No sooner had I finished the polishing touches on the post I just wrote pointing out the violence of the Left and the hypocrisy of the same do I sit down with a cold beer and work on clearing out the DVR.
And I get to the Daily Show. And 12 saved episodes. And yeah, it’s time to clean out some Daily show.
So I crack the beer and settle in for some good times with Jon Stewart.
It was shortly after the Tucson shootings that the talk around the proverbial water cooler began to center around the tone of our political discourse. Some felt that the aggressiveness of the conversation led people, admittedly unbalanced people, to veer over the fine line they were walking and snap.
I tried to shape that conversation in such a manner to ensure what we were talking about was political tone on BOTH sides of the great divide. I wanted to make the point that unless the conversation of “tamping it down” was done in a bi-partisan manner, the effect would be that of a lecture.
I failed in my attempt.
I’m not sure what it means; I wanna stay away from the very thing I suspect it is.
I was reading though Renaissance Guy this morning when he brought up the very thing I’ve been rattling around:
…in the Fort Hood shooting there was a Muslim man who clearly considered himself part of the massive struggle that radical Muslims call jihad. In that case, however, the media darlings tried and tried to avoid reporting it.
…
in the Tucson shooting there allegedly and apparently is a lone man, deeply disturbed and incoherent, with no clearly dilineated political persuasion and no definite motive. It’s a bit too soon to tell for certain, but it appears that they [the media] were dead wrong again…
Let’s take a look.
Posted in Liberty, Politics: National
Tagged Democrat, Islam, Jihad, Leftist, Liberal, Main Stream Media, Muslim, Talk Radio, Tucson
I suspect that we’ll be talking about health care and the health care law, Obamacare, for some time now. And rightfully so, this is a huge issue at a time when we need to craft solutions, and quick. We simply have no money and need to solve that problem.
So, health care. This morning on the Brad and Britt Show the issue of allowing insurance companies to sell their policies across state lines came up. And Brad admitted he didn’t know why that was such a sticking point to Republicans.
Blink. Blink.
This illustrates the disconnect in the discourse today. On one hand you have a group of people who want to legislate just “whatever they want”. This is akin to passing a l aw that requires the ice cream man to deliver me ice cream before bed. Who doesn’t want THAT? And on the other hand, you have a group of people who have actual knowledge of how things work trying to legislate the “business” of government.
So, Brad, here is why allowing inter-state trade of insurance would reduce costs.
Suppose that a corporation wants to open stores in all 50 states, say, like Target. But in order to do so, they have to meet individual state mandates on the products in their store they sell. Say, for example, that Minnesota has passed legislation that says Target must sell books to children of all ages and adults who are poor for $2.00 each. Target, wanting to remain in business in Minnesota, will either stop selling books all together [selling books at $2 won’t return them a profit] or, OR….they will RAISE the price of all books such that the price of a book to a non-poor adult is enough to cover the cost of having to provide subsidized books to the poor and the young.
Or, say that South Carolina passes legislation that requires Target stores that sell groceries that when someone does buy groceries from them, the store has to deliver those groceries to the customers house. Target will either stop selling groceries in South Carolina or, OR…they will raise the price of groceries to cover the government mandated delivery service.
Is it Targets fault that they are selling books at a higher price in Minnesota? Or that they are selling groceries at a higher price in South Carolina?
No.
Now go further and say that ALL sellers of books in Minnesota must follow the same rules; likewise all sellers of groceries in South Carolina.
Overnight you have increased the cost of books and groceries in those states. And for what? For some government mandated feel good legislation. After all, why do you hate the young and the poor who want access to books? How DARE you pass laws that restrict their access to book?
And food? There are people in this world [at least on] who are home ridden and don’t have the luxury or ability of going shopping. Would you deny THEM food? Soulness, greedy capitalist pig. You are GREEDY!
So, in the name of altruism and good intentions, laws are passed that actually RAISE the price of goods while at the same time restricting supply.
As a citizen of Minnesota or South Carolina, would you like to enjoy the ability to buy a book in Iowa? Or South Dakota? Or even Mississippi if it were cheaper? Would you not like to shop for books in the same way you shop for Star Wars action figures? Or the citizen of South Carolina….would you blame her for peeking across the border in North Carolina for cheaper goods? Or Georgia? Or even, gasp, shopping on-line at Amazon? [Where, by the way, they DO deliver your groceries to you].
It is the states that make mandates that causes insurance policies to rise. Not ALL of the rise to be sure, but much of it. When Maine passes a law that requires insurance companies to sell a policy to any person, no matter how sick, as long as that person has been living in Maine for 60 days, the cost of policies is going to go up. When New York passes a law that requires insurance companies to cover acupuncture therapy, the price of that policy is going to go up. When Vermont passes a law that forces insurance companies to cover up to 14 days in the hospital no matter the ailment, the cost of policies is going to go up.
THAT is why breaking down state barriers would reduce the cost of coverage. Imagine if the Maine-ian could shop for a policy in North Carolina that covered only the eventualities and procedures that he wanted to insure? His cost would plummet. And his experience and value on his dollar would explode.
For sure Maine would see it’s insurance companies close shop nearly over night. And so, if they wanted to keep those businesses in state, they would have to remove the punitive restrictions they placed on them. And competition would force the cost down, the quality up.
That is why. THAT is why we want to see insurance sold across state lines.
Posted in Health Care, Liberty, Politics: National, States Behaving Badly
Tagged Capitalism, Free Market, Insurance, Leftist, Liberal, Politics
Wanna know the only way to establish a monopoly?
Government regulations.
And I find it funny that the very same people who clamor when companies like Microsoft or Intel have a “strangle hold” on the market are the very same one who demand, DEMAND I tell you, that the government regulate a monopoly for something that they think needs regulating.
Only to a fool does it make sense to allow someone to choose to kill a baby but not allow that SAME someone to choose to buy a toy with your McNuggets.
The Recession hit. And it hit hard.
And now that it’s over, many people, economists and politicians, are wondering when the jobs are going to come back.
Heck, look at the recent election for proof that current conditions are brutal. Don’t think that the surviving Democrats aren’t mindful of where we are and where we’re going.
And the current dilemma? Unemployment benefits are going to expire for many folks pretty soon.
Posted in Economics, Economy, Politics: International, Politics: National
Tagged Denmark, Liberal, Paul Krugman, Recession, Unemployment
Look, I get it. The new popularity of the conservative movement is that we have to reduce the size of the government. We have to Spend Less, Tax Tess. Reduce spending and reduce taxes.
I get it. I do.
But we can NOT reduce taxes right now UNLESS we reduce spending.
Now, I AM a proponent of the idea that when taxes are raised it acts as an economic inhibitor. That businesses will grow slower or even shrink. That as taxes rise, the amount of money we bring in is actually less than the amount we could have brought in.
But there is a limit.
So, where would you cut?
Posted in Politics: National
Tagged Budget, Conservative, Defense, Democrat, Liberal, Medicaid, Medicare, Republican, Social Security, Taxes
The intentions of those that preach the minimum wage are noble. Who isn’t interested in helping those folks who are the poorest among us? What person that we would care to associate with could not help but have feelings of sympathy for people who struggle to make enough money to eat, to cloth themselves or pay rent?
Who?
No one. Not one single person I know would brush those feelings away.
However, with that said, the singing of the platitudes of the minimum wage has to end when the effectiveness of those laws are considered.
And the result? The verdict?
Posted in Economics, Liberty, Politics: International
Tagged Free Market, Liberal, Minimum Wage, Unemployment
Quick, no googlly-ogglly-Google.
What nation said this:
X-Nation announced on Monday it would lay off “at least” half a million state workers over the next six months and simultaneously allow more jobs to be created in the private sector as the socialist economy struggles to get back on its feet.
“Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities and services with inflated payrolls and losses that damage our economy and result counterproductive, create bad habits and distort workers’ conduct,”
…the government “agreed to broaden the exercise of self employment and its use as another alternative for the employment of those excess workers.”
Posted in Economics, Economy, Politics: International, Politics: National
Tagged Barack Obama, Capitalism, Cuba, Democrat, Free Market, Left, Leftist, Liberal, Socialism