For taxpayers that is.
TV talking heads worry about Obama care going into a death spiral. By which they mean only older and sicker patients sign up for Obamacare and the young and healthy won't. Which means the insurance companies have to raise premiums to pay the bills, which means fewer and fewer healthy patients would sign up, 'cause it costs too much. As the TV newsies tell it, the entire Obamacare plan would emit black smoke, burst into flames and make a big hole in the ground where it hits.
Don't you wish.
In real life, the insurance companies will cry a lot, and head to the White House for a taxpayer funded bailout.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Friday, November 22, 2013
Nuking the opposition.
Harry Reid decided to do it, he pulled some kinda magic and now the Senate Dems can approve Obama appointments by a simple majority, instead of the supermajority that has been required since Thomas Jefferson's time. Needless to say, the Republicans are pissed.
They been talking about doing this for a decade. I'm wondering why Harry decided to do it now. Is it cause he figures the Dems are gonna loose the Senate in 2014, so he might as well stack the courts with as many liberal judges as he can? Is it to give the TV newsies something besides the Obamacare disaster to talk about?
Harry must not care much about bipartisan anything. The Republicans are now mad enough to give the Dems trouble just for spite. And, when the Republicans do take the Senate, they have a whole list of crusty conservative judges to appoint.
On a longer term viewpoint, Harry has thrown the classic Senate mission into the trash. The Senate rules on filibusters/super majorities have been there since the beginning, to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Used to be, the majority had to have a lotta votes to jam anything thru that the minority hated. Not any more. Granted, yesterday's nuclear option only covered presidential appointments, but next week, we can go for legislation and Supreme Court appointments.
They been talking about doing this for a decade. I'm wondering why Harry decided to do it now. Is it cause he figures the Dems are gonna loose the Senate in 2014, so he might as well stack the courts with as many liberal judges as he can? Is it to give the TV newsies something besides the Obamacare disaster to talk about?
Harry must not care much about bipartisan anything. The Republicans are now mad enough to give the Dems trouble just for spite. And, when the Republicans do take the Senate, they have a whole list of crusty conservative judges to appoint.
On a longer term viewpoint, Harry has thrown the classic Senate mission into the trash. The Senate rules on filibusters/super majorities have been there since the beginning, to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Used to be, the majority had to have a lotta votes to jam anything thru that the minority hated. Not any more. Granted, yesterday's nuclear option only covered presidential appointments, but next week, we can go for legislation and Supreme Court appointments.
Broadband is back.
I've been off the air since yesterday. Today I called the Time Warner service number. They tried a few things and we decided the modem might have died. So I went into Littleton, to the Time Warner shop on Union Ave, our a little past Lahout's. They gave me a new modem. I took it back and plugged it in and no joy. I'm still off the air. So, call the Time Warner trouble number again, and they say they can have a service man out today. Groovy.
And, the service guy gets here. Swaps out the splitter, replaces some tired looking J connectors, still no joy. He has a clever box the can plug into the coax and make like a modem. They track back to the pole, and decide to change out my coax drop. That does it,. I'm back.
And, the service guy gets here. Swaps out the splitter, replaces some tired looking J connectors, still no joy. He has a clever box the can plug into the coax and make like a modem. They track back to the pole, and decide to change out my coax drop. That does it,. I'm back.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Immigration bill
There are a lot of angles to immigration. There is a "comprehensive" (something for everyone) bill floating around. Democrats would love to get some press and maybe a vote on it, anything to deflect the obmacare flak heading their way. So what's in it for real people?
Well, it could let in more low end workers for picking crops, construction, retail. Planters, growers, farmers, and business are in favor of more low price workers. For the same reasons, unions are against it.
It ought to do something about the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country. These poor people have no legal standing anywhere and live in terror of a routine traffic stop that gets them deported. Anyone, employers, the mob, petty criminals, cops, the Border Patrol can abuse them at will. This is unfair, unjust un American, and we ought to fix it.
Hispanics and Democrats want to turn all 11 million of 'em into instant citizens. Hispanics like this 'cause a lot the illegals are friends, relatives and neighbors. Democrats like this 'cause they think Hispanics will vote a straight Democratic ticket. 11 million voters for your party is not to be sneezed at. A whole lot of other people see no reason why illegals in the country should get better treatment than the millions of legals who are waiting in line to enter the country.
Maybe we could compromise and issue work permits to illegals who have been here for a while, have jobs, look stable, and have stayed out of trouble with the law. The work permit doesn't let 'em vote, or let them draw welfare, unemployment, medicaid, food stamps, or social security benefits. But it does let them hold a job, get a driver's license, buy a car, buy car insurance, and send their kids to public school.
Or, we could deport them all. I don't approve of that, most of 'em have jobs, contribute to the community, pay taxes and stay out of trouble. We need citizens like that. Arresting them and packing them onto buses for shipment back to Mexico is the sort of thing the Nazis used to do. American is what it is because we have a large and loyal population, both immigrant and native borne. In fact, immigrants are as loyal, and often more loyal than the native borne.
And then honorable service in the US armed forces ought to earn US citizenship. And illegals who were brought to this country as minor children deserve a break. It isn't the kid's fault that their parents decided to slip into the US without doing the required paperwork.
We ought to have an immigrant quota of 1% of the current population, per year. America can easily assimilate that many immigrants. 1% would be about 3 million immigrants a year. We ought to favor the young, the healthy, the educated, the skilled, the married. Current policy favors relatives of American citizens, which gets us a lot of grandparents just about ready to retire and draw US social security.
If we cannot do enough log rolling and horse trading to pass a "comprehensive" immigration bill, then we ought to pass things that every one agrees on. Getting something is better than nothing.
Well, it could let in more low end workers for picking crops, construction, retail. Planters, growers, farmers, and business are in favor of more low price workers. For the same reasons, unions are against it.
It ought to do something about the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country. These poor people have no legal standing anywhere and live in terror of a routine traffic stop that gets them deported. Anyone, employers, the mob, petty criminals, cops, the Border Patrol can abuse them at will. This is unfair, unjust un American, and we ought to fix it.
Hispanics and Democrats want to turn all 11 million of 'em into instant citizens. Hispanics like this 'cause a lot the illegals are friends, relatives and neighbors. Democrats like this 'cause they think Hispanics will vote a straight Democratic ticket. 11 million voters for your party is not to be sneezed at. A whole lot of other people see no reason why illegals in the country should get better treatment than the millions of legals who are waiting in line to enter the country.
Maybe we could compromise and issue work permits to illegals who have been here for a while, have jobs, look stable, and have stayed out of trouble with the law. The work permit doesn't let 'em vote, or let them draw welfare, unemployment, medicaid, food stamps, or social security benefits. But it does let them hold a job, get a driver's license, buy a car, buy car insurance, and send their kids to public school.
Or, we could deport them all. I don't approve of that, most of 'em have jobs, contribute to the community, pay taxes and stay out of trouble. We need citizens like that. Arresting them and packing them onto buses for shipment back to Mexico is the sort of thing the Nazis used to do. American is what it is because we have a large and loyal population, both immigrant and native borne. In fact, immigrants are as loyal, and often more loyal than the native borne.
And then honorable service in the US armed forces ought to earn US citizenship. And illegals who were brought to this country as minor children deserve a break. It isn't the kid's fault that their parents decided to slip into the US without doing the required paperwork.
We ought to have an immigrant quota of 1% of the current population, per year. America can easily assimilate that many immigrants. 1% would be about 3 million immigrants a year. We ought to favor the young, the healthy, the educated, the skilled, the married. Current policy favors relatives of American citizens, which gets us a lot of grandparents just about ready to retire and draw US social security.
If we cannot do enough log rolling and horse trading to pass a "comprehensive" immigration bill, then we ought to pass things that every one agrees on. Getting something is better than nothing.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Was JFK a Conservative?
With the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination coming up, TV news is full of chit chat about JFK. Some of the chitchat cites JFK policies, his tax cut, his strong anti-communism, and calls JFK a conservative. I suppose, but fifty years ago, JFK was a liberal. Sides have changed, the left has moved way left compared to where they were 50 years ago. By today's standards, JFK is conservative, but by 1960 standards he was liberal. Standards have changed.
It's one thing for modern talking heads to claim a popular 20th century president supports their 21st century political programs. But if you want to understand want was going down in the 1960's, you need to understand what the words liberal and conservative meant in the 1960's.
It's one thing for modern talking heads to claim a popular 20th century president supports their 21st century political programs. But if you want to understand want was going down in the 1960's, you need to understand what the words liberal and conservative meant in the 1960's.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Gaza Strip Misery?
The Gaza strip is very small,heavily populated, and miserable. A nearly full page article in the Economist details how bad things are. The Israeli's won't let anything but food in, the Egyptians are closing the tunnels that used to smuggle in arms and luxury goods, electric power is mostly off. Then they printed a picture, two small boys, probably seven or eight, playing on a sand pile in front of a crumbling poured concrete building. The background is pretty miserable, but the two boys are dressed in brand new clean jerseys and patterned shorts. The clothes look fresh off the rack at Walmart. My kids never looked that spandy clean playing out of doors back here in suburban US of A. Methinks the photo was carefully posed, presumable by Hamas which runs the Gaza strip.
One wonders why they didn't dress the boys in rags for the photo.
One wonders why they didn't dress the boys in rags for the photo.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Three-D Printer prints a gun
And even Fox TV news thinks this is horrible. They had a cop explaining the horror of guns without serial numbers. Untraceable. And being all plastic they will go thru airport metal detectors. End of civilization. Let's ban 'em.
This from Fox News. I hate to think what MSNBC is saying.
Let's be real. I can buy a brand new handgun from the likes of Colt, Smith & Wesson, or Ruger for $500-$600. That's new, top of the line. Used, bottom of the line they are cheaper. The 3-D printers cost three or four times that, even for a home hobby shop model that only does plastic. Best future development of 3-D printers, brings the cost down to that of an office laser printer. In 30 years that is. Laser printers have been on the market for thirty years and they are still too expensive for home use. Us home hobbyshoppers use inkjet printers.
Whereas the utility of 3-D printers for inventors, new product development, making unavailable parts for old and out-of-production machines and appliances, doing artwork, making Christmas tree ornaments, jewelry, fancy furniture hardware, and knickknacks is undeniable, and ought to be encouraged. If we let BATFE "regulate" 3-D printers, they will load 'em down with so much paperwork that nobody can afford 'em.
The cop's argument about serial numbers is ridiculous. A Dremel tool will zip the serial numbers off a gun (or anything else) in seconds. Plastic guns going thru metal detectors is bogus too. Air travel would be safer if the passengers carried heat. For that matter, I don't believe all that plastic gun talk. They been talking about them for years, but I have never seen one. Even Glock, which has a plastic frame, still has a steel barrel.
This from Fox News. I hate to think what MSNBC is saying.
Let's be real. I can buy a brand new handgun from the likes of Colt, Smith & Wesson, or Ruger for $500-$600. That's new, top of the line. Used, bottom of the line they are cheaper. The 3-D printers cost three or four times that, even for a home hobby shop model that only does plastic. Best future development of 3-D printers, brings the cost down to that of an office laser printer. In 30 years that is. Laser printers have been on the market for thirty years and they are still too expensive for home use. Us home hobbyshoppers use inkjet printers.
Whereas the utility of 3-D printers for inventors, new product development, making unavailable parts for old and out-of-production machines and appliances, doing artwork, making Christmas tree ornaments, jewelry, fancy furniture hardware, and knickknacks is undeniable, and ought to be encouraged. If we let BATFE "regulate" 3-D printers, they will load 'em down with so much paperwork that nobody can afford 'em.
The cop's argument about serial numbers is ridiculous. A Dremel tool will zip the serial numbers off a gun (or anything else) in seconds. Plastic guns going thru metal detectors is bogus too. Air travel would be safer if the passengers carried heat. For that matter, I don't believe all that plastic gun talk. They been talking about them for years, but I have never seen one. Even Glock, which has a plastic frame, still has a steel barrel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)