By Ron Paul
There's no reason to fear a globally inter-connected world if free markets, private property, voluntary interactions and sound money were to exist and act as the foundation. That is the type of world that we should be striving to bring about. However 'political globalism,' with the centralization of global power mixed with cronyism, is where the real dangers exist. I discuss this and much more below:
Another edition of #AskRonPaul today on the Liberty Report. We care what our viewers think and what they're curious about. Hope you like the program!
Watch The Liberty Report LIVE
Weekdays at 12PM ET
By Simon Black
Last week, a group of analysts published an astonishing report about the future of Social Security in the United States, and their remarks were nothing short of damning.
According to their calculations, for example, these analysts claim that Social Security is already running a huge deficit to the tune of tens of billions of dollars each year.
In fact, this Social Security funding deficit has been taking place for several years now, and it’s actually accelerating. So the problem worsens each year.
According to the analysis, the astounding rise in Social Security recipients vastly outpaces any growth in tax revenue received into the program. And this trend will continue for decades.
The report goes on to describe Social Security’s two main trust funds, OASI (for ‘Old Age Survivors Insurance’) and DI (‘Disability Insurance’).
They tell us that DI actually went bust several months ago.
But rather than attack the root cause of the problem and restructure the program, Congress quietly slapped a band-aid on DI by simply diverting funds from OASI, just enough for DI to limp along for a few more years.
So in other words, they robbed from OASI to pay DI, and keep it afloat through the next presidential election. It’s incredibly short-sighted.
Among the other programs slammed in this report, the Hospital Insurance (HI) fund, one of Medicare’s major trust funds, is of particular concern.
Their brutal analysis shows HI is going to completely run out of money in 2028, just twelve years from now (when President Clinton finishes her third term).
2028 is actually two years earlier than they had originally projected.
And they project the entire Social Security program will be fully depleted six years later in 2034.
Like I said, this report is incredibly damning.
But it raises an important question– just who are these crazy, fringe analysts predicting all of this doom and gloom?
After all, the political establishment has been telling everyone for years that Social Security is going to be just fine. And they seem to have a solid grip on the situation, right?
Well, the report was actually published by the Social Security Administration itself, signed by (among other cabinet officials) the Treasury Secretary of the United States of America.
It’s absolutely incredible. The government is publishing this data in black and white.
They’re telling anyone who’s willing to listen that Social Security has dug itself into an impossible hole.
More importantly, they’re telling us there’s a 0% chance that the government will be able to honor its existing commitments.
They’ll either have to radically raise taxes, or simply reduce (or eliminate) the Social Security benefits that they’ve been promising taxpayers for decades.
The younger you are, the steeper the price you’ll pay.
If you’re in your 60s, for example, you may likely see your benefits cut. If you’re in your 40s or 50s, you can count on it.
And if you’re in your 30s or younger, you can not only forget about Social Security, but you can expect to pay more and more taxes to bail out a program that won’t be there for you when it comes time for you to collect.
This is what happens when nations go bankrupt.
History is full of so many examples of dominant powers who think their wealth will last forever… and so they make far too many promises to far too many people for far too many years.
But eventually the reality of simple arithmetic catches up.
Read the rest over at Sovereign Man.
ISIS, Kurds, someone else? Who attacked the Ataturk Airport in Istanbul yesterday...and who benefits?
Watch The Liberty Report LIVE
Weekdays at 12PM ET
By Ron Paul
Yes, the globalist elites have definitely been challenged, but the British now have a golden opportunity in front of them. What they do now is of great importance. If Britain were to restore maximum liberty to individuals, free up their markets and lower their taxes, the country could experience a cascade of prosperity. Those who live on government largesse would surely oppose such policies, but the opportunity is there. Will the British take it? More below:
By Chris Rossini
Today, Donald Trump made some very intriguing statements against NAFTA, which is short for the "North American Free Trade Agreement". Please don't be fooled by the inclusion of the words "free trade" in the title. The agreement has nothing whatsoever to do with free trade. The inclusion of those words are a political trick --- think "Patriot Act".
Here's what Trump said:
"I'm going tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers...If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice under Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal."
If Trump is serious, and this isn't just a typical campaign lie, a libertarian would advise him to skip any "renegotiation" and simply withdraw from the deal.
The United States desperately needs real free trade with other nations. We don't need politicians to negotiate anything, except how quickly they can get out of the way.
NAFTA is government-managed trade. It's regional protectionism and a forced-trade agreement between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
A real free trade agreement (if Americans really thought it were necessary) could be written in a couple of sentences. The monstrous NAFTA runs over 1,000 pages and is loaded with cronyism, regulations, production codes, and government bureaucracy that prohibits free trade.
When NAFTA was passed, Henry Kissinger wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system...a first step toward a new world order.”
NAFTA is a globalist scheme, and not "free trade" as the servile American media likes to refer to it. The media tells us that NAFTA and free trade doesn't work. That's incorrect. Only NAFTA doesn't work. Free trade would work if it were allowed to exist.
The "new world order" of Kissinger and his ilk have taken some serious body blows lately, with Brexit acting as the latest upper cut. Getting the U.S. out of NAFTA would be another huge hit.
Would Donald Trump actually do such a thing? Who knows? We don't know what Donald Trump will say or do from one day to the next. But actually tossing the 1,000+ page monstrosity into a fire pit would be big....really big.
There is one qualification though. If NAFTA were burned to pieces, it can't be "replaced" with something else by government bureaucrats.
Real and genuine free trade should be the only thing left standing.
After the Brexit vote a report has emerged suggesting that the EU bureaucracy in Brussels may decide to radically deepen political integration to the point of creating one large "superstate." Will the many wavering EU member states sign on to such a project?
By Chris Rossini
Globalists who hold the reins of power are flabbergasted by last week's Brexit vote. After years of indoctrinating the masses into believing that "democracy equals freedom," their precious democracy has now come back to bite them big time.
Libertarians have always been on the sidelines educating those who were willing to listen that there's nothing sacred about democracy and mob rule. Rather it's liberty, non-aggression, and private property which are the crown jewels of civilization.
But libertarians have been cast aside. People instead wanted to believe the howls of "making the world safe for democracy" and other nonsensical slogans.
Naturally, the U.S. Empire was not content with bamboozling the American public alone. We've now had many decades of watching them take their democracy show on the road.
One country after another (and one trillion dollar tax bill after another) have produced nothing but chaos abroad and a dying economy at home. America's "freedom wars" haven't produced freedom anywhere! The loss of freedom was harvested instead.
Now a major vote has gone against the globalist elites.
Brexit ruffled all the right feathers. This wasn't a small-fry banana republic that decided to mess with The New World Order's mojo. This was the land that ushered in the Industrial Revolution and the ideas of individual liberty.
Now "democracy" isn't looking so good to the globalists.
Just don't tell the American troops or their families. For they're still under the impression that turning foreign civilizations into waste is for "spreading democracy and freedom".
Brexit was such a big blow to the globalists, that some are calling for a second vote! Tony Blair is surely not ruling it out and E.J. Dionne from The Washington Post tries to put forward this absurd argument:
In fact, now that this road has been opened, real democrats should demand a second referendum on the terms of an exit deal. On Thursday, voters bet that the unknown would be better than the known. They should get to vote again on the full implications of what they set in motion.
Oh, so voters didn't have the "correct" information the first time around?
What does Dionne want? Before the vote took place, the propaganda to vote against Brexit was relentless. The fear-mongering was over-the-top. The British still gave the globalists the heave-ho! Does Dionne want to keep voting until the power elites are satisfied with the result?
The Washington Post also gives us this headline: "Brexit is a reminder that some things just shouldn’t be decided by referendum".
Ahh, things like national independence, sovereignty, and decentralized power are much too complex for people to choose on their own. They must be barred from such a choice.
In fact, speaking of barring people, here's GQ bluntly saying that "WE SHOULD BAN OLD PEOPLE FROM VOTING."
Democracy is being exposed as nothing but a tool for globalists to get what they want. That's really all that it is. The propaganda about your "sacred right to vote," and "making your voice heard," are pure nonsense. As soon as the power players don't like the result, voting is not so great anymore.
This is nothing new to anyone who has paid attention to U.S. foreign policy over the years. How many coups and "regime changes" have taken place? Who's counting anymore?
The U.S. government thought that it could set the rules. Foreign nations can have their "democracy" as long as they choose leaders that the U.S. likes. If the U.S. doesn't like the choice, in come the military jets and drones to "liberate" them from the choice.
Brexit was a wake-up call. Who knows how it will play out...
But one thing is for sure....the democracy racket is definitely being exposed.
Is it the end of the world? The end of NATO? The end of the EU? The end of the UK? A closer look at what we might expect from last week's UK vote on exiting the EU.
By Ron Paul
Last week’s UK vote to leave the EU may have come as a shock to many, but the sentiment that led British voters to reject rule from Brussels is nothing unique. In fact it is growing sentiment worldwide. Frustration with politics as usual, with political parties that really do not differ in philosophy, with an economy that serves the one percent at the expense of the rest of society is a growing phenomenon throughout Europe and in the United States as well. The Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump phenomena are but one example of a frustrated public sensing something is very wrong with society and looking for a way out.
What is happening in the UK, in Europe, and in the US, is nothing less than a breakdown of the entire system. The EU was meant to be a customs union where post-World War II Western Europe could rebuild itself through free trade and a reduction in bureaucracy. Through corruption and political ambition it became an unelected bully government in Brussels, where the well-connected were well compensated and insulated from the votes of mere citizens.
Whatever happens in the near future – and it is certainly not assured that the vote to “Brexit” will actually end in the UK’s departure from the EU – a line has been crossed that supporters of more personal liberty should celebrate. Rule from London is preferable to liberty-minded Britons than rule from Brussels. Just as Texans should prefer rule from Austin to rule from Washington. That doesn’t make either option perfect, just more likely to produce more freedom.
Is Brexit the first victory in a larger freedom movement? Can we get out of a system that creates money out of thin air to benefit the ruling class while impoverishing the middle class? Can we get out of a central bank that finances the wars that make us less safe? Can we exit Executive Orders? Can we exit the surveillance state? The PATRIOT Act? Can we exit NDAA and indefinite detention? Can we exit the US worldwide drone program, that kills innocents overseas and makes us ever-more hated?
Getting out of NATO would be a good first move. This Cold War relic survives only by stirring up conflict and then selling itself as the only option to confront the conflict it churned up. Wouldn’t it be better to not go looking for a fight in the first place? Do we really need still another NATO military exercise on the Russian border? It should be no surprise that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was fear-mongering on the eve of the Brexit vote, warning UK citizens that if they vote to leave they could face increased terrorism.
Likewise, the US would do well to exit the various phony “free trade” agreements that provide advantage to the well-connected elites while harming the rest of us.
The act of exit is liberating. We should make a longer list of those things we would like to get out of. I am only getting started.