Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1631.1 | 8.4 | 0.52% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2695.6 | 19.4 | 0.72% |
| Oil (WTI) | 94.28 | -0.5 | -0.51% |
| LIBOR | 0.275 | 0.001 | 0.33% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 81.47 | -0.067 | -0.08% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.11% | 0.03% | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 102.2 | 0.1 | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 100.6 | -0.1 | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 202.2 | 0.3 | |
| BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 3.98 |
Markets are higher after the jobs report came in pretty much in line. Bonds and MBS are flat / down small.
The jobs report showed that nonfarm payrolls increased by 175,000 in the month of May, slightly higher than Street estimates (which were lowered after the ADP report). April was revised downward from 165k to 149k. The unemployment rate ticked up from 7.5% to 7.6% as the labor force participation rate ticked up from 63.3% to 63.4%. Earnings and workweek were flat. Since the report was pretty much in line with expectations,we aren’t seeing any big reaction in the markets.
Remember my question about mortgage rates on Wednesday? Basically how did the Bankrate average 30 year mortgage rate jump from 3.9% to 4.1% when the bond market was flat and we had a weak day in Fannie TBAs? Well, whatever it was, it has been reversed, as the Bankrate average 30 year mortgage rate fell 18 bps back to 3.98%. Strange.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
7.6% is still historically enormous. The word ‘sputtering’ is still the best description of this economy.
LikeLike
Jonah Goldberg weighs in on the question we’ve been bantering around lately: Have Republicans moved away from Reagan?
Meanwhile, Republicans are subjected to a double standard. On one hand, they are vilified for being too inflexible, too hidebound. On the other hand, they’re condemned for not holding the exact same positions other Republicans held 30 or even 60 years ago. (Obama loves to invoke Eisenhower’s positions as if they prove GOP hypocrisy.) Which is it? Are they rigid, or changing too much?
Obama doesn’t even hold the same positions he held five years ago. But his ever-changing views are proof of “pragmatism” and “evolution.”
Maybe Republicans learned some lessons from the past? Reagan agreed to amnesty before enforcement on immigration and it proved a failure. He agreed to match tax hikes for spending cuts, and Democrats reneged on the cuts while pocketing the hikes. Today’s GOP, right or wrong, changed its positions based on changed circumstances. My hunch — and it’s just a hunch — is that Reagan would be pretty sympathetic to the Republican evolution.
LikeLike
The best two sentences in that Goldberg piece.
This time around, the sirens went off at the New York Times the moment Dole uttered his remarks. Members of the Times editorial board sprang from their beds like firefighters, putting on their boots midstride as they raced for the newsroom to bang out an editorial titled “The Wisdom of Bob Dole.”
You can’t help but appreciate the imagery.
My opinion? I think the right has convinced so many people in their party, and particularly the base, that Obama is the most radical, progressive President in history or even in the world that the only direction they can go is to the right to prevent a socialist takeover of the country……………despite almost all evidence to the contrary.
LikeLike
This guy is interesting coming from Oklahoma and all. Any Republican in OK or other predominately conservative states who supports Planned Parenthhood would get my vote if I knew the Democrat was likely to lose anyway. Otherwise I’d just vote for the Dem anyway. In other words, it doesn’t matter who runs against my ultra conservative rep, I’ll always vote for him/her because even though the R is likely to win there’s absolutely nothing for me to like about him. Not sure if that actually makes sense……………………hahaha
Rep. Doug Cox of Oklahoma, a rare Republican lawmaker who supports a woman’s right to choose, responded to a new onslaught of Oklahoma laws that aspire to deny women birth control, contraception and abortion. Cox, who is also a physician, wrote to Oklahoma’s NEWSOK. In his letter he made some pretty bold statements, which are quite contrary to the majority of his party:
“As a practicing physician (who never has or will perform an abortion), I deal with the real world. In the real world, 15- and 16-year-olds get pregnant (sadly, 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds do also).”
Yet I cannot convince my Republican colleagues that one of the best ways to eliminate abortions is to ensure access to contraception. “Denying access to this important contraceptive is a sure way to increase legal and back-alley abortions.”
His quote below surely ruffles the feathers, as well as exemplifies the hypocrisy, of Anti-Choice lawmakers, extremists and religous zealots. Cox talks about his own experiences dealing with the issue of abortion:
“Experiences like having a preacher, in the privacy of an exam room say, “Doc, you have heard me preach against abortion but now my 15-year-old daughter is pregnant, where can I send her?”
“Where did the (Republican) party go that felt some decisions in a woman’s life should be made not by legislators and government, but rather by the women, her conscience, her doctor and her God?”
This is not the first time Cox has spoken out for women’s reproductive rights, as well as expressed disdain for Republican policies that betray women. He supports Planned Parenthood, to the extent that Cox recently received the Barry Goldwater Award.
Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/07/republican-lawmaker-bucks-gops-war-against-women/#ixzz2VXzNolk2
LikeLike
lms:
Not sure if that actually makes sense…
Um…. 😉
From the article:
…responded to a new onslaught of Oklahoma laws that aspire to deny women birth control
Any idea what laws it is referring to and what they actually say?
LikeLike
Lms, it’s hard not to argue that Omamacare isn’t at least a Federal regulatory takeover of the healthcare system. With that being the case, and the longstanding Liberal dream of nationalized healthcare, something that Wilson, FDR and LBJ could not achieve, along with a massive increase in the Federal budget baseline as well as unheard federal evironmental regulatory intrusion, isn’t he the most liberal to hold office at least since LBJ?
LikeLike
I’m confused on the Cox quote, does he not understand that many pro-life R’s think that life begins at conception and that the state therefore has an interest in protecting life? Also, is he pretending not to know that some forms of birth control prevent implantation but not conception and would therefore be unacceptable to a lot of pro-lifers?
No, he does know these things and pretends he doesn’t. That’s very disingenuous on his part. The reason he does this is to invalidate their argument. To counter argue is to admit that others have a belief they feel is legitimate, he has no interest in legitimization, just demagoguery.
LikeLike
McWing:
I don’t know what laws either he or the author are talking about, but I doubt very much that it is true that they “deny women access to birth control.” More likely this is just the usual rhetorical deceit by which a government’s refusal to pay for something is deemed to be a “denial” of that something. I found this HuffPo piece on the same doctor which tends to support my suspicion.
The Oklahoma Legislature has been one of the most aggressive nationwide in limiting access to contraception and family planning services. By law, abortion is not covered by private or public health insurance plans except when the mother’s life is in danger or if an optional rider has been purchased. Legislators have also pushed bills that would require women under a certain age to obtain a prescription for the morning-after-pill. And last week, just days after a tornado swept through the town of Moore, killing 24 people, the state Senate in nearby Oklahoma City passed a measure that would effectively defund Planned Parenthood in the state.
The only one of those listed which could even remotely be characterized as a “denial” of access is the law which requires a prescription, and I just love that interesting turn of phrase, “women under a certain age”, which probably just means “young girls, not women”. Another laughable semantic deception: “By law” abortion is not covered unless “an optional rider has been purchased”, which in reality means simply that the law does not require that abortion be covered. Thus the absence of a legal requirement is magically presented as the presence of legal requirement.
LikeLike
Scott, yeah I didn’t think that made much sense the way I wrote it. I guess what I’m trying to say is, even if there were a democrat running, I would vote for a Republican as a local issue voter, which I am. Especially if the Dem will lose anyway. Right now we have two potential Dems who are pursuing the Dem spot in our local race. I don’t really care for either of them yet and if the R running supported an issue that I am passionate about I’d probably just go ahead and vote for him/her. Sadly, that’s not the case here.
Also, there are several new laws that have been legislated in OK. Many of them have been struck down by the State SC and others may still be in limbo, not sure and don’t have time for the research right this minute.
I know they passed through a public database of women who received abortions, not sure on the status of that one, it was in 2009 I think. A personhood and ultra sound law have already been struck down, and I think quite a few Planned Parenthood facilities are gone…………..but I’m not 100% sure on that. Regardless, it’s enough to make a Republican take notice and complain.
LikeLike
McWing, health care is already a federal issue considering the employer based tax breaks in play. The plan we got was “market based”, even though it is mandated by the government. Most of us on the left don’t really see it as much of an improvement other than the regulations, specifically the ones that allow previously uninsured individuals to acquire insurance and keep more people out of the bankruptcy courts. Not exactly socialism though.
LikeLike
Charles Pierce is sounding kinda libertarian here:
I haven’t figured out quite where I stand here. In someways it’s being overblown. It’s metadata being used to find patterns. But there is a nagging feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg. On the other hand, they aren’t doing much more than every other PITA direct marketer filling my inbox with junk mail.
LikeLike
The bright line between the NSA and domestic surveillance is now gone. Next up will be to apply these same capabilities to say the war on drugs and other domestic law enforcement areas.
LikeLike
For those who were following the Jefferson County Alabama issue:
“A County in Alabama Strikes a Bankruptcy Deal
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
June 4, 2013, 9:21 pm”
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/a-county-in-alabama-strikes-a-bankruptcy-deal/
LikeLike
JPMorgan is taking a 70% haircut. Those loansharks should be grateful they are getting anything.
LikeLike
jnc:
Despite those concessions, residents of Jefferson County have still often complained that they were treated inequitably because several of their elected officials went to prison as a result of the refinancing, while no one from the bank was convicted of a crime.
Any idea who went to prison and of what they were convicted?
LikeLike
McWing and Scott, apparently from what I’ve read this legislator is a Republican who believes that the best case for making abortions both unnecessary and less frequent is to make access to contraceptives both easy and cheap. He also supports Planned Parenthood in a state that is currently doing what it can to defund it.
My point was that I wish more Republicans believed the same, not that I would ever expect them to. Whenever I find one that supports my beliefs even in a small way I’m just going to go ahead and point it out…………….I enjoy that as well as people who buck their party.
LikeLike
lms:
My point was that I wish more Republicans believed the same, not that I would ever expect them to.
I understand. I wasn’t remarking on you. I was just commenting on the way both the author and the Rep characterized the issues. I agree with McWing that they are being disingenuous. I have no problem with an R bucking the party on abortion, but I do wish he was at least honest about it.
He should have said something like “I don’t want anyone to get an abortion, and I think the best way of ensuring that the fewest number of people get them is to make all types of contraception freely, or at least cheaply, available. And I think taxpayers should bear the burden of paying for it. I understand that a lot of my fellow Republicans object to such an approach for various reasons. But I firmly believe that if the goal is to minimize the number of abortions, this plan is better than simply trying to make abortion as difficult as possible to obtain.”
If he said something like that, I could at least respect his position, even if I didn’t necessarily agree with it. But when he says, falsely, that his fellow R’s are “denying access” to contraception, or when he implies that Republicans ever supported abortion (“Where did the (Republican) party go that…”), he’s lost me.
LikeLike
Radical Republicans? The most extreme ever?
http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/republicans-good-old-days_733958.html?nopager=1
More like mobilization of bias.
Look, I wish it were true, I thought maybe they were, then came August 2011 and surrender.
LikeLike
August 2011? I missed that Day of Infamy. What happened then that I should mark my calendar for?
But it’s interesting to know that Jay Cost is ScottC’s real name. (insert smiley here)
LikeLike
yello:
But it’s interesting to know that Jay Cost is ScottC’s real name.
Just read it. Jay Cost is a smart guy.
LikeLike
“Any idea who went to prison and of what they were convicted?”
“William B. “Bill” Blount (born 1954) is an investment banker, bond underwriter, and former Alabama Democratic Party chairman. In 2009, he pleaded guilty to federal bribery and conspiracy charges in exchange for testimony against former Birmingham, Alabama, mayor Larry Langford.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Blount
“On December 1, 2008, Langford, along with investment banker William B. Blount and former state Democratic Chairman Al LaPierre, was arrested by the FBI on a 101-count indictment alleging conspiracy, bribery, fraud, money laundering, and filing false tax returns in connection with a long-running bribery scheme.[4] His public corruption trial ended on October 28, 2009 with convictions on 60 counts, and resulted in his automatic removal from office.[5]
On March 5, 2010, Langford was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a federal judge in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. He was also fined more than $119,000.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Langford
The other important figure is the JP Morgan Chase banker who was funding the bribery who didn’t go to jail: Charles LeCroy.
JP Morgan Chase fired him in 2004. The SEC has a civil complaint against him.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-12/jpmorgan-proves-bond-deal-death-in-jefferson-county-no-bar-to-new-business.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-05/jpmorgan-s-alabama-debacle-set-to-cost-bank-1-5-billion.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-main-street-20100331?page=4
LikeLike
jnc:
Thanks. (You threw that last one in there just for fun, didn’t you?)
LikeLike
Yello,
The Republican cave on the debt ceiling.
LikeLike
The Republican cave on the debt ceiling.
You mean the Democrats surrendering to the wingnuts.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on June 7, 2013 at 12:10 pm said: Edit Comment
JPMorgan is taking a 70% haircut. Those loansharks should be grateful they are getting anything.”
Actually, I suspect they are surprised that the bankruptcy was allowed to go forward with an actual write down of the debt. Presumably this should have been an ideal case for a TARP bailout to make sure they were paid 100 cents on the dollar to protect the “system”.
LikeLike
jnc:
Presumably this should have been an ideal case for a TARP bailout to make sure they were paid 100 cents on the dollar to protect the “system”.
I am guessing that JPM hopes never to be forced again by Washington into something like TARP.
LikeLike
“Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on June 7, 2013 at 1:31 pm said:
Yello,
The Republican cave on the debt ceiling.”
That was minimal infamy compared to the cave on TARP back in 2008.
LikeLike
The Matt Taibbi piece was the source for tracking down the players. It’s the original article that started the whole ball rolling on the media paying attention to Jefferson County.
LikeLike
jnc:
It’s the original article that started the whole ball rolling on the media paying attention to Jefferson County.
Yup. I remember you linked to it a long time ago. That was the first Taibbi piece I ever read. Regrettably, it wasn’t the last. 😉
LikeLike
Worthwhile read from David Simon on the NSA piece
http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/
Edit: Simon is wrong on this:
“All of that — even in the less fevered, pre-Patriot Act days of yore — was entirely legal. Why?
Because they aren’t listening to the calls.”
What makes it legal is the narrow scope. A specific pay phone targeted as part of a specific investigation. In his analogy the equilivent thing would be the police monitoring all calls in all of Baltimore to use pattern identification to target potential lawbreaking that they weren’t even aware of to begin with.
LikeLike
J, I agree but the D propaganda about R’s is that this “radicalism” is a recent phenomenon brought about by the Tea Party.
Btw, what’s worse, IRS discrimination directed by the White House or IRS discrimination directed by itself?
LikeLike
Also J, the TARP R failing is what launched the Tea Party.
LikeLike
Scott
An honest politician? That would be refreshing. And just again to reiterate, one more time for posterity, if a woman is on the receiving end of some of these laws they really do or might feel, as thought they’re being denied access. It might not be technically correct but that’s the effect of defunding Planned Parenthood, changing access to prescription birth control, morning after drugs or even chemical abortions. And that’s true especially for low income women.
LikeLike
lms:
And just again to reiterate, one more time for posterity, if a woman is on the receiving end of some of these laws they really do or might feel, as thought they’re being denied access.
As a matter of political strategy, how people “feel” about this or that policy is obviously important. But as a matter of good policy, I don’t think it is. Just because some women feel entitled to a subsidized abortion or contraception doesn’t mean we should give it to them.
LikeLike
You mean the Democrats surrendering to the wingnuts.
How? The debt ceiling was increased. Seriously, there is almost no reduction in the rate of increase in Federal spending.
LikeLike
By law, abortion is not covered by private or public health insurance plans except when the mother’s life is in danger or if an optional rider has been purchased.
I had no idea elective abortion were ever covered by health insurance plans but according to the National Abortion Federation 2/3 of insurance companies cover it to some degree. I had always thought that was always a cash and carry business. I know my insurance covers gender re-assignment but I’ve never looked into the other more esoteric clauses.
So just how much does abortion coverage cost in Oklahoma? Given the cost of a live delivery nowadays, you’d think they’d pay you to do it. I’d be willing to pocket that money and self-insure.
LikeLike
yello:
Given the cost of a live delivery nowadays, you’d think they’d pay you to do it.
Given that a live delivery is a personal choice, it shouldn’t be insurable in the first place.
LikeLike
Here are two pieces from the New Yorker discussing both the PRISM system that the NSA uses to tap into internet servers and the data mining (not wire tapping) they’re using to follow phone calls. It’s definitely creepy.
“shows how fundamentally surveillance law and practice have shifted away from individual suspicion in favor of systematic, mass collection techniques.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/06/america-through-the-nsas-prism.html
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/verizon-nsa-metadata-surveillance-problem.html?mbid=gnep
LikeLike
Scott
But as a matter of good policy, I don’t think it is. Just because some women feel entitled to a subsidized abortion or contraception doesn’t mean we should give it to them.
And yet some of us also believe that the benefits from Planned Parenthood, not just for individual women, but for the cause of reducing abortion as well as the reproductive health of women is worth it. If we’re going to begin to unravel all subsidies let’s do that, not just target the ones we don’t like that benefit women. We could start with taxing the benefits of employer provided medical insurance.
In a world where poor women either don’t have insurance or the funds to take care of themselves properly I believe the cost benefit analysis supports Planned Parenthood. If we’re going to fundamentally change the insurance model so that it only covers extremely costly procedures and treatments, lets do that and not start with women’s reproductive health issues selectively.
LikeLike
lms:
If we’re going to begin to unravel all subsidies let’s do that, not just target the ones we don’t like that benefit women. We could start with taxing the benefits of employer provided medical insurance.
If you recall, back on the old, old, PL when you and I first met, that is exactly what I said we should do. Alas, liberal ideas won the day.
LikeLike
” If we’re going to begin to unravel all subsidies let’s do that, not just target the ones we don’t like that benefit women. We could start with taxing the benefits of employer provided medical insurance. ”
Totally agree.
LikeLike
This is an interesting angle on the author of the Patriot Act , Jim Sensenbrenner, who appears to be denying the very language he fought to insert into the bill and the revisions. Not that there isn’t enough blame to go around already.
But it’s worse than that. You see, this collection program was officially birthed in 2006 in the aftermath of the revelation of the illegal wiretap program to incorporate parts of that program, though FBI appears to have been testing this theory earlier. Before the PATRIOT Act was renewed, the House Judiciary Committee — then chaired by a guy named Jim Sensenbrenner — was pushing language for Section 215 that was far more permissive than what the Senate Judiciary wanted. Sensenbrenner’s language, which is what passed, read,
“the information likely to be obtained from the tangible things is reasonably expected to be (A) foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person, or (B) relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”
In other words, this “relevant to” language is Sensenbrenner’s own, language he pushed for in the face of pressure from Senate Dems.
hahaha, pressure from Senate Dems……………clearly bi-partisanship at work and I’ve already noticed many on the left devising what they think are clever excuses for our president.
LikeLike
Good stuff, Lulu. I never thought the Govt would show “restraint” once the Patriot Act was passed and then NDAA was signed by BHO with his pledge to show “restraint”. Even under WJC, NSA was monitoring everything, and the legal difficulties were immense. Why? Because search of incoming [from other nations] electronic messaging is per se reasonable. Once we got the internet with its bounced signals, it became probable that lots of domestic and outgoing messages were being monitored, willy-nilly. Which is not per se reasonable.
So in some ways the intel community just got a free pass to do what they were doing already in Patriot I. But the Patriot Act doesn’t amend the Constitution and secret assembly of mountains of information on domestic communications is still unconstitutional, IMHO. Calling a FISA warrant to fish a “search warrant” is ridiculous.
No R or D POTUS would forego this power. You called it: bipartisanship at work.
LikeLike
I do remember. I didn’t realize at the time how much it distorts the market. I don’t see how we get there though. If there were republicans actually advocating for that at the time legislatively I must have missed it.
We have a lot of good ideas here that have less than a snowball’s chance in hell of going anywhere. We’d have to go back to the fifties and literally start over with health insurance.
LikeLike
The medical insurance game is like a vicious circle. Without the link to employment and the large pool of shared risk customers it would have been a survival of the fittest model. There would never have been an actuarial reason for the insurance industry to take all comers. I wonder what percentage of the population has an inherited or no fault ailment, residual effects of an accident or illness, drinks a little too much, eats a little too much, or whatever excuse the industry comes up with to deny coverage. A much larger percentage than most of you probably imagine. As a matter of fact I’d bet that most of you would be denied coverage on the individual market if you’re over 40.
And so it was linked to employment. I’m not sure if going back now and taxing the benefits as income would actually solve the problem. Eventually there would be no reason for employers to provide coverage, there’s no guarantee wages would rise, and we’d have a bunch more uninsurable people walking around sick because they still couldn’t afford treatment or acquire insurance for medical coverage. I imagine a routine illness or injury that included a couple of xrays, maybe an mri or ctscan, blood work, a little minor surgery, a couple of days in the hospital etc. would break the bank even if by some miracle our free market model had kept costs lower. And once you hear the dreaded words, heart disease, diabetes, cancer……………..forget about it.
And so we’re left with a choice, do we stick to our principles of a free market model, winner take all, pay as you go, hope you can find someone to insure you in the event of an expensive illness or accident, and if not then hopefully you have a wealthy family that really loves you, or do we figure out a way to cover everyone by pooling our risk and spreading the cost out over the entire population.
I think it’s really convenient to have hard core principles to adhere to in the face of all these questions and dilemmas but it doesn’t really solve any problems for those of us who view our community on a larger scale than our immediate family and also view health care as something that should be attainable for all of us who have joined forces to live and prosper in the United States.
LikeLike
lms:
As a matter of fact I’d bet that most of you would be denied coverage on the individual market if you’re over 40.
That seems unlikely to me. Most insurance companies are in the business to make money, and you can’t make money by turning customers away. Insurance is all about assessing risk and charging for that risk. I would imagine that most insurance companies would be willing to cover pretty much everyone….at the right price. But that is the crucial factor. If the government forces them to cover more risks than can be covered by the prices they are allowed to charge, then the only way out is to deny coverage.
I’m not sure if going back now and taxing the benefits as income would actually solve the problem.
It is not a magic pill, for sure. But it would be one thing that provides the right incentives to help push the market in the correct direction.
And so we’re left with a choice, do we stick to our principles of a free market model, winner take all…
I don’t understand what that means, winner take all, in this context.
LikeLike
I don’t know Scott, there is an individual market now that people cannot buy into with any amount of money. I don’t see that changing if we’re all suddenly in the same boat. The way to make money is to insure healthy people, not sick or potentially sick people. I think the only reason so many of us have insurance is because of the employer based model. Insurance companies would have fewer customers without it but could potentially make a lot more money with less hassle and risk.
winner take all
That’s what libertarianism feels like to me. If you’re smart, successful, healthy and a little bit lucky you’ll survive, if not, we wish you luck but you’re on your own. We even like you a little, but you’re still on your own. I’d like to know where I have that wrong actually because I don’t like believing that’s true.
LikeLike
lms:
The way to make money is to insure healthy people, not sick or potentially sick people.
All people are potentially sick people…that is precisely the point of insurance. Sick people who didn’t get insurance before they got sick, however, do not need insurance. They need a benefactor who will finance their known costs.
That’s what libertarianism feels like to me.
I don’t think it is useful to characterize things according to how they make us “feel”. An income tax “feels” like highway robbery to me, but I don’t characterize it that way because intellectually I know it isn’t the same thing.
I’d like to know where I have that wrong actually because I don’t like believing that’s true.
You have that wrong primarily because you conflate “we” with government. If you understood that libertarians do not view government – which means coercion – as a legitimate tool by which “we” pursue common desires, then you would no longer believe what you believe about us.
LikeLike
Scott
They need a benefactor who will finance their known costs
Precisely why we all need insurance from day one. And the money we pay needs to go into the kitty that is shared with everyone. That way whomever gets sick has paid their way all along and didn’t wait until they were sick to beg for insurance. I agree that known costs can and should be financed personally in more cases than they are now, but in order for that to be feasible, costs will have to come down first.
Unfortunately, the way the system was pre-ACA, a lot of people couldn’t get that coverage at any cost. Hence, both the mandate and the requirement that insurance companies take all comers.
Seriously, a person could have paid their insurance coverage their entire lives, never had more than a cold or a baby and then get sick and boom, sorry we’re not only not going to renew your policy, but we’re going to kick you out mid year because we’re pretty sure you lied on your application 10 years ago.
feels like
That’s just the way I express myself. When something doesn’t make sense it doesn’t “feel” right to me. I can’t explain it so it “feels” wrong. We’re having a dialogue not an exercise in correct language usage. I understand why this bothers you but it doesn’t bother me at all. 🙂
you conflate “we” with government
But “we” are the government, or at least we’re supposed to be. Libertarians don’t have enough influence to participate in governing because they can’t garner enough votes. I think there are more Americans who consider common desires and less who view coercion as the main principle to living in a representative democracy/republic.
I also believe if libertarians weren’t so set on having everything adhere strictly to their principles we’d be able to factor in more of your principles, some of which I actually agree with.
LikeLike
lms:
But “we” are the government, or at least we’re supposed to be.
This is something on which we profoundly disagree. The government, particularly the federal government, is not “us” except in a purely symbolic, platitudinous sense. The government is an agency that is populated by some (very few) of us, a portion of which are put in place by some of us (in most instances a very small minority of us), the actions of which are approved by some (hopefully, but nearly always, a majority) of us. But it is most definitely not “us”.
I think there are more Americans who consider common desires and less who view coercion as the main principle to living in a representative democracy.
I don’t know what people consider when advocating what they do, but it is a simple fact that people who advocate for the government to do this or that are advocating for the use of coercion. That is, quite literally, the only value-added tool that the government brings to any issue. The single characteristic that distinguishes “government”, whether it a representative democracy or a dictatorship, from other organizations in society is a legal monopoly on the use of coercion.
LikeLike
Scott, but I think that the government is supposed to serve us not the other way around. That it’s possibly not the case is our fault IMO. We get the government we deserve. I think you assume it has been captured by the majority voting themselves benefits and I would probably allege it has been captured by an elite wealthy minority voting themselves benefits through influence and lobbying.
I have conceded several times that the government uses coercion and it’s the only tool to enact what the people have voted for or what the government has decided by executive or legislative decision needs to be enacted. I don’t know what else you want from me here. I think it’s obvious actually.
LikeLike