Archive for the ‘#nevertrump’ Tag

Where is Johnson on the Issues?   Leave a comment

Libertarians believe in liberty, enterprise and personal responsibility:

“Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government’s only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud,” the party’s website says.

Gary Johnson.jpgGary Johnson rightly calls the Democrats and Republicans “slightly different flavors of the status quo.”

I’m going to be honest here and say I’m not particularly fond of his running mate and I don’t agree with Johnson himself on every issue, but he is WAY ahead of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Here’s where Johnson stands on 11 key issues:

TAXES
Johnson would eliminate loopholes and deductions for special interests; get rid of “double taxation” on small businesses; and, eventually, replace income taxes with a tax on consumption. The Libertarian Party platform calls for the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service.

JOBS/ECONOMY
Johnson and Weld both tout their economic records as governors. They would cut over-regulation that they say is stifling entrepreneurs and small businesses. Remember Johnson became governor of a state (New Mexico) that had deep deficits and a trashed economy. He turned it around and left surpluses and a healthy economy. Weld was a red governor in a deep indigo blue state (Massachusetts) so had to work under a lot of regulations.

CIVIL LIBERTIES
Johnson opposes government surveillance of private communications and financial transactions and favors an unregulated internet. He was an early supporter of gay marriage. (I would get prefer to get the government out of marriage altogether so that nobody can force another into participating in their gay wedding against their beliefs). Johnson also supports a woman’s right to have an abortion.(I consider abortion to be morally reprehensible and preventable with modern contraception. I said I didn’t agree with Johnson on every issue) He opposes restricting gun ownership, except with respect to the mentally ill, and thinks Americans would be safer if more people carried guns. “Responsible adults should be free to marry whom they want, arm themselves if they want, and lead their personal lives as they see fit — as long as they aren’t harming anyone else in doing so,” his website says. (Weld is not as consistent. I will probably detail him sometime soon. Unfortunate, but this is one of those times when you just ignore the vice-president and hope that the healthy presidential candidate lives to a ripe old age — kind of like Joe Biden).

FOREIGN POLICY/MILITARY
The role of the military and foreign policy in a Johnson administration would be to “protect Americans from harm and allow us to exercise our freedoms.” Johnson would stop using the military for “nation building” and “policing the world,” which he says has created new enemies and kept the country in a state of “perpetual war.” (I think once he got into it, he’d find it’s hard to dismantle such an apparatus, but his presidency could be a step in the right direction … not the gutting of the military, but a return to its original mission).

IMMIGRATION
Johnson says his background as the former governor of a border state informs his understanding of immigration policy. He is critical of Trump’s plan to build a wall. Johnson would make it easier for immigrants, after a background check, to get a work visa and a Social Security card so they could pay taxes. And, isn’t that really the issue here, that they come here, work for below minimum wage (thus undercutting legal Americans ability to get jobs), don’t pay into the system, but then suck away resources that the rest of us pay for. If they were forced to compete on a level playing field with legal workers, they would probably choose to return to Mexico because the incentives would be taken away.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Johnson believes “tough on crime” laws have criminalized aspects of our personal lives that should not be the concern of the state. He cites the war on drugs as an example, and calls it a failure. Johnson also is critical of mandatory minimum sentences that prevent judges from using their discretion.

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION
As president, Johnson would take marijuana off the federal government’s list of controlled substances, allowing states to legalize its recreational and medicinal use. He favors taxing and regulating the marijuana business. “We need to treat drug abuse as a health issue, not a crime,” he says. I’m double minded on this. I think marijuana and other drugs do immeasurable harm to our society and individuals and families within our society, but I think the war on drugs has been a disaster. Prohibition doesn’t work. We need to find other ways of dealing with the real problems of drug addiction in our country.

EDUCATION
Johnson would abolish the federal Department of Education and eliminate the Common Core curriculum. He favors school choice and competition to foster innovation. He’s also spoken in the past of favoring local control of schools. Historically, schools performed better when there was local control. The outcomes of schools nationwide have consistently declined since the creation of the Department of Education.

ENVIRONMENT
The Libertarian candidates would refocus the Environmental Protection Agency on its core mission of protecting the environment. Johnson says the climate “probably” is changing and that humans “probably” have something to do with it, but they question whether government’s efforts to combat it are working, or worth the expense. He favors science-based environmental regulation that does not involve social engineering.

Why Would You Vote for HER?   2 comments

I’ve said this before. I will say it again. I am not a Trump supporter. I will not be voting for Trump in November. However, if someone put gun to my head and said I had to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump (no third way and no not voting), I would choose Trump. Why?

Lesser of two evils! Yes, I think Donald Trump is not as evil as Hillary Clinton … but I’m not voting for him.

You claim you’re with her. Okay. I doubt she’s with you, which is what we really want in a president, but …. Really?

I don’t think Trump is with us either, but here’s the thing — Hillary Clinton destroyed 30,000 emails, some of which were classified. Even thought some of them were found, she is still denying that any of this happened. Source: James Comey, FBI director.

While being investigated for potential prosecution for the above, the former Secretary of State’s husband, who is former President Bill Clinton, inappropriately met with current Attorney General Loretta Lynch who was originally appointed by President Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.  Bill Clinton is a lawyer. He knows just how illegal it is for him to meet with the prosecutor outside of judge’s chambers. He KNOWS. And, yet, the attitude is, no big deal, we just talked about our grandchildren. If you believe that, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you for a great deal. Source: Discover The Networks

This woman you want to support for President, along with Bill Clinton, uses a so-called non-profit charitable foundation in Canada that serves as a front to skirt around U.S. laws that forbid foreign governments from financially influencing U.S. elections. Here’s a list of the names of leading donors to that foundation.  Click right here.

Are you still with her?

Before you cast your vote , maybe you would you like to see the list of donors who gave over $21.7 million in speaking fees to Hillary Clinton. These are the people she will beholden to she occupy the Oval Office. The list is provided here.

According to a CNN article, since 2001 (when they left office), Bill and Hillary Clinton combined have earned $153 million in paid speeches. Are you still with her?

Hillary Clinton, while serving as Secretary of State, said there were 60,000 emails and she deleted ~30,000 of them because they weren’t “work-related.”  Yes, but did Hillary Clinton erase incriminating emails that involved The Clinton Foundation? She claims she has a right to privacy.  Source: Business Insider) You aren’t so naïve as to believe those deleted personal emails involved discussion about her grandchild or recipes for cookies?

Unlike many other countries in the world, the U.S. is ruled by laws and no one, regardless of position, is above the law.  The “rule of law” is the reason why so many immigrants come here, to escape from countries ruled by despots, who are above the law.

Hillary Clinton is above the law now that she has not been held accountable for her email/security breach.  At least that is what articles appearing in various news sources say.  Sources: The Hill, The Federalist, CNNAmerican Spectator.  As one news source said it: “She is too big to jail.” Source: Jewish Press

What if we learned that Presidential candidate Donald Trump had falsified his tax return or disclosed information from a government briefing of Presidential candidates and then sent an emissary to meet with the Attorney General of the United States to avoid prosecution?  Would you demand his prosecution?

What would happen to you if you were in court and you or an emissary of yours made contact with the judge?

In 2011, U.S. Army soldier Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning was accused and later convicted by court-martial for violations of the Espionage Act for leaking classified documents.  Hillary Clinton then commented: Classified information “deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so” because it “affects the security of individuals and relationships.” Source: Huffington Post

Did Hillary Clinton jeopardize national security for personal gain?

Do you stand with Hillary or the rule of law?

Tax the middle class?

Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you are on or which political party you identify with, America has a big problem – declining incomes and massive unemployment.  Government benefits for the poor are so extensive that they exceed what an entry-level job would pay.  Why apply for work if you bring home more money through welfare? In many instances, the so-called poor on the government dole have passed the middle class. Those middle-class folks who have some money in the bank are seeing it dwindle in value due to interest rates on banked money below the rate of inflation.  Housing costs, once 20-25% of income, have risen to 46%, nearly half of middle-class income.

Hillary Clinton isn’t going after the super-rich (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet,Michael Bloomberg, George Soros), who support her campaign for President. And to be perfectly honest, Donald Trump has his own billionaire supporters (Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who is said to “own Congress” and is “ready to buy the Presidency” is one—source: New York Magazine), but Hillary Clinton is the candidate who says she will raise taxes on the middle class, not just billionaires.  Here is Hillary Clinton speaking for herself with billionaire Warren Buffet listening behind her.  She says, emphatically, “We are going to raise taxes on the middle class!” Source: Zerohedge

The American news media are dominated by six major corporations (source: Business Insider) that are said to spread the illusion that Americans have a choice in this Presidential election. All have unequivocally come out on Hillary Clinton’s side.

Here are ten minutes of TV news clips gleaned from various news sources (MSNBC, CNN) where interviews with negative broadcasts about Hillary Clinton have simply been cut off.  Source: Townhall.com

A CNN News host recently said: “We (CNN) could not help her (Hillary Clinton) any more than we have… she’s got just a free ride so far with the media.”  Source: The Political Insider. An entire book (Whitewash – Amazon.com), written by respected journalists from the watchdog organization Media Research Center, has been written about what the news media won’t tell America about Hillary Clinton.

Are you still with her?

Why? Because you don’t like Donald Trump? I don’t like him either, which is why I am not voting for him. There is a third way. TAKE IT!

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/08/gary_johnson_on_11_key_issues_where_does_libertarian_presidential_candidate_stan.html

Libertarianism and Racism   Leave a comment

By

August 16, 2016

Because the most non-libertarian Libertarian Party, presidential ticket in history is vying for the presidency, it is imperative now more than ever that libertarianism, rightly defined and applied, be explained to the masses.

Whenever I speak or write aboutlibertarianism, I invariably refer to libertarianism greatest philosopher and theorist, Murray Rothbard (1926-1995). Here is his classic statement on libertarianism:

Libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for the government to do, and the government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.

Source: Libertarianism and Racism

Fact Check Trump & Clinton   3 comments

I was goingto fact-check both Trump and Clinton in seperate posts, but Fact Check.org has already done it for me, so here you go. I’m writing a novel. I hope you understand.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/trumps-economic-speech/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/clintons-economic-speech/

They both lie about each other and themselves and the articles do a good job of detailing those lies. Which do you trust more?

Actually, although I am not voting for him, I trusted Trump’s facts a bit more than I trusted Hillary. She’s just lied to me so often and been caught that I pretty much can’t trust anything coming out of her mouth. I trust Trump slightly more because I haven’t caught him in as many lies.

This isn’t say much because I am NOT voting for him, so trusting him slightly more is irrelevant. But if I were looking to vote for the lesser of two liars, it would probably be Trump by a head.

I think Trump may honestly believe he can lower taxes on everyone, institute these new programs and if he just brings jobs back from overseas, the balance sheet will balance. Reality will set in if he’s elected. Big government costs big money and when government is $20 trillion in debt with $800 trillion in unfunded entitlement liability, there’s no big money to come by. It becomes necessary to reduce government in order to save the country. Sadly, I don’t think Trump or his supporters understand that reality-based dynamic.

I am 90% positive that Hillary knows she’s lying to us.She is a politician, after all, who was trained by a consummate liar … or did she train him? She and Bill are what happens when sociopaths marry each other. And Hillary’s supporters are so ill-informed about economics that they honestly believe her lies.

Now you have to make a distinction between supporters and donors … for both of these candidates. Trump’s donors probably do not look substantially different from Hillary’s donors except, maybe in their politics. Hillary’s donors are most Wall Street types and medical insurance companies. She is thoroughly in bed with the 1%. I’m kind of tempted to make a dirty sexual reference right now, but that’s totally unlike me, so I won’t. Basically, Hillary is a puppet of Wall Street, bought and paid for as much as any of Trump’s trophy wives. But there’s also a lot of insurance companies trying to assure that the ACA stays in place.

Trump’s donors are some mid-level Wall Street firms and real estate companies. I’m going to guess they think Trump will be good for the economy and a rising tide lifts all ships. Because he has resources of his own, I think Trump is not controlled by them so much. Realistically, do we think anyone could control the force of nature that is Donald Trump?

We were watching PBS tonight (hope John McLaughlin is feeling better soon) and different talking heads had different beliefs about Trump’s supporters. David Brooks said they were folks making above $70,000, then Eleanor said they were all ill-educated rednecks. I think Brooks is probably closer to the truth and that income level suggests that these are not morons. Very few people making $70,000 annually are poorly educated. They’re either college graduates or business owners. One of the things you learn very quickly in Alaska is that college doesn’t mean you don’t work with your hands and working with your hands doesn’t mean you might not have a PhD and a 3,000-book library of read books in your house. Brooks also had some decent analysis about them. They feel disaffected and disenfranchised. They have lost dignity in the country and feel disrespected. They are sick of politics as usual and want something else. Their feelings are not wrong and they are not displaced. Under President Obama, literally half of the country was told to “sit down and shut up because elections of consequences”, so they have been disaffected, disenfranchised, disrespected and humiliated. Their fears about profligate government spending and the ACA were poo-pooed, but they have been proven right by a moribund economy and rapidly increasing premiums with reduced access to health care. They feel that they have been asked to pay higher taxes, rising health care costs, increasing insurance premiums, increasing electrical costs and out of control education costs while they’ve seen people who work less hard than they do receive benefits that they have not earned. They increasingly suspect that the government is going to steal their private retirements to prop up Social Security. Everywhere they turn, they see that the country is headed in the wrong direction and they want to fix it.

I cannot personally explain why they think Donald Trump is the anecdote to these problems. It’s incomprehensible to me, but that is where the Trumpian phenomenon comes from.

Hillary supporters are quite different folks. They are functional socialists. They believe that big government is the answer. They believe that magical thinking can make positive changes in the world.

Before you complain that I’m not being fair, do remember that I worked in the social work field for 15 years. Some of these believers in fairie dust are former coworkers and current friends. They’re thoroughly convinced that the Koch brothers have a magic money tree sequestered in their living room that, were we just able to confiscate, would miraculously fund all the programs we might want. They don’t necessary believe that a job is a good thing for people. In fact, social workers tend to think jobs are just too stressful for most people and ought to be avoided. They, therefore, support all sorts of programs that assist those who don’t want to work and therefore must support increased taxation of those who do. Generally, they have no concept of economics and don’t see that the lifestyle your income provides you is a prime motivator of most people in the workforce. They think millionaires should want to go on working happily while forced to live on middle-class level income. They object to the accumulation of wealth. They don’t believe you need a million dollars in the bank to live comfortably for 40 years after retirement. They might need that, but you don’t. They’re absolutely certain that anyone making more than them is somehow depriving them of their “fair share” and they don’t see anything hypocritical about not giving a “fair share” to those who make less than them. Let the rich people do that; they can afford it.

So, basically, we have two groups of followers who are essentially delusional who believe the lies of politicians.

Yes, lies! Hillary is promising you the moon, but she doesn’t own the moon and with the government $20 trillion in debt, she is unlikely to be able to afford the moon in the next eight years. What few proposals she manages to institute will add to the debt and incentivize the indolent to sink deeper into their padded poverty and discourage the productive from being productive. Trump is also promising the moon, just from a different angle, and at $20 trillion in debt, he’s not going to be able to make good on his promises. His tariffs will damage the economy, but probably no more than some of Hillary’s proposals. The fact is that continued deficit spending is going to be bad for the economy and it will get worse under either of these two.

From an economic perspective, they are both bad candidates. From a civil libertarian perspective, they are both bad for liberty.

Hillary is not a fan of free speech or religious (unless it aligns with her misinterpretations). She’s a gun-grabber. She’s a supporter of the surveillance state. She advocated for a greater authority for the government to take away people’s kids for an unsubstantiated reason given. She’s a wannebe dictator. You get what you voted for if you elect her and you will not like it. She’s going to make Obama’s threatened oppression a reality.

Trump is no fan of free speech either and he wants to deport Muslims from the US so I think he’s probably anti-freedom of relegion. He has supported gun grabbing before he was against it. He’s wishy-washy on the surveillance state. But hey, he doesn’t want to take your kids. He’s a wannabe dictator too.

So why vote for either one of them?

Crickets! I hear … yes, crickets.

 

 

Posted August 13, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in politics, Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

The Two Party Crackup Could Be Upon Us | Stephen Weese   Leave a comment

The parties are divided and their candidates are weak. This election could be their undoing.

Found on FEE – Source: The Two Party Crackup Could Be Upon Us | Stephen Weese

Stephen Weese

Imagine living in a world where there are only two choices. Chocolate or vanilla. Hot or cold. Light or darkness. There are no in-betweens. No “shades of gray.” You must explain everything as a “yes or no” dichotomy. On or off. False or true. This binary reality leaves little room for human diversity or creativity – yet it is in this exact reality we find ourselves trapped with the US political system.

Prelude to Deception

The parties are divided and their candidates are weak.It all starts with a sociological phenomenon created due to our political election process. First Past the Post means that in our elections, winner takes all and the loser gets nothing. We are told that if we do not vote for one of the two major parties, our vote is wasted. (I mathematically analyzed this myth in a previous article.)

The concept that underlies the two party phenomenon is not only mathematical in principle, it is sociological. Duverger’s law assumes that people faced with more than two choices in a First Past the Post election will vote against the most radical or undesired opponent, instead of for the candidate they most desire. This demonstrates what is called a “negative” vote – it could be more precisely described as a vote made out of fear of the worst candidate.

Another principle of Duverger’s law is that it filters out “weaker” parties in that people will not vote for a party that has no chance of winning. This weakness is only psychologically defined; a party could appear weaker simply due to less publicity. Certainly a third party could have better ideas than the main two – but if the ideas are not heard, then no one can know about them. The purely cognitive illusion that there are only two “worthy” parties is perpetuated by lack of media coverage and the false appeal to common practice that it’s the “way things always have been done.”

The simple truth is, Duverger’s law depends on the psychological basis of fear and ignorance. Without these factors in society, the mathematical differences would disappear.

The Two Major Parties are Weak

People only think of politics as “right” or “left” because this is all they have ever known.At this point, the two major candidates for election, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have historically high negative numbers. In fact, the two frontrunners have the highest unfavorable ratings since those numbers have been tracked: Trump is net negative 33, and Clinton negative 21.

More voters see these candidates in an unfavorable light than a favorable one. This would be a perfect time for the rise of a third party, even according to Duverger’s law. It only takes a cursory look at the news to see the large anti-Trump movement among major Republicans as well as the staunch Sanders wing of the Democratic party. The parties are divided and their candidates are weak, as shown by the polls above.

The Electorate Is Polarized

If you have the feeling that in the last decade partisan politics has become more extreme and vitriolic you’d be correct – Pew researchhas been tracking this phenomenon. Both the extremity of Democratic and Republican views have increased, as well as dislike and intolerance for the “other” party. At this point, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican.

There are double the amount of pure liberals and conservatives than a decade ago, and the fear of the opposing party has doubled as well. Twice as many people think that the alternate party threatens the “nation’s well-being.”

If people could overcome the fear of the “worst” candidate and voted for what they believed in, the facade would begin to crumble.This polarization affects people’s choices of where to live, shop, and travel, and even goes to the extent of opposition to a family member marrying someone of the opposing party. The Pew study also shows that those on the extreme ends of the spectrum are the most politically active – writing letters, posting on social media, travelling to political events (though this is hardly surprising.) The effect of this of course is that these parties are represented more by their extreme elements.

This polarization also results in one-dimensional thinking. People only think of politics as “right” or “left” because this is all they have ever known. As humans, are we only one-dimensional? Aren’t there more ways to look at solving the problems of a nation than just left and right?

Most of us are trapped in this one-dimensional illusory world, like a train stuck on a single track. The mere idea that we could travel in a completely different direction is a foreign concept. Even a middle-school student can tell you that we live in a world with three dimensions, that we can travel in an infinite variety of paths. Yet we find ourselves confined to this oversimplified model of reality that goes counter to our interests and only allows us choices that leave most dissatisfied.

Majority in the Middle

Another effect of this polarization is that moderate Americans find themselves in the middle of this extremism. Most voters do not view the other party as a threat to the nation and are not 100% liberal or conservative in their views. There are actually more people in the middle, yet they find themselves forced to choose to side with one extreme or the other. In 2014, the “mixed” electorate (holding views from both sides) was 39%.

There are less of them now, due to extremism, yet this 39% in the middle is enough to completely take over an election, if they only had a different option to choose from. Unfortunately, the Pew data also shows that the people in the middle are less likely to vote and participate in the election process. Duverger’s law is working here because these moderates do not know that they are a huge bloc that could elect a moderate candidate with ease.

Overcoming Ignorance and Fear

We live in the age of new media – a social movement can begin online without the backing of a major television or news network.As we have seen, voting tendencies in our system are predicated on fear of a radical candidate as well as ignorance of third party platforms or even their existence. This is the one-dimensional illusion we live in. If we continue to be more polarized, more and more of the electorate will hate the other half.

If nothing stops this progress, those in the middle will be forced to choose a side as the tolerance for opposing views decreases. Others could stand up and speak and become a driving force pulling opinions back toward some sense of centrism – or even better, they could propose ideas outside of the traditional “left vs. right” paradigm.

The truth is, if people could overcome the fear of the “worst” candidate and voted for what they believed in, the facade would begin to crumble. If the media and others covered third parties more, unaligned voters – for example, people who believe in peace and freedom – would have a new incentive to participate and give a positive vote.

Fortunately, we now live in the age of new media – a social movement can begin online without the backing of a major television or news network. This election is the most opportune time for this to happen given the record negative views of both candidates. Thus it behooves the unaligned voter to find her or his voice in this election. If these voters together decided that “enough is enough” and realized that they are actually the most powerful voting bloc, they could simply say “no” to the two major parties – and nothing could stop them.

What Pisses Me Off About Progressives   Leave a comment

I’m actually pretty pissed off about progressives and it’s getting worse during this political season, probably because both major parties have been taken over by progressives, so the news is, well — pretty much all about progressive policies.

From my perspective, progressives and socialists are pretty much highly-similar breeds of ravenous rodent. And I have a huge problem with both of them. Why?

Well, let’s start with their promotion of envy and theft, which breeds the offspring of class conflict (envy) and increasing taxation (theft). Progressives thrive on victimology, shunning personal responsibility while encouraging mob mentalities, sacrificing individuality to a communal blender that chews up anyone with initiative or creativity while the progressives insist it is being done for our own good. They promise peace and harmony, but deliver strife and conflict because they pit class against class while they cynically buy off favored factions at the expense of disfavored factions.

Progressives offer favors, subsidies and security that they can’t ultimately deliver and then blithely dismiss their own failures. They consider expressions of good intentions superior to actual outcomes and reality. They foist dependency and paternalism on anyone unfortunate enough to believe their lies, while concentrating wealth and power in the hands of people whose characters and naivete make them the most susceptible to corruption. They push people around allegedly “for their own good”. Their programs are always compulsory because they recognize that human nature will turn away from them if they’re left voluntary.

Progressives spurn the most basic lessons of history and economics because they believe that if they just try hard enough next time, they can somehow overcome reality and human nature.

 

 

Let’s just consider entitlement programs. I planned for the day I would be too old to work. I’ve been saving and investing and growing my nest-egg … just like the people in Italy and Cyprus who had their retirement accounts confiscated by their governments when entitlement programs began to go bankrupt. Social Security will be solidly in the red before I retire, therefore — well, there goes my nest-egg.

I used to be able to go to the doctor with my check book in hand and pay for whatever I needed. But health care regulations curtailed the numbers of hospitalis and clinics that could be opened and forced doctors to increase their prices to cover costs and third-party insurance made my fellow patients unconcerned with those rising costs, so my cash payment system became unaffordable. So I took a job with health insurance, but over the years, what I paid to cover my family increased until I was paying 42% of my pay to health insurance. Faced with a premium increase that would drive that cost up over 50%, I found another job with a larger pool to better control the premiums, but the ACA is driving those costs up now as well.The difference now is that I am forced to buy insurance, even if it becomes unaffordable.

No, you cannot blame this on private companies. Left to their own devises, priveate companies (insurance companies) and individuals (doctors) will lower their prices in competition for your business until they cover their expenses plus a reasonable profit. It is government meddling in the form of regulations that have caused the current situation in health care. The supply of doctors is limited by the number of medical schools, which is limited by the permitting processes of the government. The number of clinics and hospitalis is limited similarly by permitting requirements. This creates near-monopolies that drive up prices artificially.

Insurance companies operate in near-monopolies as well. There are hundreds of insurance companies in the United States, but most states allow only 2 or 3 insurers to sell policies within those states. This is encouraged by federal regulations. Instead of fixing this problem by allowing insurance comapnies from any state to offer policies in any other state (meeting state guidelines just as auto insurance does, of course), the ACA actuall concentrated the number of companies that could offer policies in any given market, thereby exerting monopolistic pressure on the market.

Good sense would allow companies to form pools with similar companies, but that is not permitted under federal law, so … for example, the mental health center I used to work for had to make-do with an insurance pool of 120 participants, instead of pooling with all non-profits in the state, which would have given us an insurance pool of several thousand. This increased premiums and resulted, eventually, in the bankruptcy of the agency because they weren’t permitted to drop insurance under the ACA.

My son obstensibly owes $56,000 in national debt. He’s only 17 and is not yet a legal person who can accrue personal debt, but he’s saddled with a huge debt he didn’t create. He will never have to pay an individual payment toward that debt, but he will pay for it in decreased opportunities within a moribund economy for the rest of his life.

Those are just some of the gifts that progressive socialists give us every day. And, yeah, I’m pissed off by that. But what pisses me off more is that the news media will not admit that the two main party candidates are both progressives who will grow government and who both promise to add about $10 trillion in debt to our burden.

We’re told we have a two-dimension choice. Pick progressive candidate A or progressive candidate B, there is nothing else available. That is not true and that knowledge gives me hope and helps me to be a little less angry.

Freedom is an antedote to dispair.

Posted August 11, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Are in Lockstep on Government Spying | Anthony Gregory   1 comment

The surveillance state has once again disappeared from the public debate, just the way it likes it.

 

Whatever else it might be, November’s election won’t be a referendum on surveillance and privAnthony Gregoryacy. Hillary Rodham Clinton voted as Senator for the Patriot Act in 2001 and 2006, and Donald Trump has approved its renewal, saying he tends to “err on the side of security.”

Trump has called Snowden a traitor worthy of execution.In the Democratic debates, Clinton harshly criticized NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, insisting, probably wrongly, that he “could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistleblower” and “raised all the issues” without breaking the law. Trump has called Snowden a traitor, promised to get Russian president Vladimir Putin to hand him over, and, in the past, even suggested him worthy of execution.

Source: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Are in Lockstep on Government Spying | Anthony Gregory

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese   Leave a comment

This is a kind of math heavy article, but it explains scientifically what I know in my gut. Voting for Trump or Hillary is wasting my vote. It’s throwing it away like casting pearls before swine. One or the other of them will probably win, but without my help. I choose to spend my vote wisely on a candidate who I don’t hate. Lela

 

A look at mathematical probabilities suggests you should vote third party if you want your vote to matter

Source: How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

It’s Time to Privatize Foreign Policy | Richard M. Ebeling   Leave a comment

It should be a matter of personal conscience and choice to assist those in other lands who need and deserve outside help.

Source: It’s Time to Privatize Foreign Policy | Richard M. Ebeling

Posted August 5, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

The Entitlement State that Nobody Mentioned | Richard M. Ebeling   Leave a comment

The Republican and Democrat Party Conventions are now behind us. But through all the cheers and jeers, hoopla and poopla, warnings of a dark and dangerous future or promises of a bright and beautiful shape-of-things-to-come, one of the most serious shadows hanging over America was hardly mentioned at all: the unsustainability of the “entitlement” programs of the welfare state.

In fact, Clinton and the Democrats have proposed to both maintain and expand the redistributive state, and Trump has expressed his intention of not challenging Social Security or Medicare.

Growing Government Debt as Far as the Eye Can See

In July 2016, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its“2016 Long-Term Budget Outlook.” Looking over the next 30 years from 2016 to 2046, the CBO estimates that the federal government’s debt held by the public will increase from its current level of equal to 75 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 141 percent of GDP in 30-years time. The national debt will be far above its previous high of 106 percent of GDP shortly after the end of the Second World War in 1945.

Source: The Entitlement State that Nobody Mentioned | Richard M. Ebeling

thebibliophagist

a voracious reader. | a book blogger.

cupidcupid999

adventure, art, nature, travel, photography, wildlife - animals, and funny stuff

Republic-MainStreet

The Peaceful Revolution Liberate Main Street

atleastihaveafrigginglass

What could possibly go wrong?

Who the Hell Knows?

The name says it all.

Rebellious Hazelnuts

Surreal Stories, Very Tall Tales

Adjusting My Sails

When the wind doesn't blow the way you want, adjust your sails

Stine Writing

Poetry, Positivity, and Connecting!

Writer vs the World

In search of beauty, inspired by literature.

%d bloggers like this: