Topics – Page 10 – Zombies Uncensored

Ron Paul and Shameless Media Bias

Here is Ron Paul on CNN’s Broken Us Government with Jack Cafferty

The shameless bias is near the end when Cafferty tells Paul that he wishes he’d run again….and I loved every minute of it.

Congress: Just Gimme Two New Parties

Here is Senator McCaskill arguing for extending unemployment benefits. The speech starts out with McCaskill pointing out Republican senators voted for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries without paying for it. It is not very clear, but the argument seems to be if it was OK in the past to avoid worrying about debt, we shouldn’t be worrying about debt today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBAzOEq9r-M

Senator McCaskill mentions cosponsoring PAYGO, but seems to be saying pay as you go can be ignored because of Republican hypocrisy of not paying for programs. All I can gather from this is its OK to be hypocritical, as long as the opposition is more hypocritical.

It’s a safe bet that soon there will be a Republican senator pointing to Democratic hypocrisy on debt as an excuse more debt. I want at least two completely new parties to take power just so we can get away from this justification via hypocrisy arguments. Two new parties would at least hit the reset button on finger pointing for a few years–maybe even long enough to fix DC.

If HealthCare Reform is Like Buying Meat: Hands off My Hotdog

I’m glad the President made a meat industry analogy, because its a good opportunity to point out the flaws in the President’s proposal.

President Obama at the Health Care Summit:

We could set up a system where food was cheaper than it is right now if we just eliminated meat inspectors, and we eliminated any regulations on how food is distributed and how its stored. I’ll bet in terms of drug prices we would definitely reduce prescription drug prices if we didn’t have a drug administration that makes sure that we test the drugs so that they don’t kill us, but we don’t do that. We make some decisions to protect consumers in every aspect of our lives.

If the role of government in health insurance is analogous to the meat industry then according to the Presidents proposal –

We would all be required to purchase meat even if we didn’t want it.
We wouldn’t be able to choose between buying hotdogs or steaks; we have to buy steaks.
We could buy some steaks from some vendors in other states, but wouldn’t be able to buy hotdogs from anyone, anywhere.
Those too poor to afford meat would have free steaks, but not hotdogs.
The meat industry would be labeled greedy for profiting from people’s inevitable hunger.
Supermarkets would only be allowed to sell steaks.
We would all be protected from affordable meats like hotdogs, turkey, and chicken.

Its would be wrong to tell vegetarians to buy meat, and it’s equally wrong to tell Christian Scientists to buy health insurance. It would be an intrusion of government to decide which meats we can afford, just as its an overreach into our personal lives for DC to to tell us how much insurance to buy.

Forcing people to buy meat would only protect some meat companies, just as forcing people to buy health insurance only protects some insurance companies. The wide variety and affordable prices of meats at supermarkets didn’t come about through a DC-based algorithm of price controls and income-based prices. It came about by supply and demand and a free market.

To President Obama: stay away from my health insurance, and hands off my hotdog, too.

If Celebrities Became Presidents

A common tactic in politics is to take some views and expand them to an extreme to make others afraid of them.

One of the most common ones is President Obama will reshape the country into a communist country like Soviet Russia. Even if the President were a devout communist, the slippery slope in American politics isn’t very slippery. The last year has shown even the most powerful person on Earth isn’t powerful enough to reshape America.

This isn’t just a left or right tactic. When Mike Huckabee was running for President, the attacker said the country would become a theocracy like Iran. For Ron Paul, the attack was the country would turn into anarchy like Somalia.

Just because one person isn’t powerful enough to reshape the country doesn’t mean we can’t have fun with the idea. Here are some new forms of government if celebrities were to become President.

Abe Vigoda: Immortal-ocracy
Barbara Walters: Bahwah-ahquacy
Carrot Top: Ginger-ocracy
Charlie Sheen: Rehab-ocracy
Chris Hansen: Itsatrap-ocracy
Joel McHale: Snark-ocracy
Kelly Osbourne: Ozzy-ocracy
Kevin Smith: Twoseat-ocracy
Kim Kardashian: Booty-ocracy
Moot: Anon-ocracy
Nadya Suleman : Octo-ocracy
Snooki: Friggin’ocracy
Snoop Dogg: Hip-ocracy
Tiger Woods: Player-ocracy

ObamaCare – You’ll be in control, except when you aren’t.

Out of morbid curiosity, I looked at the Presidents new health care proposal. I wanted to know if the word “mandate” was used in the proposal. Mandate is in there, but it’s not used in the portion describing what the cost is to each person. If you choose to remain uninsured you have to make a payment. In other words, buying health insurance isn’t mandatory, but paying for it is mandatory.

There are other carefully chosen words and phrases in this proposal, like the very first line:

The President’s Proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care.

Taking away control of choosing to purchase health insurance now puts you in control of health insurance. Just as forcing everyone to purchase a fitness club membership (or make a payment if they choose to remain unfit) puts them in control of their fitness. You will now be in control, except when you aren’t.

Health care costs are described as inevitable as in “make a payment to offset the cost of care they will inevitably need.” Using life insurance is inevitable; using health care insurance is not inevitable. Even using catastrophic health insurance is not inevitable. Not everyone will have an accident and not everyone spends the last year of their life under medical care.

The part titled Improve Individual Responsibility has two paragraphs covering the cost to each person; the cost is not described as a tax, fine, or a penalty. The choice of words to describe the cost is payment, alternative payment and assessment. It’s not a tax, fine, or a penalty; it’s simply a transfer of money from you to your government, and anyone who says otherwise is just itching for a fight.

The proposal mentions curbing insurance company abuses. Its pretty low when insurance contracts have ambiguous, difficult to decipher, or hidden intentions. I’m assuming thats what the President means abuses along the lines of technical language the layperson doesn’t understand or adding hidden meanings, terms, conditions, or unexpressed intentions. Only a lowlife like an insurance company would stoop to those shady tactics.

Below are the two paragraphs covering the transfer of wealth.

Improve Individual Responsibility. All Americans should have affordable health insurance coverage. This helps everyone, both insured and uninsured, by reducing cost shifting, where people with insurance end up covering the inevitable health care costs of the uninsured, and making possible robust health insurance reforms that will curb insurance company abuses and increase the security and stability of health insurance for all Americans. The House and Senate bills require individuals who have affordable options but who choose to remain uninsured to make a payment to offset the cost of care they will inevitably need. The House bill’s payment is a percentage of income. The Senate sets the payment as a flat dollar amount or percentage of income, whichever is higher (although not higher than the lowest premium in the area). Both the House and Senate bill provide a low-income exemption, for those individuals with incomes below the tax filing threshold (House) or below the poverty threshold (Senate).The Senate also includes a “hardship” exemption for people who cannot afford insurance, included in the President’s Proposal. It protects those who would face premiums of more than 8 percent of their income from having to pay any assessment and they can purchase a low-cost catastrophic plan in the exchange if they choose.

The President’s Proposal adopts the Senate approach but lowers the flat dollar assessments, and raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured. Specifically, it lowers the flat dollar amounts from $495 to $325 in 2015 and $750 to $695 in 2016. Subsequent years are indexed to $695 rather than $750, so the flat dollar amounts in later years are lower than the Senate bill as well. The President’s Proposal raises the percent of income that is an alternative payment amount from 0.5 to 1.0% in 2014, 1.0 to 2.0% in 2015, and 2.0 to 2.5% for 2016 and subsequent years – the same percent of income as in the House bill, which makes the assessment more progressive. For ease of administration, the President’s Proposal changes the payment exemption from the Senate policy (individuals with income below the poverty threshold) to individuals with income below the tax filing threshold (the House policy). In other words, a married couple with income below $18,700 will not have to pay the assessment. The President’s Proposal also adopts the Senate’s “hardship” exemption.

TMD;ST – Too Much Debate; Stopped Thinking

After seeing there is yet another health care plan from President Barack Obama, I’m becoming an advocate for ignorance and apathy. There is an eleven page PDF about the Presidents latest proposal and my first thought was to respond with tl;dr (“Too long; didn’t read”). The country needs a retreaded health care proposal about as much as the internet needs another opinion… like this one. At this point one more health care proposal or debate is just tears in rain.

I know my first reaction to something isn’t always the best response. I’ve tried to stay informed on the health care debate. I want to have at least a semi-informed view. After hearing this issued debated through a two-year Presidential campaign and a year of Obama’s Presidency I think there has been enough debate. I’ve heard so much about health care that parts of my brain have gone on strike and are boycotting my natural curiosity.

You know that soft spot on a baby’s head? That is what health care is on my brain. The optimist and lizard portions of my brain have been demanding curiosity supply some good news about the economy. Since natural curiosity has done such a poor job supplying any news to satiate the cries from optimism, other portions of my brain have started listening to ignorance and apathy calls to censor optimism. The ugly mess our nation is in, has been reproduced in my consciousness.

The conspiracy part of my brain is still somewhat active (and trying to convince the logic center that the plethora of health care bills is a plot to bring about this apathetic response). Logic is demanding more proof before it will seriously consider conspiracy’s argument.

The logic center is just out of luck in hopes of further information, because TMD; ST (Too Much Debate; Stopped Thinking.)

Cable News – Boundaries? We Don’t Need No Stinking Boundaries.

I’m a firm believer that the institutions of society should be independent from one another; each institution that becomes too entwined with another isn’t doing justice to its primary role. Watching the Sunday morning news shows, I discovered another example of the damage caused by lack of this independence.

I was watching Alex Witt on MSNBC News Live Sunday morning and the next story up was another report about the Olympics. I flipped over to CNN because I’ve been getting annoyed with MSNBC pimping NBC’s coverage of the Olympics on their news channel.

Over on CNN’s Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz, the subject was about FOX News crossing boundaries. FOX had covered Glenn Beck‘s speech at CPAC live on their network. Since I had just flipped from MSNBC pimping one of their shows, I thought here is another example of a cable network (FOX) pimping one of their shows (Glenn Beck).

I watch the rest of Reliable Sources until State of the Union with Candy Crowley comes on. Candy Crowley starts the show out by holding an upcoming cover of Time magazine. The Time cover was the subject for State of the Union. CNN and Time magazine are both owned by Time Warner. In other words, here is CNN pimping Time magazine.

Twenty minutes of channel flipping really brought home all the complaints I’ve heard for years about cable news being too corporate. They all claim to be impartial and unbiased, but boundaries of independent reporting are gone and their shows have turned into commercials for other arms of their corporation.

I don’t want to search the internet for each story cable news reports on to find out what connection the channel has to the subject they are reporting on. If there is anyone out there willing to start a completely independent cable news channel, you got at least one customer who will tune in to watch.

Cable News – Boundaries? We Don’t Need No Stinking Boundaries.

Should I Slit My Wrists

I struggled for some time to understand what went wrong in the economic collapse.

I listened to a great deal of debate about who should be blamed.

The suspects for the collapse were speculators, mortgage bankers, the FED, Wall Street, Washington D.C., and borrowers.

It turns out the collapse was caused by all the above.

Here is Peter Schiff at the Mortgage Bankers Speech from 2006, with one of the best explanations for the crash before it happened.

Somalis too Skinny for Libertarians

When the subject of smaller government comes up, it is often met with the love it or leave attitude. If you think the government is spending too much or invading individual liberty, then you’re told to move to Somalia where they have basically no government and live in a fantasy paradise of no government.

Wanting a smaller and less powerful government does not equal wanting to live in Somalia. Its just another “love it or leave it” argument. Wanting to change something shows you care about it. If you didn’t care about this country you would move away or just not say anything. Asking a family member to stop drinking too much doesn’t mean you hate them; it shows you care.

Shrinking government is far from wanting no government. Taking away the government’s power to decide what constitutes victimless crime or power to appropriate away more wealth is not calling for the destruction of government. The if government isn’t big, it will be like Somalia argument sounds like someone overweight saying if they don’t eat donuts, they will become anorexic.

Political partisans can agree the government is too big and powerful, but they don’t see the government as a whole body and instead focus on individual body parts. Listening to pundits speak about how “the right side of the body is fat,” countered with “no it’s the left side of the body that’s fat” is like listening to firemen argue which side of a building needs water while the building burns down.

The huge federal budget is an example of a gluttonous government. Forty-three cents out of every dollar that it spends is borrowed. The solution to the deficit isn’t giving the government more donuts–it’s telling it to eat less. The government wanting to raise taxes is like a fat guy saying, “If I was 10 feet tall, I wouldn’t be considered fat.” The problem is when the government gets bigger, its appetite also grows; it will only turn into a fat giant if it grows any larger.

The gluttonous power of the government needs to be reigned in also. Their hunger of power is that of eating Chinese food: soon after they have the power, they hunger for even more. Taking away victimless crime laws won’t leave the government as skin-and-bones any more than drinking diet pop will suddenly make you skinny. It won’t be anarchy, as in Somalia; there will just be fewer things for which the government needs to be fed.

Don’t starve the government to death. Just see it has a healthier tax and power index.