2 votes

Ann Coulter Immigration to blame for low wages

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-02-26.html

Ann Coulter's new column blames the low minimum wage on our lax immigration policies over the last fifty years. Her assertion is that the U.S. should pass strict immigration policies that limit low skilled workers that suppress the wages, while allowing only immigrants that are educated and skilled. I think it would be difficult to deport the illegals we currently have, along with swaying the public's opinion on this. What are your thoughts folks?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ann Coulter is

wrong! I blame government; tax, regulation, borrowing, tampering, financial bubbles, printing press, waste, fraud, corporatism, special interest........

fireant's picture

What good would "strict immigration policies" do if the border

is wide open? It's not the policies as much as lack of border control. Migrant worker programs have been fine for many decades. I welcome the hard working Mexican. They are very good workers. The competition is healthy. It may keep some wages down, but the market will work just fine.
As for the illegals who are here, if they are caught, deport them and make them get in line. Otherwise, liberty to move about and not be stopped by law enforcement without probable cause is a higher priority. Just get control of the borders. It's not that difficult.

Undo what Wilson did

Here are my thoughts:

1. The percent of foreign born population was higher from 1860-1930 than it is today. http://web.mit.edu/cis/fpi_immigration.html Compared with other countries, the US had much higher levels of immigration, yet the economy grew faster than anywhere else and had the highest standard of living for a long time...hard to argue that immigration causes any type of economic decline (including low wages).

2. Real income is determined by productivity of the work. A flood of low-skilled laborers actually FREE'S UP the work of previous holders of those positions to be used on more productive pursuits. This is exactly what happened with agriculture equipment...Farmers used to be a high majority of the population and is now less than 2%. That doesn't mean that the "would have been farmers" became destitute or that they continued farming at lower wages...it means they could now use their efforts toward other ways of adding value to people's lives. (and it meant that food was WAY cheaper for everyone). This transition isn't easy for everyone, but on the net, we are way better off because farming is more efficient.

3. I always find it curious that people see the net advantage offered by free flowing trade of goods, yet don't see it when it comes to the free-flowing trade of labor.

4. Immigration due to people wanting government handouts is a totally different thing, and a legitimate concern.

There is a bit of a

There is a bit of a difference.

Immigrants today often don't spend the money HERE. It is the same issue with jobs being done overseas. Immigrants' money goes home to purchase goods and services in that country.

In domestic transactions, your spending is another man's income, which becomes his spending, which becomes another man's income. But in this case, as well as the cast of a high trade deficit, your spending is the income of another man-in-China/Mexico/India/Philippines/South America.

That is the prime reason that the Federal Government has had to/has been able to run such huge deficits over the last 10+ years.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I'm sorry...

But I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards, at the most basic level. Let me simplify it to help you see the flaw in your thinking...

Imagine you and 3 of your best friends are living on an island and trying to survive as best you can until you are discovered by a rescue party. It has been several months, and you're not doing well.

Now, imagine that once a week, a group of people from another island (foreigners) comes over to your island and cuts firewood for you, catches fish for you, builds huts for you, picks fruits for you, and plants gardens for you.

Then at the end of that day, they always go back to their home island and eat the food and burn the firewood that was prepared by their wives while they were away. They never touch your stash of food or firewood, they just add it.

Now, according to you, this group of foreigners is making your economic condition worse, because they are not eating your food and burning your firewood?!

The problem with your understanding is that you are focused on "spending and income".

In reality, there is no "spending or income", there is only PRODUCTION and TRADE. You produce stuff (or provide services) which other people find useful. In exchange, they produce stuff or provide services for you which makes your life better.

Money is just the medium of this basic exchange, and it helps so that you don't have to provide services for the specific person from whom you want to consume services. Basically, money allows you to add value to person A, and then consume value from person B...but at a basic level, it's still just production and trade.

Contrary to your beliefs, the USA has been extremely LUCKY recently. We've somehow convinced the world that they need OUR money to buy their own stuff or stuff produced by 3rd party countries. This has the entire world thinking they need to produce goods for us in exchange for our money...which, by the way, we create from nothing.

This is a complete rip off for the rest of the world, and an extremely great deal for us (in the short term). We get to consume the stuff made by their work, without needing to actually produce anything for them in exchange (i.e. the immigrants who come here and make stuff for us without consuming any of ours).

In the long run, however, it is not a stable economy and will end very badly for us. Eventually they won't take our money and then we'll be on our own to actually produce what we want to consume. This will be hard, as our ability to produce real consumer goods (our capital) has been deteriorating for some time.

Furthermore, once we finally do start making consumer goods again, there will still be all of those dollars out there held by foreigners, so they will be first in line to get the stuff we do make.

We will end up being the ones who have to work hard and produce for others, without getting to consume any ourselves (which is of course the current condition of China/Mexico/India/Philippines/South America, the people you claim are hurting us).

You're correct that there is a difference between 100 years ago (when immigration was higher) and now. The difference is at that time, the USA economy was centered on production and savings...which is a sturdy foundation for economic growth (and has resulted in the USA being the sole world economic superpower). Now, however, the USA economy is centered on spending and consumption, which is unstable and bound to fall like every other attempt to build an economy around spending has fallen in the past.

Immigration and international trade are NOT the cause of our problems...just very convenient scapegoats.

There is a critical flaw in

There is a critical flaw in your analogy:

"Now, imagine that once a week, a group of people from another island (foreigners) comes over to your island and cuts firewood for you, catches fish for you, builds huts for you, picks fruits for you, and plants gardens for you."

You see, they don't just "do" it for you. They do it in exchange for something. They also are not providing some new service...they are specifically providing services and goods that someone else on your island could already provide...but the immigrants can do it at a cheaper cost (presumably).

Now if the immigrants stay on the island, you can see what happens. You trade your labor for their labor. Now maybe you used to do more labor with someone else on the island; he now has less demand for his labor. However, the new immigrants are there; there is new demand for his labor right there. However, if they simply trade their labor for your labor, and then leave, the other guy on the island is SOL.

"Then at the end of that day, they always go back to their home island and eat the food and burn the firewood that was prepared by their wives while they were away. They never touch your stash of food or firewood, they just add it."

What I am saying is that immigrants who do not stay, or foreign traders, take *your labor*, in the form of dollars, and keep that at home/spend it at home.

"Now, according to you, this group of foreigners is making your economic condition worse, because they are not eating your food and burning your firewood?!"

So *you* may be better off. You've found more value for your labor, and can use the excess value of labor that you own to do or purchase something else. OK, I'm going to stop using value of labor and just use dollars. :)

But overall, as the immigrants/traders are taking money out of the economy, the overall economy is worse off. Your other friend who you used to trade with has to find a way to earn the money from the traders/immigrants.

"In reality, there is no "spending or income", there is only PRODUCTION and TRADE. You produce stuff (or provide services) which other people find useful. In exchange, they produce stuff or provide services for you which makes your life better."

This is besides the point. You are getting confused on the vocabulary vs. the effective point (much as Peter Schiff often does). Fundamentally, your production is the desire of another's production. If you exchange your production with your patriot, then both you and your patriot are better off. If you exchange your production with the immigrant-who-leaves or the trader, then both of you are better off but your patriot is worse off. In terms of a global economy, it is all moot, but we are talking about specific countries and localized economies. The American workers are not wrong to ask that the American government put the success of the American people over the success of others.

"Money is just the medium of this basic exchange, and it helps so that you don't have to provide services for the specific person from whom you want to consume services. Basically, money allows you to add value to person A, and then consume value from person B...but at a basic level, it's still just production and trade."

And credit.

"Contrary to your beliefs, the USA has been extremely LUCKY recently. We've somehow convinced the world that they need OUR money to buy their own stuff or stuff produced by 3rd party countries. This has the entire world thinking they need to produce goods for us in exchange for our money...which, by the way, we create from nothing."

Exactly, it is created from nothing. In fact, this is WHY the government has to create money. Every year, billions and billions, almost a trillion, flows from the bank accounts of Americans to the bank accounts of foreigners. The Federal government runs a budget deficit, effectively putting real money into the accounts of private bank Americans, thereby reversing the flow of money outwards.

BTW, we've convinced the world for our money...it isn't hard to see why. Practically no chance of default. Valued around the world. Can be used to purchase government debt.

"This is a complete rip off for the rest of the world, and an extremely great deal for us (in the short term). We get to consume the stuff made by their work, without needing to actually produce anything for them in exchange (i.e. the immigrants who come here and make stuff for us without consuming any of ours)."

I want to point out that this has been going on for over 30 years. That is how long America has been a net importer, IIRC.

"In the long run, however, it is not a stable economy and will end very badly for us. Eventually they won't take our money and then we'll be on our own to actually produce what we want to consume. This will be hard, as our ability to produce real consumer goods (our capital) has been deteriorating for some time."

I suppose this is possible...but why wouldn't they take our money? What would change? Would they get better price elsewhere? Would another country be offering a better investment?

If China and India and elsewhere stopped demanding our money, then our trade deficit would tremendously improve. The government could stop running such large deficits.

"Furthermore, once we finally do start making consumer goods again, there will still be all of those dollars out there held by foreigners, so they will be first in line to get the stuff we do make."

If they value the dollar so poorly, and we value the dollar so highly, our domestically-provided goods are always going to be more enticing to domestic sellers than foreigners.

Everything works in equilibrium.

"We will end up being the ones who have to work hard and produce for others, without getting to consume any ourselves (which is of course the current condition of China/Mexico/India/Philippines/South America, the people you claim are hurting us)."

A lot of those countries are consuming just fine, thank you very much. India has a huge trade deficit. Chinese domestic consumption is fueled by their trade....

"You're correct that there is a difference between 100 years ago (when immigration was higher) and now. The difference is at that time, the USA economy was centered on production and savings...which is a sturdy foundation for economic growth (and has resulted in the USA being the sole world economic superpower)."

If the US wanted to improve its savings situation, it needs to become a net exporter.

The fact that the US is all about consumption is the reason why the federal deficit is so high.

"Immigration and international trade are NOT the cause of our problems...just very convenient scapegoats."

International trade more so, but immigrants-who-don't-stay as well. They are a big reason why the federal deficit is so high.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

What is your point?

You agree in this scenario:

Imagine you want to plant a field on your island. Some foreigners from another island agree to come plant and harvest for a percentage of the yield as payment for labor. The foreigners cleared, tilled, and plowed your land. It is akin to building a machine that can be used for future production. You now own a machine. After harvest you are left with the remaining percentage of harvested crops to do with as you wish. Under no circumstances has your condition been decreased. It has been increased.

... that you and the foreigners are both better off. Your sole argument and objection is that other people on your island are SOL because their labor was not utilized.

Is it not up to each individual to find ways their labor can be put to use? Does not everyone compete in labor with everyone? If someone is willing to bear the additional expense traveling from another island and still perform work cheaper or better than you are willing to do it ... whose fault is that?

How did any people on your island become more important than any other people? Are the people on your island in some kind of elitist club which proclaims they are better humans than all other people?

Yes. No doubt, that when the

Yes. No doubt, that when the government limits imports and sets up all these programs to give jobs to domestic workers, it is wealth distribution. Instead of having the value of your labor increased by the fact that a foreigner is willing to do something for less, you are forced to provide for someone else...the "providing" for someone else being the difference in prices.

And I think that that is the way many libertarians think. That is why most support open borders, and free trade, etc. Many are very dismissive of the idea of nations and governments working to protect their citizen's interests.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Coulter has a point about the downsides of immigration. Also, it doesn't change the fact that governments are not beholden to a philosophy or an ideal; they are beholden to their constituents' demands (presumably). People who want to use the force of government in order to increase the wealth of the domestic sector have some good points and facts on their side. It is just that their guiding philosophy is different. It is more pragmatic and isolationist (America-first) than moral and open (we're all human beings)

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Ok ...

I have read your responses and if I may raise a few additional points:

Why is it presumed other people on your island are defacto SOL? What if the other people on your island are skilled workers which demand higher wages? Wouldn't you be able to hire them now that you have a valuable harvested good? Does not having to rely upon local labor create an opportunity for locals to pursue more skilled professions?

I would like to see the SOL presumption followed through to its logical conclusion with some real world application. I would like to see everyone in the USA buy only "made in the USA" and the rest of the world buy anything but "made in the USA." That would include every other country not selling any natural resources to anyone in the USA. Tell me how that scenario would work out.

Totally serious about it too. Statists are always pointing out no individual is an island in society, therefore the state is necessary. Well ... wouldn't the same, exact, verbatim, identical argument apply to any government or nation? I am sure other nations can pick up the slack on demand if oil producing nations stopped selling to the USA. Let's advocate for other countries to come to their senses and stop trading oil for US dollars so we can find out what happens if the US were to become an island in and of itself that nobody wants to do business with.

"Why is it presumed other

"Why is it presumed other people on your island are defacto SOL? What if the other people on your island are skilled workers which demand higher wages? Wouldn't you be able to hire them now that you have a valuable harvested good?"

Well, in the analogy, you have X. The foreigners offer Y, the domestic other people offer Y. You prefer the foreigner's Y. It does not make sense for you to know take Y and trade it for the domestic person's Y.

The presumption is that prior to the foreign traders, the other person found someone domestically to take his labor. Now that that option is no longer there, he needs to find some other demand for his labor.

Assuming that prior to the foreigners, there was no lack of productivity capacity (someone who wanted to buy the man's labor but couldn't because the original person was purchasing it), the man now has to look outside his country for demand for his labor.

"Does not having to rely upon local labor create an opportunity for locals to pursue more skilled professions?"

Its all about the money. Fundamentally, the private sector wealth transactions net to 0. So if the trade sector is in surplus, meaning that money is leaving the country, the private sector has to incur a deficit. That means that money is leaving the country, and not being spent on domestic labor.

Even if the labor pursues more skilled professions, it still doesn't avoid the fundamental fact that there is less money going around.

"I would like to see the SOL presumption followed through to its logical conclusion with some real world application."

Look at the sectoral balances. Year after year, the private sector bleeds money to the foreign sector. This is the reason why we've had to have such massive deficits over the past 15 years. When the federal government runs in deficit, it simply prints money and adds it to the economy, thereby putting the private sector back in positive territory.

"I would like to see everyone in the USA buy only "made in the USA" and the rest of the world buy anything but "made in the USA.""

So we want people to buy our excess labor. That means that there is an outlet for the productivity of the country.

But if everyone only bought made-in-the-USA products, it would lead to less of a foreign deficit, and less of a need for debt, both private and governmental. But of course less "real" wealth.

The counter-argument is that we should encourage foreign trade. The dumb Chinese and Europeans are willing to accept our paper for goods and services? Who wins? Those with more paper or those with more goods and services? And the Federal Government can simply step in and buy all the unused labor.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Ok ...

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Set aside money because if an argument is true it will hold up in an indirect medium of exchange scenario. Walk me through the trade deficit or how locals tending their own land are getting screwed because their labor is not utilized. If it would help hammer it all out we can reduce the population on each island to a simple number of three couples. Then we can include the productivity/consumption of children in any economic growth.

We can always throw a currency into the mix and theorize plains island starts using sea shells as money. If enough sea shells left the island where there were no longer enough sea shells in local circulation to function as a viable currency then they would have to seriously consider adopting another currency and the value of sea shells would decrease which is only going to affect people holding sea shells which if most of them have left the island is going to be largely foreigners.

I will touch upon this

I will touch upon this point:

"We can always throw a currency into the mix and theorize plains island starts using sea shells as money. If enough sea shells left the island where there were no longer enough sea shells in local circulation to function as a viable currency then they would have to seriously consider adopting another currency and the value of sea shells would decrease which is only going to affect people holding sea shells which if most of them have left the island is going to be largely foreigners."

Isn't this what happened to the US dollar in 1971? The US essentially went off the gold standard because they could no longer maintain it. And it isn't just about "maintaining viable currency". It is about savings. The US has about 40 trillion in private debt. If private savings are at 6 trillion, that is a much better situation than if it is at 3 trillion. Can you imagine what would happen if the private sector had to suddenly cut 20 trillion worth of debt to maintain a ratio?

In the example of each Island with three couples, think about it like this: every couple's spending is another couple's income. One couple's labor has value because the other people have a need for it. The other people acquire that labor by trading their own labor. Let us say that each year, Couple A makes widget A and requires widgets B & C from Couples B & C.

Each widget costs $10. Let us say in this scenario, that each couple starts with $100.

So if let us say Couple A does foreign trade with a nation willing to sell widgets B&C for $5 each. So, Couple A peels off 10 dollars and gets widgets B&C! Couple B & C pay 10 dollars to Couple A for widget A. So Couple A loves this at first; he has 110 where before he only had 100. Couple B & C only have 90. The sum total is 290; 10 dollars has been captured by the foreign sector. How can Couple B & C get back to having 100 dollars? The only situation would be to acquire it from the foreign sector.

As year after year goes by, Couple A's wealth grows by $10 per year. and Couple B & C go down by $10. At some point, Couple B&C aren't going to have enough to be able to pay Couple A. At that point, Couple A has a cost, $10/year, but no income. He will eventually bleed out to the foreign sector.

Of course, the above is a ridiculously simple example, which is why I hate it. In the real world, you'd see credit creation to replace the lost money. Or governments stepping in with deficit spending. Or, wholesale abandonment of the currency.

Again, one shouldn't downplay the value of real wealth. If the three couples and the foreign sectors get into a war of competition, they can make technological improvements, in the typical capitalistic action, that will make their labor earn more REAL wealth. That is the main goal. However, the system is heavily reliant on financial wealth.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

RE:

"Isn't this what happened to the US dollar in 1971?"

Yes. I think we are in general agreement on that currency point.

"In the example of each Island with three couples, think about it like this: every couple's spending is another couple's income. One couple's labor has value because the other people have a need for it. The other people acquire that labor by trading their own labor. Let us say that each year, Couple A makes widget A and requires widgets B & C from Couples B & C."

I think there is a leap being made here. I realize it is an oversimplified example but reducing complex concepts to simpler forms allows one to understand the nature of things.

There are three couples. Since were talking stone ages technology, each couple is primarily occupied by laboring for their own subsistence. In order for any couple to spend time or resources producing any widget they would have to consume less or labor more (ie. some form of savings) to continue producing subsistence and a wheel. Let's not complicate it yet by suggesting anything is required from couples B & C.

So couple A makes a widget, a wheel. If couple B & C or any foreigner want a wheel, they are going to have to trade something, such as food, to couple A which means they are also going to have to consume less or labor more to acquire it. Where is any trade deficit?

I think it is important to work this scenario through in an indirect medium of exchange economy so it can be understood what happens when a currency/money is introduced. I also think any so called trade deficits are not going to derive from any act of trading ... I think it is going to derive from a transaction using currency/money and the value of labor being measured by a commodity subject to forces of supply and demand instead of time.

Your island analogy ...

is pure win. I copied your idea to memory for future use and modification as necessary. Thanks!

:)

Peter Schiff has some good "Island Economy" analogies. My analogy is probably a combination of my own ideas and modifications to his analogies.

Here's a really funny one of his, kind of making the same point...this video even has a Ron Paul "island analogy" regarding the federal reserve at the end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlWpGm9POwQ

I find that sometimes "the economy" is just to vast to wrap your head around and flawed economic thought is hard to identify...but when we put those ideas to test on a hypothetical island, mistakes are much more exposed.

Cyril's picture

"What are your thoughts folks?"

"What are your thoughts folks?"

She is a beautifully resilient idiot.

Why you ask?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

deacon's picture

Why?

You ask,let me copy/paste :) thee question
"She is a beautifully resilient idiot"
answer...yes he is
did I win the final jeopardy round?
D

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

Cyril's picture

"HE" is? LOL.

"HE" is? LOL.

Darn... I hadn't thought of that.

Well, HIS business then, not mine, anyway!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Why Ann Coulter is an idiot in economics?

Why Ann Coulter is an idiot in economics?

Well, try to find anything on record where she'd have a serious concern or something to say against the Federal Reserve's very existence, beyond only their policies, for instance.

I wish you good luck!

;)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

deacon's picture

Well.do you wish

me to die trying to fulfill that request? :)
D

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

Cyril's picture

P.S.

P.S.

Apparently, after she learned how to spell "economics", long, long ago(?) nobody told her she was ALSO supposed to get a clue about it.

And because she's an idiot, well, she still has no clue.

Q.E.D.

You're welcome :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

No, she's not an idiot she's a patriot.

Her allegiance is to her Federalist big government schemes of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln.

Patriots scorned idiots even in Greek times. Idiots had no use for waste and scandal of government.

They were on their own. Anne is a patriot, through and through.

Federalists finance a government that is always looking for someone to loot.

Patriots are either gullible or greedy.

I'd rather be on my own. I don't need government to make mistakes for me.

I may be an idiot but indeed I am no fool. High Wire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om5s1BTp6qM

Funny, that some Greek's gave use words that apply 2,500 years later.

We're in this together, we're in for some stormy weather. I was sorry to see that someone wanted to pitch you off the Ark. Bon voyage, mon ami.

Free includes debt-free!

Correct me if I am wrong please

You seem to be saying that she is not an idiot because she is a patriot. Or vice versa?

So lets clarify. If I say I promote freedom of association, period, am I a patriot? I think I would be.

I sort of think society and ethics are more important than gangs and the rules they write down.

To me being a 'patriot' is cleaving to society, and not gangs.

But maybe you have a better understanding. Maybe you think I am ignorant and society is what the ruling class says it is? Or maybe you think I am on to something that you have been on to for some time?

Well the Greeks started it.

I think the key is voluntary association.

From Greek idiotes "layman,

literally "private person (as opposed to one taking part in public affairs)," used patronizingly for "ignorant person," from idios "one's own"

More word history here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc...

Usage has been varied over 2,500 years.

Originally an "idotes" was someone that avoided government and official trappings.

Of, course "patriots" thought them ignorant.

This is now and language is a cussed thing.

No, I don't think you ignorant. Today we talk about statists and sovereign humans. The conversation continues using new words. The old 'skins' have been misused.

Free includes debt-free!

Paul S

I know a Paul S, very smart Constitutional lawyer. I say 'very smart' because most lawyers aren't too bright, and Conlawyers tend to be the densest of the pack. But I digress as they say.

I looked at your cite. I couldn't help but see the sadly obvious.

Idiot means self owner.

Correct me if I'm wrong Mr Sherman, but it seems we are engaged in a very old war.

I am an engineer by schooling

'S' is my middle initial.

Here is my website. http://paulsplace.my90forlife.com/

But if you want to buy product, become a customer for wholesale pricing or become a distributor, please go here and support the Daily Paul.

http://dp2.my90forlife.com/

I agree, the battle against tyranny is very old.

Thanks for your interest. We are but the latest generation to demand liberty and voluntary associations.

Free includes debt-free!

Scary how long this game has been played

I didn't know the etymology of 'idiot'.

Today they do it at the speed of light, for exactly the same reason. Tea Partier become synonymous with 'idiot' within minutes. And for the very same reason:)

When they needed to to twist the word anarchist into meaning 'scary bearded bomb thrower' it took them decades and multiple staged events.

Now Jon Stewart just does a segment.

The Cosntituion failed because Congress can borrow.

Congress can borrow but produces nothing so it must loot to repay the loans and the interest due.

One line in the Constitution put us one the hook for 11 billion oz Gold.

We've got a problem.

Free includes debt-free!

Cyril's picture

LOL. Okay. If you say so.

LOL. Okay. If you say so.

That depiction about her does work for me...

Quite accurate features of hers, I can see, yes. Even with my poor vision, without correction! ;)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius