Don’t panic. Why? Because it’s not as bad as you’re being led to believe. Here’s why:
Don’t panic. Why? Because it’s not as bad as you’re being led to believe. Here’s why:
This is getting to be FAR beyond insane.
It was announced yesterday (7/5/16) that Director of the FBI James Comey was not going to recommend charges be brought against Hillary Clinton in the email scandal that has been ongoing for many years now. In his official statement, the FBI Director said the following, to sum things up:
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
Are you ready to feel the equality yet? It’s coming…
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2017 passed the Senate 85-13-2. The bill passed by both a vast majority with Republican and Democrat support, along with one Independent.
Some of the notable no’s:
Who missed the vote, with some very crucial things like changes to Indefinite Detention and the Draft?
The next time someone tells you that Democrats stand with women, question it. Since the vast majority have signed on to having them drafted into war and killed on a battlefield, that high horse no longer should exist.
And the next time someone tells you that Bernie cares, tell them he skipped out and didn’t care at all. If he did, he would have been there, and fought.
I used this meme back last year in a post on whether people have a right to healthcare or not. Of course, I argued that people did not, as it does not naturally exist, and is the produc of other people’s labor. Still, many think they’re entitled to it, and for free as well. Recently, I responded to a few comments on this, and I will go ahead and post those below.
The first set are the criticisms that the Rand Paul argument received:
#1 – officermilky
Call me naive, but wouldn’t he be paid through taxes? He wouldn’t be working for free. The argument to that, of course, would be “robbing peter to pay paul” but healthcare would be taxes that, you know, a society would all agree to go in on because they democratically believe it’s the right thing to do?
#2 – ramblingferret
#3 – sweertomato
A free healthcare plan is like, one of the most important things, as not everyone can afford insurance, and saying oh “Survival of the fittest” if you get seriously ill / injured you deserve to die is the most barbaric and jackass thing you can say.
And now, here is how I responded to each one of them:
@officermilky He would be paid under a market wage that he would have regularly earned, due to government price setting (both on goods and wages). Your main mistake is that you will not have all of society agreeing to this universal healthcare plan. You would only need 50% +1 to make this happen, and that doesn’t sound in any way like it “society would all agree to go in” with this, as you say. THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.
@ramblingferret You mention Canada’s system, and I’d be a bit careful with that. They tried to first off ban private insurance, which was ruled unconstitutional. Canadian healthcare wait times are far longer than American wait times.
In addition to this, Canada’s system is lagging in adopting to new technology and practices to improve the quality and speed of care. And I’d be even more careful to use Canada’s system, since it’s projected to eat up 97% of government revenues over time. If that’s something America should copy, I’d be skeptical. And if you still don’t believe I should be skeptical, I would ask the 40,000+ Canadians who sought medical treatment outside Canada due to these problems, and more.
@sweer-tomato You mention that it would be free. About that…
And if that is the route you wish to take (in saying that universal healthcare is free), then this also applies:
Weird how neither me nor Rand actually said the “ and saying oh “Survival of the fittest” if you get seriously ill / injured you deserve to die is the most barbaric and jackass thing you can say.” I honestly wonder where this even comes from, but I don’t think I care.
Now, under the current ACA, quality of care has gone down, and prices have gone up (especially when you’re not subsidised, like regular people with their own healthcare or through their business). Under the universal system, the costs become simply unseen by the everyday taxpayer, but is still felt on April 15, and don’t think for a second this is going to be in any way cheap, especially for people who are poor or have pre-existing conditions. Not when the plan require a bunch of crap that a) shouldnt be part of health insurance, and b) is mandated by government fiat.
And let’s chat about government mandated bull. I’ve yet to hear someone explain logically how the government can require health insurers to cover something, and the health insurers won’t raise their prices. The health insurers know they can simply jack up their prices all they want, because it’s now mandated that “x” service be covered. You wanna know why healthcare costs keep going up? It ain’t corporate greed that is the main problem. I’ll tell you that.
And let’s talk about 2016. If you’d like to see more poor people, go ahead, enact your universal healhcare system. Bernie’s plan sure ain’t cheap, since you’d have to come up with $3.2 trillion in new tax revenue per year (equalling $32 trillion in total, more than his original projections were) over the next decade to pay for just the healthcare costs. Since the Sander’s plan already boasts of tax hikes on the wealthy (aka the one’s who currently pay the majority of taxes), where is the rest of the money coming from? Hint hint, he will HAVE look lower. But don’t worry, you might be audited by the IRS after not paying taxes because you can’t afford them, but you’ll have healthcare still… that is, as long as they haven’t cut you off.
It’s 2016: let people actually keep their money for a change and get the damn government out of healthcare, so people can afford it and not go broke should something bad happen.
All in all, I haven’t done a good rebuttal like this in a while, and I probably could have done tons better, but this still came out good, and still hasn’t been rebutted by any of these three posters. I’m not expecting it to, but hey, we shall see.
If there is one news story that’s not going to be mentioned on the mainstream news media broadcasts, it will most likely be the continuing fall of Venezuela. For those of you who have not heard, Venezuela is currently descending into chaos, and is approaching an almost anarchic failed-state status, where it’s government is of no really power, and there is no order and balance. How do we see that Venezuela is falling? Here is a list of things that are happening as of now:
Now, what do you think will happen next? I’m putting my money on martial law, and I think I may be (unfortunately) winning that bet.
Many regions and cities in Venezuela have recently been militarized, such as Caracas, and Guarenas. The militarization one you may expect from some third world despot: tanks, military in riot gear, and no emotion or holding back on protesters. This has been the case now for many days now, and meanwhile Maduro pleads his ignorance:
Meanwhile, Maduro pled ignorance: during a press conference, President Maduro mocked the international media for questioning cities under military control. “What militarization?” He asked. “Show me.”
And what better way is there to sneak more militarization and grab a few opponents than to hold some military exercises!
Venezuela is preparing for the biggest military exercises in its history this Saturday after the South American country’s government said it’s on high alert as the opposition pushes for a recall referendum on President Nicolas Maduro.
“Venezuela is threatened,” Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez said on state television Thursday. “This is the first time we are carrying out an exercise of this nature in the country. In terms of national reach, it’s going to be in every strategic region.”
On one hand, Venezuela has reached the end-of-the-line. On the other, it may just completely descend from the workers socialist paradise into the socialists hell. I’m sympathetic to the former, but more inclined to believe the latter. There is no good outcome for Venezuelans looking to restore their country from the failure that is socialism. Even with Maduro’s major blow back in December elections, where his party lost big, and the opposition won the congress, he has stacked the supreme court, halted any new members from the Congress, and made sure that his people (who would be loyal to HIM) were in cabinet positions. In example, the military.
History has recorded many times when socialist nations have died, but it never just ends in a quick death, and then there’s a reformation. It’s drawn out by a government attempting to hold power. This government has controlled many aspects of Venezuelan’s lives, and now, it’s losing all that power, and it will not go quietly. I may not be able to tell you what will happen, but I can say that it will not go quietly.
If you’ve followed the election in some more in-depth ways, you may have noticed that some notable libertarians have begun to back Donald Trump. Walter Block is the main starter of the group Libertarians for Trump, which is aiming to get libertarians to support a Trump GOP candidacy, and not some other route (such as not voting, or the Libertarian Party). However, I have some deep issues with this, and I’ll explain why using this from Walter’s article:
There are several issues upon which libertarians do not and cannot support Donald Trump. For example, protectionism. But, typically, regarding the issues where Mr. Trump deviates from libertarianism, so do the other candidates.
And, also, we readily admit that the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party (unless they nominate someone like, ugh, Bob Barr) will very likely have views much closer to ours than those of Mr. Trump.
But, the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is our goal to throw our weight behind the candidate who has a reasonable chance of actually becoming President of the United States whose views are CLOSEST to libertarianism.
To start off, you need to understand how I go about evaluating candidates. I cannot support a candidate when I disagree with their economic policy, so anything involving the economy is what I mainly look at. If I don’t agree with that person on that, then I cannot support them. Thus, when Trump spews out his rhetoric on protectionism, it only further seals how I cannot support him.
When he talks about raising tariff’s on Chinese Imports, which he wrongly says the Chinese, and not American consumers through higher prices will pay, I cannot support him. When he talks about bringing jobs back to America via putting a higher tariff on American companies who make their products outside the US, and how he’d slap them with a higher tariff, I cannot agree with him. When he threatens Apple for producing iPhone’s overseas, I cannot vote for him.
In addition, he talks about his tax policy, which is a continuation of the current progressive system we have today. But Trump somehow believes that raising the taxes on his hedge fund buddies (by 1.2%) will make things better. Notice that this is only after making a large cut from the top tax rate from 39+% to 25% (projected revenues aren’t looking too hot). The expected deficit from this plan would also be an increase from the current one the Federal Government carries now.
And if he really wants to cut taxes, then he needs to cut a lot of things from the budget and government overall. For instance, he would need to make cuts to entitlement programs. However, he has said he won’t touch them. Maybe cuts to defense spending? Not at all. In fact, he has said he will rebuild the military, which was the same thing Rubio wanted to do. How much will that cost? Trillions, more than likely. Yet Trump wants to do that. You cannot cut taxes and raise spending by the amount needed, and have the Laffer Curve on taxes fund everything! You cannot do it.
Here is federal spending for 2015. Take a look at this:
Explain to me how he doesn’t raise taxes, yet fund all of this? Oh, he’ll cut stuff? WHERE??? What does he cut? The biggest parts of the budget, practically more than 75% of this is OFF LIMITS to a Trump Administration. What do you cut? How is President Trump going to shrink government in any meaningful way? What will he cut? The Department of Education (the purple sliver), which only uses $80.9 Billion, compared to that of the Military, Social Security, or Medicare and Health? Congrats, you’ve only scratched the surface.
But I have a theory as to why he won’t cut entitlements. It’s because his he thinks there could be blowback on his protectionism, and that should a trade war ensue, he may need that welfare state to keep people from turning on him. It’s a theory, and only that.
In addition, as a libertarian, I support a person’s right to privacy, which Trump does not. Trump has come out in opposition to Apple keeping the encryption on the San Bernadino iPhone locked, and not helping the FBI. Trump has come out in support of the PATRIOT Act, as well as metadata collection by the NSA. This takes place in the United States on regular US citizens, and if you don’t believe somehow that China has ever gotten their hands on this information, you need to get out of the bubble you’re living in.
In addition to this, as a libertarian, I do not support the infringements on the rights of individuals who assemble. When Trump wants to shut down mosques, I can’t support him. When he thinks that Japanese Internment camps were okay under one of the biggest, and worst Presidents in the country’s history, I cannot support him. I don’t know how to say it, but these are simply gross violations of the First Amendment, yet Trump supports them.
Trump is terrible with the Constitution. He is willing to screw over the First Amendment. He is willing to further continue the screwing of the Fourth Amendment. I’m sorry, but those don’t look very good to me, and it should be concerning to libertarians, and constitutionalists and conservatives, but I guess that’s only if you still care about the Constitution.
So, when I hear that a libertarian wants to support Trump, it befuddles me. This guy doesn’t stand for smaller government, individual liberty, or even simply a set of guided principles. There is no concrete foundation to Trumps positions, and to me, that’s concerning. To me, that doesn’t give me a good feeling.
These are the reasons why I, a libertarian, cannot support a Trump candidacy. It amazes me that Walter Block (the champion of defending the undefendable) is backing Trump. But he believes that Trump will be good, but not perfect. I don’t even see how he could be good. I don’t see how he could even be okay. Perhaps Walter won’t support the Libertarian Party candidate, whomever it be (who would be infinitely times better than Trump), and that’s his choice. But, I will, and I will do what I can to help them grow and be more successful.