Here’s what we do know about student loan debt: it’s roughly $1 trillion in size, greater than either auto or credit-card debt and second only to mortgage debt in the U.S.

Borrowers in their 30s today owe $28,500, on average. The debt burden has soared just as — and partly because — the recession hit, so younger graduates carrying the highest balances are hit with the double whammy of aweak job market (that still isn’t showing any sign of rapid improvement).

And this all comes as globalization and technological change have upended once-reliable career paths, wiped out many mid-level professional jobs and leave low-paying fields in health, food and beverage services, and retail as among the fastest growing job markets over the next decade.

Oh, and consider that student loan debt remains one of the most difficult types to forgive or discharge in bankruptcy, in part because the federal government (i.e. taxpayers) made or guaranteed 80 percent of all outstanding student loan debt as of last year. And finally, that once loans in deferral or forbearance are excluded, the delinquency rate on student loan debt was an estimated 27 percent as of the third quarter of 2011, according to a study by the New York Fed.

Worried? Americans should be.

Still, acknowledging the problem is perhaps the easiest step. Much more difficult is the question of what to do about it. Not surprisingly, young, heavily indebted grads are calling for forgiveness in full or in part of their student loan burdens. Petitions on advocacy website Change.org include calls for federal student loan interest rates to be capped at 3 percent or eliminated altogether. (Indeed, President Obama is currently among those urging Congress not to allow the interest rate on federally subsidized Stafford loans, which are aimed at low — and middle-class borrowers, to double to 6.8 percent on July 1, matching the rate for unsubsidized loans.)

And yet the trouble with those initiatives, or with forgiving student loan debt in whole or part, is threefold. For starters, the straight mathematics: the losses from any such debt reduction scheme will have to be borne by someone, most likely taxpayers, at a time when government finances are already stretched.

Second is the issue of “moral hazard,” that is, rewarding and implicitly encouraging imprudent behavior rather than punishing it. (Of course, it is easier for the public at large to demand that over-leveraged banks be punished for imprudence than 24-year-olds trying to further their education.)

And third is the question of how to keep future graduates from accumulating a mountain of student loan debt just as large, if not larger, than the one just leveled.

It is this third issue which perhaps is most pressing — and most vexing —and which also offers the most opportunity for innovation. Levying an “education tax,” making college free and assigning students to institutions based on a lottery system? Abolishing “college” altogether for more specialized trade institutions instead, while at the same time requiring a “gap year” of liberal arts prior to entry? Offering high-school grads the choice between student loans or business loans to fund new ventures? These all seem ridiculous, but then so too is our current state of affairs.

This, in fact, is why it may be far less costly for taxpayers in the long run to forgive as much of the current student-loan burden as possible. Before doing anything like that, however, there must be systematic reform to ensure debt loads simply won’t start to pile up again. (Not to mention the need for repercussions for those borrowers who most benefit from any such initiative, for the sake of fairness.) That is why the need for innovation or overhaul is so pressing.Our current system, in fact, has so failed that it may now be exacerbating income inequality (by saddling low-income students with high loan balances and shaky job prospects), economic malaise (by keeping would-be homebuyers stuck in costly rentals because of already high debt loans and/or poor credit histories, thereby damaging both the housing market and potential consumer spending), and long-term economic vitality (by hampering household and family unit formations with a higher share of 20- and 30-somethings currently stuck at home with mom and dad).

One thing is certain: if we do nothing to alter the status quo, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for the bleak outcome.

Source: CNBC.

The environmental agenda has been infected by extremism—it’s become an economic suicide pact. And we’re here to challenge it. On Earth Day, visit http://freemarketamerica.org/

If I Wanted America to Fail.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Today is a great day for liberty. As I write this it is January 18^th, 2012 and the Internet is ablaze with anger towards SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act). Not only was The Swash down in protest of these dastardly bills but Internet giants Wikipedia and Reddit were down as well. Shit, even Google participated in this blackout with a unique graphic on their page that lead to information about these two horrible laws and what you can do to fight them.

I was more than ecstatic today when I signed into my Facebook account and was overwhelmed by all the people who blacked out their own photos and had status updates and links protesting SOPA and PIPA plastered all over the home page. The impact of this protest is literally reaching further than any other online protest I’ve ever witnessed or been a part of. In fact, in just a few short hours, the tide has turned and the pimps pushing this law are now starting to run like the two-faced pandering bastards they are. I guess when you shine a little light the cockroaches scatter.

One of my favorite punching bags, Marco Rubio – the Republican senator form my home state of Florida, was a co-sponsor on one of these evil bills but he has now come out against it. This is because Rubio is a dickbag, a panderer and a wolf in Tea Party clothing. This “noble” act doesn’t excuse the fact that he co-sponsored PIPA and was also a champion for the insanely tyrannical NDAA bill, which just passed recently. Don’t get excited and let Rubio fool you, when this dies down, he’ll help reintroduce the bill with a few modifications and continue on his fascist path.

Conservative darling Paul Ryan just wrote this status update on his Facebook:

The Internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House.

While that sounds all fine and dandy, Mr. Ryan doesn’t fully oppose the idea of the bill and chances are, if it was tweaked and the opposition towards it died down, he may just very well vote for it.

Senators Jim DeMint, Robert Menendez and others have come out against this tyranny. Another co-sponsor, Arizona congressman Ben Quayle has withdrawn his support. Freedom fighter and libertarian leaning Michigan congressman Justin Amash continues to speak out against this, as does Kentucky senator Rand Paul and his father, Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul.

The opposition to these bills has grown so quickly in the last several hours that six Republican senators wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The letter states:

We have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights.

For those of you who have been in the dark, I’ll break down what these bills are. In a nutshell, what they are supposed to do is to protect copyrighted material and eliminate piracy. What they actually do is a different story.

Basically, these bills give the entertainment industry the power to censor the Internet and breed a whole new type of crony capitalism while forcing us into a digital police state. You see, private corporations want to be able to choose what can and cannot be censored on the Internet. These corporations are trying to protect their property, which is understandable, and since the Internet is a bastion for downloading music and movies, they want to be able to tighten their grip and control how the whole system works. Considering that many of the sources for this copyrighted material exists outside of United States jurisdiction, these laws are being put in place to give the government and their corporate buddies an easier way at stopping copyright infringement. Again, that is understandable but the methods about doing this are just awful.

The first thing that this does is it gives the power to United States based ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to have special access at blocking infringing domain names. This also gives companies the power to sue websites, bloggers or whoever until they remove links or information directing Internet users to anything that they deem as infringed upon property.

Secondly, the government and their corporate pals would also be given the power to cut off funds to any websites that they believe are infringing on copyrights. Essentially, they can forcibly cancel infringing websites accounts with financial services and advertisers.

Now even though this all may seem somewhat proactive, one has to look at what actually constitutes copyright infringement. The description that they provide is so broad that if you technically upload a video to YouTube and there happens to be a piece of a song playing in the background, even if it’s just on the radio while you’re talking to the camera unaware of it, you have just infringed on copyrighted material and could face some serious penalties. This is just a small example but think of all the things you come across on the Internet on a daily basis that could technically be considered as copyright infringement. Violations are pretty much fucking everywhere! Hell, the whole Internet is a violation!

Besides all that, if there is a will there is a way. These laws won’t stop Internet users from finding music and movies to download illegally. In fact, even if a URL is blocked, an Internet user can still access the site via its IP address. Hell, this might start a revolution in web browsing and millions of digital pirates will be navigating the Net with IPs as opposed to typical URLs.

Another thing to mention is that these laws are incredibly bad for business. Essentially, they will cripple and stifle startups as corporations will have the power to sue any company that they feel isn’t properly protecting their interests. In a classic case of crony capitalism or corporatism, this allows the giants to stay on top, where they can look down and crush any growing company that may become a viable competitor for their business. Basically, these bills will create and perpetuate monopolies. When large corporations have the power to bankrupt new search engines and social networking sites, there really isn’t room for growth or innovation. We might as well just go back to the days of dark dingy uninspiring chat rooms.

The scariest thing that these laws will do is tamper with the Internet as a whole from the backend. By messing around with the Internet’s vast registry of domain names we could very well end up with a World Wide Web that is less stable and less secure. At the end of the day, these laws won’t stop piracy, as they claim and they will just create an environment for a new type of corporatism while leaving the Internet less secure and less reliable than it has ever been.

The Internet has already become a playground for government and corporate meddling. Hell, they already have laws in place to protect copyright infringement yet they want to push the envelope as far as they can. As of right now, the government and corporations already have the power to block any site just off of one infringing link. Social media giants like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and others are now forced to censor their users because if they don’t, they become liable for the material their users upload and could be forced to shut down. On top of that, an ordinary Internet user could already be sentenced to prison for up to five years just for posting any copyrighted material – this includes someone like Tay Zonday who became an Internet sensation for singing pop song covers.

This situation is incredibly fucked up and it is just one more battle in a long line or tyrannous laws that the government is trying to impose on us. Just add this ingredient to the same bowl of tyranny punch that already consists of the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, indefinite detention, Homeland Security, the TSA, previous Internet censorship, FEMA, etc. The list goes on and on and hopefully people’s distrust in government has grown to the point that all future legislation the tyrants bring forth will be scrutinized and passionately opposed as much as SOPA and PIPA.

In the end, we’ve got to chain these bastards’ feet to the grill and turn up the fire until they do what we say because frankly, that’s their damn job.

*Written by Rob Rimes. This article is pretty much spoiler free. It is also a rebuttal and a different take on the show than the Mises Institute VP Jeffrey A. Tucker’s article “Mad Men and Government Regulations”.

‘Mad Men’ is a show I just recently got into. Like most shows, I just didn’t want to start watching it because I didn’t want to find out I really liked it and then be stuck watching it like an obedient and perfectly timed zombie every week. That’s not a knock against the show, in actuality, it is a compliment. I hate having to be pulled in at a specific time, on a specific day, week after week because it disrupts my life and other things I could be doing, like writing an article such as this one.

You see, shows I fear of being too good, I typically avoid until they are over and then I sit down and have a marathon. This way I avoid a week, or god forbid a year thanks to a cliffhanger season finale, of tension and suspense waiting for answers to what just happened. I have been a regular watcher of ‘Dexter’ since the beginning and the end of season 4 (I won’t spoil it for you) left me fucking breathless, confused, saddened, puzzled and starving for answers! I had to wait nine goddamned months! Situations like this are why I waited until ‘Lost’ was completely over before delving into it. I am glad I did. That show was incredible and there was no way in hell I could’ve gone through that madness weekly and then for months during a prolonged break between seasons and writers’ strikes.

In regards to ‘Mad Men’, I had heard so much good stuff about it from a lot of my libertarian-leaning friends. Knowing that a new season starts every summer, I decided to finally sit down and watch the first four seasons to prep for the upcoming fifth season. It wasn’t until I finished Season 4 and then went to Wikipedia to see when Season 5 was set to air that I discovered that there were contract disputes and that it would be delayed until March of 2012, a year away! Damn it television demons! It figures that the moment I watched it, some bullshit would happen and the show would be delayed so the broadcasting gods above could laugh at me and my torment! Damn those gods, I defy the crap out of them!

Anyway, this article isn’t about my personal issues with television deities and my inability to be patient from episode to episode, it is actually about the rise of the Nanny State, which is very well present in the world of ‘Mad Men’. Being that it takes place in the 1960′s, we are shown a world that is going through a major metamorphosis. From the Kennedy-Nixon presidential race, through the assassination of JFK, the LBJ-Goldwater race and the Civil Rights movement, we are shown bits and pieces of a state that is slowly slipping into nannyism. Government regulation and intrusion into our lives really took a major turn for the worse in the 1960′s and ‘Mad Men’ does a good job at painting a picture of a world before the Nanny State took control and how the world had to adapt as the state’s grip slowly tightened.

CONTINUED at Original Post.

The whistle-blowing website Wikileaks has begun releasing sensational information on the multi billion dollar global spying industry. The database contains hundreds of documents shining a light on the methods being used by secret services all over the world.

Here’s the video of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange speaking to journalists and students at a press conference at City University London in central London on December 1, 2011. Along with a number of other guest speakers, Mr Assange spoke of the Wikileaks ongoing investigation of surveillance software companies and their alleged use by governments around the world.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has launched the website’s new project – the publication of hundreds of files detailing a global industry that gives governments tools to spy on their citizens.

They reveal the activities of about 160 companies in 25 countries that develop technologies to allow the tracking and monitoring of individuals by their mobile phones, email accounts and internet browsing histories.

“Today we release over 287 files documenting the reality of the international mass surveillance industry – an industry which now sells equipment to dictators and democracies alike in order to intercept entire populations,” Assange told reporters in London on Thursday.

He said that in the past 10 years it had grown from a covert industry that primarily supplied government intelligence agencies such as the NSA in the United States and Britain’s GCHQ, to a huge transnational business.

Assange has been in Britain for the past year fighting extradition to Sweden for questioning on allegations of rape and sexual assault, living under tight bail conditions.

CONTINUED at Brisbane Times.

*Taken from Reason. Written by Bradley Gardner.

Chen Mingyuan has lived here all his life, but he still gets lost every time he drives into Wenzhou. “All the roads in this town were built by businessmen, so none of them make any sense,” Chen says as we back out of what we just discovered is a one-way street. For the last 30 years, private citizens in this southeastern China metropolis have largely taken over one of the least questioned prerogatives of governments the world over: infrastructure.

Driving down the cluttered and half-constructed streets of this 3-million-strong boomtown requires frequent U-turns and the patience of Buddha, but every road eventually leads back to a factory. Each factory is in turn surrounded by a maze of roads filled with hundreds of small feeder shops selling spare parts, building materials, and scraps. Every haphazard street in this town seems to have an economic purpose.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from Reason. Written by Tim Cavanaugh.

The most important question about Iceland these days (after “How come Iceland is green and Greenland is icy?”) is what we can learn from its economic recovery. In 2008, the tiny island nation in the North Atlantic became a byword for both boom-time excess and recessionary disaster. After inflating its financial service sector with a pile of foreign-currency debt and risky combinations of short-term debt instruments with long-term loans, Iceland, which is not a member of the European Union, endured one of the most unpleasant recessions in recent memory.

The country’s three largest banks, whose total assets were 11 times larger than Iceland’s GDP, proved too big to fail and then too big to rescue, bankrupting the central bank that took them over and leaving foreign creditors empty-handed. Inflation in the import-heavy economy reached 18 percent, while the stock market plunged by 90 percent. Between 2007 and 2009, according to the World Bank, GDP dropped by 40 percent. The Icelandic króna turned into a pariah currency, and even the country’s durable fishing and aluminum businesses were crippled by heavy leverage.

CONTINUED..

*Written by Tho Bishop.

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan has caught the political world on fire, best demonstrated with his prominence in the latest Republican debate. Though few viewers could likely recite any answer Mitt Romney gave, anyone who follows politics has likely heard about Bachmann’s evoking the dreaded mark of the beast, or Huntsman’s latest lame attempt at a memorable debate joke. (Off topic: How pissed is he that Gary Johnson, in one debate, accomplished what Huntsman has failed to do in four months?) In spite of the attacks from his critics, Cain’s 9-9-9 plan has catapulted him to the top of the polls and now even carries the support of noted economist Arthur Laffer. But is it REALLY a good idea?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a proud supporter of the FairTax movement. If you aren’t familiar with the FairTax, it is a 23% national sales tax that would replace all federal taxes on personal and corporate income (for some of the finer details try Google). Of the 2012 Republican nominees, only Gary Johnson and Herman Cain has voiced support for this proposal with Cain offering the 9-9-9 plan as a transitional step towards implementation of a full FairTax. It was this very issue that initially gave me a favorable opinion of Cain’s candidacy. Unfortunately, while I sympathize with what Cain is trying to do, if the 9-9-9 plan ever became reality it would likely be one of the gravest mistakes in many decades.

On the surface there is a lot to like here. Assuming it would pass as is, 9-9-9 would completely flatten the tax code, eliminating horrific 20,000+ pages of tax code that no one truly understands. Not only would this save incalculable man hours in filling out repetitive tax forms, but millions of dollars in the cost of tax compliance for families alone. Further, with a genuinely flat tax code, lobbying will decrease as tax credits disappear. These are all reasons why I support the FairTax.

There are also a lot of poorly thought-out criticisms of 9-9-9 (and sales tax in general). Relying on the political go-to move of the demagogue, defenders of the status quo describe horror stories of poor people being forced to starve due to the added cost placed on goods with the sales tax. While it is true that a sales tax will increase the retail price of goods and services, this line of reasoning typically only looks at one side of the equation. Since payroll taxes are gone, people have more take home pay. Since corporate taxes are reduced in 9-9-9 (or eliminated completely in the FairTax), the price of producing goods goes down (which is reflected in prices). The ease of tax compliance makes administration costs go down (which is reflected in prices).

But is it regressive? Since Americans typically spend a greater amount of their income the less wealthy they are, some critics complain the tax benefits the wealthy at the expense of the rich. While it is possible that a greater percentage of income will be taxed, the less wealthy also enjoy the greatest benefits of this sort of reform. A flat 9% corporate tax attracts foreign industry more likely to employ new blue collar workers than white collar executives. No pay check withholding means working class Americans are no longer deprived of potential interest on earned wages. Most importantly, with a flat tax rate, the working class will be on the same playing field with more powerful groups who can currently take advantage of tax code loopholes though costly political manipulation. This isn’t tax regression, but tax equality.

If I can dismiss some of the most common criticism of Cain’s plan, why can’t I support it? Unfortunately 9-9-9 is dangerously naïve and tragically short-sighted.

Grover Norquist best highlighted the flaw in Cain’s proposal when he said recently, “Having three taxes, all of which can grow – it’s like having three needles in your arm taking blood out, it’s much more dangerous than having one.” If you are going to open a door for government to collect revenue by way of a sales tax, you have to slam shut others. 9-9-9 leaves the income tax wide open.

Now Cain would probably respond by saying that he would never raise income taxes, and that 9-9-9 is only a stepping stone to a true sales tax. Unfortunately his word isn’t enough. Herman Cain, should he win the Presidency, won’t hold the office forever. As Obama has learned, the ability to accomplish a key campaign promise early in your presidency, doesn’t mean you will be able to follow through on others later. 9-9-9 plays a dangerous game of Trust Washington and I have no interest in playing. Though Cain’s lack of true government experience has served to be a political weapon, it is this same inexperience that may be the source of his apparently legislative naivety. I have a hard time seeing anyone familiar with Washington gridlock making a proposal heavily reliant on legislative restraint and future promise the focal point of his campaign.

Herman Cain should be celebrated for his continuing to highlight the need for serious, bold tax reform and applauded by his continued insistence to bring new proposals to the conversation. But, as Michelle Bachmann would probably delight in reminding the former CEO, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Keeping up with all these debates is fucking tedious! I feel like this is an ongoing weekly drama except the excitement is nonexistent and the cliffhangers are lame. I know I have bitched about the media’s obsession about Chris Christie and all the other hypothetical candidates but shit, apart from Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, these people are like a triple-dose of Ambien washed down with a mason jar full of cheap 100 proof swill. Although this debate was pretty damn good.

To add to the excitement, we got Mr. Excitement himself Charlie Rose hosting this damn thing! Mr. Rose put me to sleep the whole fucking night and other than the fact that he is ancient and I guess a legend to some, I can’t gather why Bloomberg or the Washington Post put this guy up there as the master of ceremonies. I partially blame those pesky Thundercats for luring Mumm-Ra out of his tomb. Fuck you Lion-O, fuck you.

The one refreshing thing is that this particular debate has three major differences than all the other debates thus far. First, the entire debate is focused on economic issues. Second, the candidates will be allowed to ask each other questions in the last hour. Third, there are no podiums; the candidates are all sitting around what Charlie Rose refers to as “the kitchen table”. Unfortunately Herman Cain didn’t bring pizza for the whole family.

Now I’m not going to break this down play-by-play like the last several debate recaps, I’m just going to give you the rundown of each person and highlight a few of the memorable moments. Certain things for me shifted in this debate, most notably Herman Cain falling from my graces as my 3rd choice. He is now at the bottom of the barrel and Newt has moved to third. My first is obviously Ron Paul and my second is Gary Johnson. Speaking of which, where the fuck is Gary Johnson?! Once again, homeboy gets the fucking shaft! He shined last debate and had the joke of the night (albeit stolen from Rush Limbaugh) but damn it he’s earned his spot on that stage, especially if they’re going to invite Santorum and Huntsman to all these damn shindigs.

To start, lets visit the golden boys Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. I’ll break down Perry before Mittens because I love stepping on Perry’s withered Texas nuts. This debate provided him with the platform he needed to get back in the hunt. Fortunately, he fell flat again. Granted, Perry didn’t do as bad as he has done in previous debates but it was like he was sitting this one out. I think he was asleep. His performance was so boring that I literally heard crickets with Texas accents. I fucking shit you not.

Perry essentially recycles his failed tactics of his previous debates and feeds us a bunch of talking points that wouldn’t hold up to any real fact checker. In fact, most of these taking points have become redundant and even though they have been debunked and exposed as lies debate after debate, Rick Perry keeps on shoving them down our throats. It’s fucking moronic and we are all wise to it. He’s losing support because even the shitcocks who were worshipping his prune nuts earlier in the race are now waking up and seeing the skewed reality of this wretched brown-eye’s schtick. Then again, there are still some shitcocks doing a jig for this tyrannosaurus dick.

The best piece of egg that landed on Perry’s face was when he was confronted about his economic plan. Well folks, three months into this fucking thing and Perry doesn’t have a plan. He can’t even explain what his plan is going to be. He promises to have one shortly but apparently, while he’s sinking in the polls, he doesn’t see the importance in at least presenting something to attempt to keep his ass afloat. Rick Perry is a big saggy bag of “epic fail”.

Some other things about Perry are that he deflected the question of his party allegiance by saying that he switched from Democrat to Republican at a younger age than Reagan. Sure dude, take shots at a dead pres. Perry also said he wasn’t in favor of Cain’s 999 Plan. Perry also makes a statement that he would skirt legislation if he needed to. Yep, sounds like a dictator to me. Also, he keeps reminding us that governments don’t create jobs but he keeps taking credit for a million fictitious jobs he “created” in Texas. Between all his “um”‘s and long pauses Rick Perry goes to a magic place. Unfortunately for us, we aren’t invited. I just wish he’d stop blanking out in the middle of debates and stay focused. Shit dude, we only need you up there for two hours. Perry is a cancer, plain and simple.

Now Mr. Mittens continued to work his way into the hearts of the heartless, as he didn’t falter or fall from his stance and may have even gained some points as he stayed above the bickering and successfully sold himself as more important and larger than the other candidates at the table. Now I’m not sucking his Mormon dick, I am just calling it how I see it. I’d prefer it if he failed. Dude’s just got his shit together and every time he shows up to one of these things, Aquanet stock surges.

Out of the gate, Mitt reminds us that we need a president that is a leader. No shit dude, what else would we need, a president that’s a pecan log? Mitt goes on to pimp his 59 point plan which is something he must have stolen from a vehicle inspection chart. In fact, Herman Cain called out Romney and asked him if he could name all 59 points. Mitt said that some things just aren’t that simple. Yep, that’s a big government answer.

When Mittens is asked if he would give us another Wall Street bailout he basically said that bailouts are bad but won’t say if he will or won’t. Mitt never answers anything. Oddly, Mitt is incredibly sweaty or the lights make him look sweaty and glazed over. Good thing he’s not gross like Nixon or he’d be fucked in this election.

Romney goes on to channel Milton Friedman but fails miserably. I laughed out loud, kind of like every time I watch the 1990 series of Friedman’s “Free to Choose” and see the introduction from Arnold Schwarzenegger. Why do neocons embrace free market principles yet never seem to truly understand them?

Mitt bitches about China and says they are playing us like a fiddle while wearing an American flag pin on his lapel that was probably made in China. He promises not to cut defense and not to raise taxes. Mitt claims he started Staples and Sports Authority in the same way that Al Gore claims he invented the Internet. In the end, Mitt gives us nothing but that’s how he stays on top. Well, that and his hair.

By the way, before the debate, Mitt gained the endorsement of NJ Gov. Chris Christie. Welcome to my shitlist Christie.

Next up is that other Mormon, Jon Huntsman. Truthfully, I don’t know how or why this guy is still in the race. It boggles my fucking mind but as long as he is still breathing I have to keep watching him like a hawk. This debate he reminds us of how awesome he was in Utah, a state no one can fact check because no one knows anything about it. He tells us we need to regain our industrial base but doesn’t tell us how. Okay, I’m going to tell you all that we need to have a prosperous country but I’m not going to tell you how. Huntsman also tells us that his flat tax plan brought Utah to the moon. He then disses Cain’s 999 Plan and asks if it is a pizza deal. ROFLMAO! I find it funny because I’ve said the same thing countless times. Damn it, I should be mad because Huntsman bit my joke.

Huntsman tells us that he plans on phasing out corporate welfare and subsidies. He also claims that he will bring forth more aggressive trade laws. Huntsman also disses Romney by pointing out that his state Utah was number one in job creation while Massachusetts was number forty-seven under Romney. Oh snap! Aaaaand that’s about it for Huntsman who had all of about three minutes of screen time.

The other big loser of the GOP field Rick Santorum or Sanscrotum or whatever his name is was present at the debate too. Santorum, fresh off of the racquetball courts jumped into the debate by telling us he wants to drill Pennsylvania! Damn you horn dog go get’m! I wonder if he means the dudes too? There is that rumor you know.

Anyway, Santorum didn’t bring much but he also punked out Cain on his 999 Plan and he even got some audience participation by getting folks to raise their hands whether or not they disagreed with certain aspects of Cain’s plan. When people actually started participating, Santorum got so excited he had a seizure on national television. In fact, he ruined his jacket sleeve by continually wiping the foam from his rabid mouth. Santourm then says something later on about how a president once drove an exploding truck. I don’t know what he meant but it sounds like a fucking great movie idea! I nominate Nick Nolte to play the lead. The only other thing of note to come out of Racquetball Rick’s foamy mouth is that we can’t have limited government without families or something lame like that. Whenever Sanscrotum talks, I wince.

Woohoo! Now we’ve got supermom Michele Bachmann who is wearing pearls the size of ox testicles! Right from the beginning, Bachmann’s got that look in her eye: that same look my Aunt Eustice gets when she loses her teeth in the couch. She immediately informs us that Dodd-Franks are 2 for $5 at the Piggly Wiggly. She also mumbles through stories about Obama mumbling. She is also wearing a flag pin on her and luckily she pinned on the right flag. I think I’m being hard on her but I just can’t take her run seriously anymore. It’s not because she is a woman, it’s because side-by-side she makes Rick Santorum look like he’s smarter than a 5th grader.

Bachmann also jumps down Cain’s throat about his 999 Plan. It’s as if all these candidates are threatened by the black dude who has been whipping their asses since he conquered Florida last month. Bachmann calls the plan a tax plan and not a jobs plan as well as a pipeline for Congress to implement the treacherous VAT tax. She also gets all religiotarded and says that if you flip 999 it is the 666 Plan. Oh Jesus.. literally.

In her head, Bachmann is creating the 333 Plan because she finds “3″‘s to be cute and precious. Before finally leaving us, she has to remind us that she has mothered thirteen dozen kids. I could make a lewd comment about that but c’mon, it wouldn’t be gentlemanly to diss the genitals of any non-male candidates. She closes out the debate by saying, “The more we can do to love people the better off American society is.” That is an actual quote. I think she read it on a poster she saw while buying crystals at the Moon Goddess Emporium. She then looks wildly around and sniffs because apparently a Cinnabon distracted her.

The heaviest hitters of this debate are all that’s left now: Paul, Cain and Gingrich. Starting with Gingrich, I want to say that each debate that goes by, he gains more respect from me. Not because I agree with his stance on things but because he’s got Godzilla sized testicles and he refuses to be pushed around or surprised by the moderators or the other candidates. Newt will take your “gotcha” questions, cut them into small little sharp pieces, stick them to his taped up fists and then punch them up your ass! Newt is the fucking honey badger of the debate! Newt don’t care! Newt don’t give a shit! Newt just ate a fucking cobra AFTER getting bit in the face! His staff quit like months ago! Newt don’t give a shit! Newt doesn’t care! For the record, I once saw Newt eat bees.

To kick off his onslaught, Newt first breaks down the differences between the Tea Party and the misguided Occupy Wall Street movement. He then calls for the firing of Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner. He also calls for transparency of the Federal Reserve. I almost pull out my checkbook. Newt then has some colorful rhetoric about head shots and severed limbs. Newt just owns every moment he is given. I half expected him to stand up on Charlie Rose’s kitchen table, drop his pants and shit little Chuck Norrises!

Now I want to talk about Cain and Paul simultaneously because as the debates move on and on, we are coming to understand that when it comes to economics, these guys are polar opposites, especially in regards to the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul, as you all should know, is the one guy who has been taking a baseball bat to the Fed’s nuts for years now. Herman Cain on the other hand is a Fed insider and a former director from the Kansas City branch. Cain’s true colors didn’t really show until this night. I was always highly skeptical of him but his judgment about how to handle the Fed either shows complete ignorance, which I find to be impossible considering his former position, or it shows that he doesn’t want the Federal Reserve to be fully exposed to the public. I’m pretty sure it is the latter.

One of the most shocking moments of the night is when a moderator asked Herman Cain that if he could appoint any former Federal Reserve chairman to head up the Fed now, who would he choose. Cain quickly responded with Alan Greenspan! Is Cain not a true student of economics? Does he not know about inflation? Does he not get how this works? Or is it an attempt to kiss some ass because Greenspan was his former employer and Cain might need a reference if he doesn’t get the White House gig.

Ron Paul quickly jumped in and explained that Greenspan was a “disaster”, as we all should now. I mean, Greenspan was the precursor to Ben Bernanke. Ron Paul went on to state that the best chairman of the Fed was Paul Volcker, not that he was even good but Volcker at least understood the mechanics of inflation.

Ron Paul points out that Herman Cain was against an audit of the Federal Reserve because he said that we would not find anything and that it was a waste of time. Being an insider he should know, right? Well, Paul also points out that when we were able to execute a partial audit a few months back that we discovered a mountain of questionable acts and tyranny. Paul also pointed out that Cain called Ron Paul supporters and those who want to audit the Fed “ignorant” and “stupid”. Cain lied and said he didn’t say that. Well, he did say it. For the record, Cain recently called Ron Paul a “grumpy old man” when he was on ‘The Tonight Show with Jay Leno’. Cain hates Ron Paul and his supporters because if they dig up enough dirt on the Fed, some might stick to Cain himself.

When pressed on the Federal Reserve further, Cain says that he has been “misrepresented” on the issue of the Fed (apparently by himself) but that it was secondary because his focus is on his 999 Plan. Dude, I got 999 Plans but Cain’s ain’t one!

It seems like the mainstream media has now taken to Cain, he’s like their sleeper candidate now that Perry failed and Christie didn’t jump in. Not only did he get the first question of the debate but his 999 Plan monopolized the entire two hours. Luckily there was enough criticism from most of the other candidates and the moderators to start to really open the door on it. I was pretty fucking tired of hearing “nine nine nine” every three seconds of the debate. The main and most obvious problem I see with the plan is what prevents Congress from turning it into the 23-23-23 Plan? C’mon, like they aren’t going to touch it and fuck it up. I also don’t believe the bullshit that it is a stepping stone to the FairTax, as stepping stones have never worked in Washington. All Cain can say against the naysayers is that their “assumptions are incorrect”. Cain also admitted that he doesn’t buy beer, which means he just lost the support of my entire social circle.

Herman Cain really disappointed me beyond belief. My fears of him being a typical neocon in Tea Party clothing have not faded. In fact, I’m now feeling the need to really dig deep on Cain and to look into his past. Maybe I’ll start with archives of his radio show, which I never listened to. I have a feeling he jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon and was probably more of a big government guy before the grassroots revolution took shape. I mean, he supported TARP, he supported Romney and he is trying to protect the Federal Reserve.

With Gary Johnson getting absolutely no respect, there is really only one choice and his name is Ron Paul. To back anyone else is ridiculous at this point. One thing I can say to all you Ron Paul naysayers out there is that at least I don’t have to make excuses for my guy. I don’t have to defend him. I also don’t have to continually justify his stance because it has never changed. These are all things you have to do with any other candidate that was in this debate. Stop wasting your breath and stop wasting your time.

This debate was one of the better ones, all things considered. The game definitely changed for me and a lot of true colors came out. Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman proved that they are in over their heads, Perry proved once again that he can’t debate, Romney did Romney, Ron Paul brought the realness, Cain showed us that he was NOT his brother’s keeper an Newt ate a fucking cobra! I wish all debates were this awesome. Newtie Badger don’t care!

Grading Scale:
Grade A: Ron Paul
Grade B: Newt Gingrich
Grade C+: Herman Cain
Grade C-: Mitt Romeny
Grade D: Rick Perry
Grade D: Jon Huntsman
Grade D: Rick Santorum
Grade D: Michele Bachmann
Grade I: Gary Johnson

Video – Cain vs Paul on the Federal Reserve: