogether. The U.S. dollar has lost so much value in the last several decades that it isn’t even worth the cotton it is printed on. Just last week, Congress discussed getting rid of the George Washington dollar bill and moving to coins in order to save money in the long run. If the money wasn’t devalued so much this suggestion wouldn’t have even been made and prices would be more stable. The truth of the U.S. dollar is that while the value of things like milk and fuel haven’t changed in several generations, the price, or amount of U.S. money it takes to acquire them certainly has, creating the illusion that things are continually becoming more expensive when they are actually not. So money is a part of capital, which is anything relating to or being assets that add to the long-term net worth of a corporation. In economics, it means all assets within a business and can include machinery, buildings, money, goods that are already made to make other goods and services, supplies, and even labor or people. Companies need capital to start up and to run day-to-day business, and start-up capital can be acquired in many ways. A savings account accruing interest from one’s youth is a long but rewarding way to start a business. Many mortgage their homes or sell valuables to make the investment. However, the majority of people who set out to start a company do not have the luxury of enough capital in any form, and have to take out a business loan. Trying to get the money from friends and family is somewhat risky and complicated way to get capital. Risk is involved with all investments and business ideas, but personal relationships may not be able to handle the risks associated with business or the unfortunate side effects of loss or failure. One benefit to borrowing from family and friends is the good chance that it could be interest free, since you fully intend to pay back the money. Finding outside investors or private investors is an effective but risky way to get capital, and many advise that business starters be sure know their business well if going with outside investors, because the investors will want to know quite a few intimate details of the business. In most cases investors want to be part owners or charge high interest rates. Banks are another good source of capital. Commercial loans are often the best bet, as they are the most common way to acquire capital. Timing is often said to be everything, because it could determine the overall interest paid and interest paid on all loans can, technically, be called the price of the loan. It is what you will pay back the lender for lending you the money. The current issue with the price of loans is that they are grossly underestimated in the current market. The Federal Reserve or “Fed” sets the interest rate at which it lends money to banks, and then those banks lend out to average people trying to start a business. Granted, a low price is a good thing when you are trying to borrow money, but there are more risks in the current market for those trying to start a business. Perhaps the most important component to starting a business, after deciding what type of loan to get, is creating the business plan. The business plan is a set of goals, statements, and outlooks that the company plans to start and achieve. Entrepreneurs try to add the type of company and background information or knowledge and expertise they have about the industry, because it is crucial to gaining the confidence needed from investors or banks to provide the startup capital. Since money has been around for so long, many people have theorized about the morality of it. The concept of payment of debts using money has intrigued philosophers, economists, and tax-paying citizens alike for centuries, and Aristotle was one such person. Aristotle wrote about commonly determined ways people lived and how they would be more moral in his series of books called Politics. He would propose a question and then present the pros and cons of the answers he saw. Some of his questions were: Should women be owned privately or publicly? Should children be owned privately or publicly? Should property be owned privately or publicly? and “… should the citizens of the perfect state have their possessions in common or not?”(Aristotle) Aristotle was such an influential and a powerful thinker, it could be argued that if his answer to the last question had been that it was morally true that all things should be publicly owned, most societies today would not need money or the exchange of payments for debts. One reason for his position was his belief that possessions should be privately owned, for the most part. His argument was thus: “It is clearly better that property should be private, but the use of it common; and the special business of the legislator is to create in men this benevolent disposition. Again, how immeasurably greater is the pleasure, when a man feels a thing to be his own; for surely the love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in vain, although selfishness is rightly censured; this, however, is not the mere love of self, but the love of self in excess, like the miser's love of money; for all, or almost all, men love money and other such objects in a measure. And further, there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property.” (Aristotle) One group of Austrians explained the need for privately owned possessions in this way: If 1,000 people lived in a community then they would all do exactly 1/1,000th of their part for the community. We see, even today, that there will be some people who will be either unable or unwilling to do their part and thus rely on the other majority of people to do it for them, leaving at least one person to do 2/1,000ths of the total job for the community but not receiving any additional benefits. (Summers) It could be argued that when Aristotle says “but the use of it common” he is inferring that the people of a community should be able to use privately owned property, although he did not say much about compensation for that property. Either way, without money, the transfer of the private property would be very difficult. -Imagine the amount of visits a dentist would have to make to buy just a few pieces of equipment if he had to barter for everything! There is little evidence of wide-scale bartering done in history. It is common knowledge that there was bartering going on, though. It seems feasible that you could trade your way to the top without money, just as Kyle MacDonald did in 2005. He took one single red paper clip and, in just under a year of trading up 14 times, had a two-story farmhouse. (MacDonald) It is not feasible or realistic that everyone could do that, however. In the current market, the most common source of income is labor, which means having a job and a paycheck. There are issues that have risen by those working for large companies and corporations, though. There are cases of people claiming to not make enough to live on at these jobs. The morality of money and labor comes in to effect with all jobs, and in these cases, many are exploited and forced to take what they are offered, even if it is unrealistic for a human to survive on. Some people look at the difference between what an upper executive would make compared to those below them, and feel that it is too great, not justified, and in many cases downright greedy and immoral. The infamous story of the American energy, commodities, and services company Enron illustrates how some large corporate executives possess the power to hide money and “cook the books” or lie about company losses, which can and did destroy the one-time giant, taking with it the savings and retirement funds of thousands of its unknowing employees and investors. Many people in the Occupy movement are active in protests in major cities across America, and claim that skilled workers, devoted long-term employees, and educated graduates are not paid fair wages, able to find acceptable positions offering reasonable pay and benefits, or provided expected retirement and savings options after years of loyal service. Their claims have many students moving from the creative and liberal arts programs over to the maths and sciences or business programs. For example, the average annual income of Americans in 2011 was $42,979.61, according to the Social Security Administration (“National Wage Index), but the average starting pay for graduates with a Supply Chain Management degree, according to a recent BusinessWeek report, was $49,500 and after 5 years jumped to almost $100,000 annually (Taylor). One way to close the controversial gap between worker and executive might be profit sharing; when the company makes more, the workers make more. Some believe that the capital owners should first look at this model to be moral about their capital and money, and it seems like the kind of “benevolent disposition” that was the “special business” of Aristotle’s legislator. Objectionists like Ayn Rand wrote about laissez-faire capitalism in her stories: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which support the idea that we should continue to let the capital owners decide whether or not to be greedy, but then she also wrote “The Virtue of Selfishness”. It may best be explained that money is not moral or evil but that what money can be used for and how it is used and distributed can certainly be found moral or evil. Much like the saying, “Guns don’t kill people: People kill people”, it is not the gun that pulls the trigger and it is not the money that bankrupts people and leaves them in poverty. As Aristotle said, people should not hoard, whether it is money, women, or private property. Money makes the world go round because we need to be able to exchange goods and services between people and companies and without it, there’s a good chance the entire world would still be back in the Stone Age. However, the truly moral people should arguably avoid greed; use their prosperity in ways which do no harm, and share their excess to help the less fortunate. Acknowledgements Money affects us every day and is probably one of the most interesting subjects anyone can talk about because it affects us every day. I’d like to acknowledge the centuries of philosophers, economists, and politicians that have studied and theorized about currencies and money. My past reading and understanding on this subject allowed me to write about this subject without the need of every sentence to be a quote. Also, I’d like to acknowledge the one friend of mine, Caycee Carley, that I trusted enough to proofread my findings and thoughts on this subject. My sources include: Aristotle. "Book Two." . N.p.. Web. 20 Nov 2012. . Editor, ed. "The American Heritage Dictionary." . N.p.. Web. 4 Dec 2012. . MacDonald, Kyle. "One Red Paperclip." . N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec 2012. . Menger, Carl, James Dingwall, and Berthold Frank Hoselitz. Principles of Economics. New York: New York University Press, 1981. eBook. . Summers, Matt. "Aristotle's Legacy: The Reality and Ethics of Communal Property." Ludwig von Mises Institute. N.p., 17 2009. Web. November 20, 2012. . Taylor, Victoria. "Supply Chain Management: The Next Big Thing?." . Bloomberg Businessweek, 12 2011. Web. 20 Nov 2012. . United States. Congress. Constitution of the United States of America. Philadelphia : , 1776. Web. . United States. Social Security Administration. National Wage Index. 2012. Web. .

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Bill O'Reilly Owes Wounded Veterans some money!

I'm moving to the Virgin Islands... RON PAUL WON HIS FIRST CAUCUS POPULAR VOTE! Bill O'Reiley owes some veterans 1000 dollars! At least I have faith in one area of our lands!

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Little paper/rant my friend Jake wrote.

I have always hated politics. I still do. People that know me have been asking me, “Why do you all of a sudden care so much about politics?” I’m tired of seeing a large portion of my paycheck go to pay for things that I disagree with. My taxes--$16,000 last year--were more than they have ever been and still our national debt rose to over 15 trillion dollars. It was 5 trillion just 10 years ago. If you don’t know me, I work a lot. Last year I put in 80-100 hour weeks for about 8 months. Then the government stepped in to take a large portion of the money I worked hard for only to turn around and spend it on wars, welfare, bailouts, and free healthcare. So, I began to ask around to find out if most people were upset like I was.
The responses I received surprised me. Most of the people I asked didn’t mind giving a large percentage of their money to the federal government. When I would follow up and ask why, I almost always got the same response: “Our taxes go to help our community. We need taxes for roads.” My response was, “Well, actually most roads are paid for by the state. Your state taxes and tolls pay for those.” The usual response was usually, “Well, what about schools, police, firemen, etc?” Some of the people I spoke to had degrees in economics or were studying for a degree in economics. Now granted, some federal government funding trickles down to the state level, but our state tax dollars pay for all the aforementioned costs. All of the things that seem to directly benefit and sustain a community come from property tax and state sales tax. Most people I began talking to didn’t seem to realize that. I can only assume it was because they were residents of Texas, renting, and had never directly paid property tax. Yet, everyone who pays rent is indirectly paying property tax. If you rent, then someone owns that property and they are paying property tax on it. Your rent dollars indirectly go to pay property tax.

“Well what do my federal tax dollars pay for?” I thought you’d never ask! Well we’ve spent an estimated 3-4 Trillion dollars by having troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say “having troops there” rather than saying “war” because technically in order to “go to war” the President has to go to Congress, ask for a declaration, and a vote has to pass to declare war (this never happened with our most recent invasion of the Middle East). Yes, President Bush was authorized to use military force for resolutions. But to me, that sounds like a loop hole in policy in order to use our military for whatever the President wants without actually declaring war. Having 150,000 troops occupying other countries for years is a war and it is expensive. If you want to be over there trying to fix problems that were sparked during the Cold War, then do it with democracy: Take a vote. Declare war. If you don’t want to read about it, watch the movie Charlie Wilson’s War or this clip.

Where else do we spend our tax dollars? Well we bailed out a car company because we didn’t want a bunch of Americans to lose their jobs and to have a major American industry take a dive. Don’t we believe in Capitalism anymore? Isn’t Capitalism American? If someone has a bad service or makes a bad product then the demand goes down and they either fix it or file for bankruptcy. Did General Motors file for bankruptcy and become a smaller, more efficient version of its former self? No, they asked the government for money and the government gave them billions. When was the last time you saw an Oldsmobile or Mercury and said, “Man! I have got to have that!” Yet, people say we had to do it. We just had to bail them out. It was our duty as Americans. Really? Well why didn’t the all-American Ford get bailout money? They asked for a line of credit, but not a handout. I’m not saying a line of credit from the government is right (that’s a whole different topic), but it’s far better than a free handout. What do our actions say to companies that get in financial hot water in the future? Go ahead and take risks that you shouldn’t. If you fail there are no repercussions. We’ll get the government to help you out.

What about banks? The same banks that Americans enter to apply for loans took bailout money. Why did they need bailout money? Much like Mitsubishi Motors in the past, the banks gave money to people who couldn’t pay it back. CEOs of major banks and corporations received bailout money and gave themselves bonuses for letting a business fail. Nice work.

I work in restaurants. If my competitors had an inferior product, bad atmosphere, and awful service, I would expect them to fail. If the government swooped in and gave them money to help them turn a profit, I would be furious. What motivation would I have to work hard if I watched my competition succeed based on how steep their failure was. It’s not fair to Toyota, Volkswagen, Mercedes, etc. It’s not fair competition. We are literally breeding laziness. Speaking of which, let’s talk welfare.

Welfare was first established to help those in need. Growing up during the oil collapse in Houston, I have seen firsthand that the economy can take a dive and that hardworking smart people can struggle to find a job. I understand the need for programs dedicated to help people who literally cannot keep themselves afloat. Welfare used to be something that was embarrassing. Now it is celebrated and expected. I’ve seen misuse first hand. In grocery stores, I’ve witnessed people using food stamp money to buy chocolate covered strawberries on Valentine’s day or huge $40 cakes for birthday parties. Some argue, “Well shouldn’t they be allowed to celebrate?” My response is, why not bake a cake? Why not do something special for your loved one? Overspending on luxuries is something you must sacrifice when going through a rough time.

I’ve seen people sell their food stamp card for cash. I’ve heard people talk about having another baby just to get more money from the government. Why is wrong to ask welfare recipients to submit to drug testing? Some defend the recipients’ children. Do you really think a drug addicted parent will use their welfare money on a child? I’ve had people come in to interview for a job dressed like a slob; cussing, chewing on dip, and unable to answer basic questions with a complete sentence. At the end of the interview, they would slide a piece of paper across the table and ask me to sign it proving that they were out looking for a job so that they could still qualify for benefits. When is enough, enough?

I’d like to talk about free healthcare, but this is already getting too long.


So, why do I care now? Well, my view before was that no one running actually had a very different view from the rest. They all broke promises. They all lied. They all altered their opinions to reflect the majority. Why vote when my options were between a sleazebag and an A-hole? Then, along comes Ron Paul who has been speaking the truth his whole career. His message has been consistent, but was easily dismissed because it wasn’t what people wanted to hear: “Wait, I might actually have to work hard to get the things I want? Why would I want that?”
Ron Paul literally wants to bring our troops home. He’s not just saying that as if he’s reading it off a bumper sticker. People argue that would put us in danger. Can someone explain how having another 150,000 troops here at home puts us in danger? “Iran might be making a nuke!” Didn’t we learn our lesson with Iraq and their so called “weapons of mass destruction?” People call Ron Paul dangerous and label him an isolationist. We’re acting like the guy at the bar who has had too much to drink; who tries to pick a fight with anyone looking in his direction. Is being at the bar, minding your own business considered “isolationism?” Is Canada considered an isolationist because they aren’t policing the world? How would Iran even get a nuke to the United States? We can’t afford to be at war anymore. Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. Where does it end?

Ron Paul believes in restoring the constitution. Pro-life or pro-choice isn’t even a stance for him because he doesn’t believe that it’s the federal government’s right to decide such social issues. He wants to shrink government.

Everyone is worried about creating jobs. Jobs aren’t created by the government. They’re created by people who have the money to employ workers. Obama is trying to take credit for the economy. It’s absurd. We’re further in debt than we’ve ever been. What Obama is proposing is similar to getting an advance on your credit card, then believing you’re better off financially because you have cash in the bank. It’s not. You owe it back--plus interest. I could have done a lot with my $16,000 that I paid in taxes. I want it back! Our Founding Fathers fought against taxation without representation. Who is representing me? Someone who wants to take my money and buy tanks, chocolate covered strawberries, and democracy in other countries? Wake up! We don’t even have democracy here, at home.

Take a minute and watch this video:


Thanks for reading. If you disagree, I respect your opinion. This is my attempt at a “blog” and is meant as an explanation of my recent affiliation with something that I would normally steer clear of. America is supposed to be about freedom to do what you want as long as you aren’t stepping on other people’s rights.. Let’s get back to that.


Thursday, February 2, 2012

An analogy for non-RP supporters

Here's an analogy for the non-Doctor Know supporters:
by: Jesse Penick

You go in for your yearly check-up and your doctor, that you've had for decades, tells you that your health is amazing; your health is so good that it is actually improving with age and you might live forever!

Doctor Paul, who has been promoting good eating habits and exercise, gets a hold of your chart and tries to intervene and says, "You have an extremely high chance of having cancer! Do this or it will eventually get really bad for you!" Your doctor tells you that he's just some crazy kook so you believe him.

Ten years later you go in for your check-up and the doctor tells you the same thing and Doctor Paul rushes in and tries to scream, "No! Listen to me!" But since he's a crazy kook who's only been right about a few things you brush it off saying that everyone has to be right sometimes.

Seven years later you're looking for a new doctor since yours is leaving his practice and Doctor Paul tries to get the job but since he's a kook you take the advice of your previous doctor and hire the same kind of doctor.

One day you get excruciating pain all over your body and go to your doctor and scream that he's been wrong! Instead of going to the doctor that tried to warn you, you hire a spiritual healer. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." That spiritual healer finishes off your previous doctors treatment plus one more dose. Your condition only gets worse and worse so you start looking for a new doctor. Instead of going to the doctor that tells you how and why you got sick, you call your doctor that got it wrong and he tells you that there's this new doctor in town! His name is Newt Walker Obomney! You start to go to him and realize you're just not getting better but we have to keep trying!

You still don't go to the doctor that could have, is trying to, and will help you at a cheaper price than any doctor out there.

The reason PaulB.O.T.s (Brain Orientated Thinkers) get so angry is because you're obviously being stupid and you don't realize that your cancer is spreading to us! Please... for the love of your country, your neighbors, and your children: Vote the only doctor, veteran, and the person that predicted why we are sick.

Doctor No, Doctor Know, Doctor Paul, and hopefully soon: President Paul!

Jesse Penick is a 31 year old Supply Chain Management student at the University of Houston - Downtown and member of the Youth for Paul organization.

Friday, January 27, 2012

What makes you think we will listen to you in the future if you don't listen to us now?

Open Letter to Politicians, Voters, and Main Stream Media Outlets:

What makes you think we will listen to you in the future if you won't listen to us now?

           I hope you understand the gravity of what I am about to explain to you.  This letter is just one part of a demographic but I'm saying it because I believe we deserve a voice.  I also understand that this isn't pointed towards everyone but if any of this offends you or makes you angry then this letter is probably for you.  Just remember: Those who criticize our generation forget who raised it.

          Quit saying that the older crowd is trying to protect, serve, and inform the youth of today.  We are tired of hearing your lies and we won't take it anymore! We like equality. We like truth. We like trust.  These are the most important qualities this generation is coming to adore.  You can say you have these qualities but you have none of them! 

            Equality and tolerance is probably one of the most important things in our life because we want to be equal to each other.  We have learned that it is the older and "more experienced" crowd that teaches bigotry.  You are born with equality and tolerance! We thank you for teaching us to read, write, and simple things to obtain more knowledge but beyond that... Quit it!  What we now like is to be taught where to find information so that we may come to our own conclusions.  Be tolerant to others and be tolerant to us and you might remember a time in your life when you felt the same.  I am purposely leaving this very vague because we believe in ALL equality.  Equality and tolerance of race, ideas, age, speaking time in debates...

         Truth is the key to our hearts.  It isn't jobs, gay marriage, religion, or any other moot talking point that people like to jam down our throats.  "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions." Your intentions on trying to teach us what is good in moral is showing ignorance in the messages of our Creators, Founders, and ancestors.  Things change over time and you must learn to accept these changes as we get older and society gets more tolerant. If you can't do this, then get out of the way.  We grew up with the Internet talking to people from around the world for several decades now.  We play online games, communicate, and learn from each other instantly being thousands of miles away.  We do not want to kill, mandate, or fight with other countries unless its in a digital video game. We are more curious to their cultures than you think and we ask questions about what is going on in other countries from them and not your disgusting pundits.

        Trust cannot happen without truth and you have lost our trust because you will not give us the truth.  Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or any other MSM channel are all used to describe a position and not give us the news.  We do not care about your opinions.  If you want to see where you are headed, just ask Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly about their ratings compared to a year ago.   The second place you can look where you are headed is the Revolution News Network.  If you haven't heard about it yet then you can look it up and take some notes.  They have had one broadcast and had over 200,000 viewers. 

        This takes me to my last point: we will get what we want.  Whether its this election or the next, we will not change our message and will not change our beliefs.  You all have been jaded in this society and in one or two generations we will have taken over and changed it ourselves. If you're doing it for us then why don't you ask what we want?  Give us some insight, but do not try to get us to conform to your outdated and immoral ideas.  We have woken up and we will not sleep until this world has changed so that our future generations will not have to put up with bigotry, war, and "necessary pre-emptive" murder of fellow humans.  Yes, there are evil people in this world but maybe they aren't necessarily evil but misunderstood and just need someone to listen to them just like I am telling you that we WILL be listened to either on collective terms or be forced that they are on our terms.

Jesse Penick is a 31 year old Supply Chain Major student at the University of Houston-Downtown and a member of the Youth for Paul Organization.  

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Saddle Up Texas!

Saddle Up!
by: Jesse Penick

Politicians are quite amazing to see in person. They have an answer for everything, their talking points are purposely dictated to who they are talking to, and as long as they are vague then they get the response they need to get the "collective" to agree.

Today was my first experience talking one on one with a person running for a national office. I was the youngest person listening to this speech (31) and it was interesting to watch the other people in the crowd. All were the stereotypical 60 plus, "pro-military", southern, and more importantly, Texan voter. I felt that some of them wanted to question why someone so "young" was sitting listening to the same speech as them but I think that was all in my head.

During the speech some of the people that were listening to her gave me some of her reading material including her card that shows her issues. There's a few things that stuck out, especially one line that said "Cut $1 trillion dollars... now." If you have been following politics then you would know who this sounds like.

I couldn't tell if I was listening to a stump speech or a salesperson on their own book tour. Every few minutes she was mention her book and her "three years of research". I have not read her book but I believe the number of times she mentions these things makes people believe her that she is correct in whatever she says.

At the end of her speech she stayed and answered questions. I waited my turn and when I was called on I asked her where the trillion dollars in cuts would come from that she proposes. The next few sentences sounded familiar too: "Department of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education..." But then she stopped talking and was about to go to the next question. I had to stop in and interject. I told her that the cuts she just said would barely get her halfway to the goal at 600 billion dollars. In reality, those departments and things she said wouldn't even get close to 600 billion dollars but I gave it to her to help her out. She disagreed and said I was wrong then went on to the next question. She had lost me then.

In all, this is just one story that I personally witnessed at the Saddle Up Texas Straw Poll. I had great conversations with lots of people but you can definitely see through the BS and talking points that these people make. There was one thing that I couldn't agree with more though. One of the candidates handlers or staff members did pull me aside and tell me "We need to change things by sending different people to Washington." My sole and only response before I walked away, "We have to change the minds of the voters to do that first and see through the stump speeches and teach them what they are voting for."

Jesse Penick is a 31 year old college student studying Supply Chain Management at the University of Houston - Downtown