Morning Reads — Thursday, September 26, 2013

On this day in 1969 the Brady Bunch premiered on television.
Peaches

Jimmy Carter

Sweet Tea

Liberty Drum

47 comments

  1. Ed says:

    “More controversy over the *exact* meaning of the 2nd amendment, this time it’s the U.S. Senate website.”

    You would have to have a *very* loose definition of “controversy” for this to be true. For the Senate website to be wrong, you’d have to objectively show that the amendment has not been “long debated.” Good luck doing that.

    And in any case, who cares how the Legislative Branch wants to interpret the Constitution, its not their job.

  2. saltycracker says:

    Obamacare/Debt: What better way to draw attention away from a runaway train than to get a bunch of Republicans to throw water balloons at it. Businesses are not wasting their time.

    Calling social security an entitlement – an insurance program with individual’s money, employer’s money that was not invested in treasuries but spent, looted by fraud (like in the cottage industry around disability and identity theft) or an actuary screwup is insane/criminal support of malfeasance. It is an easy Fed program to get back on track with several good options.

    • Ed says:

      It would need Congressional approval to cut service (IIRC) and too many constituents who matter (old people) wrongly fear they would die if that happened so no go on that.

      • Noway says:

        Maybe not a go but a real solution to the problem. Delivery will be cut at some point in the upcoming future. There is no other option. Congress will have to approve it eventually.

        • Ed says:

          It would probably be no weekend delivery, that might be enough. (There’s enough of an impact to businesses that you probably wouldn’t want to have just two weekdays of delivery).

          • Noway says:

            I kept Saturday in there so people who work can have a day to take care of their business. Ok, cut out Tuesday and Thursday.

        • D_in_ATL says:

          ‘At some point’ is the qualifier. Any real cuts will involve cutting alot of jobs, and there’s alot of middle-class people (gov’t workers) working for the post offfice. I don’t think either party will want to enact big reforms until the economy is strong enough to absorb those workers. Who wants to see their old letter carrier in the unemployment line?

          • Noway says:

            You’re 100% right, D. That’s why I have said there will never, ever be any cuts, no slashes in budgets, ever. We’ll continue t tax and borrow and go broke. We, like Rome, will be done.

                  • Noway says:

                    Don’t know that answer but the real question is when have we ever been this much in debt? I know we’ve been debt free only a limited number of times in our history, but 17 tril? That is not recoverable from. I understand your point but this far underwater is just too crushing, even for an economy the size of ours.

                    • griftdrift says:

                      I’ll answer both my question and yours.

                      We’ve been debt free once. For 3 years. And it wasn’t at the beginning. The country started in debt.

                      The last time we had debt to GDP ratio this high was 70 years ago. We recovered pretty well.

                      I guess only time will tell which of us is right.

                    • John Konop says:

                      The bigger question is what direction are we going? The catch 22 is China lends us money to consume their products. This model creates a push down of USA production and real wages. China cannot grow via their workers because how much can a 2 dollar a day worker consume? This is why China is facing major issues in their real-estate market being over built…..via thier workers not be able to afford the houses. Slowly both China and us are sliding for the average family……as the wage gap between rich and poor widen. Henry Ford 101 pay your workers enough to afford to buy the products…..Unless we fix the wage widening issue the math will not work out. Strong middle class = strong economy ie better consumption.

    • Ellynn says:

      UPS and Fedex are totally against that. Why? because most of their issolated and rural deliveries at completed by the USPS. I send the survialistic lumberjack sibling a UPS or Fedex ground package that I do not request a signiture for receiving or 2 day delivery, the package is shipped by the carrier to the Marinette post office and then sent out the next day on the rural post office delivery.

      • Ed says:

        Yeah, I forgot about that. There was some stat that like, 60-70% of USPS’ revenue (or shipments, something like that) came from the private carriers.

              • John Konop says:

                Also the post office was started to find a way to move information to places that were not easy…..The ability to move information cheaply from diferent parts of the country helped grow our economy. The ability to move information has dramatically changed via the Internet. The post office needs to change with the times….We do not need the same post office, it should be focused on still getting to places, but much more limited, as was the point Norway made. I would think we could even cut back more if we focused on the core needs of still having a post office service. The core need should not be a jobs program……

    • benevolus says:

      Doesn’t address the problem though. Less mail means they have too much infrastructure. They need to keep reducing their locations, their vehicles, their machinery, etc.

  3. Noway says:

    Regarding the money seized at the traffic stop. Were drugs found? Nope! Just because the dog “hit” gave the cop the right to search. No drugs. So, keep your hands off of the guy’s cash. I don’t care what the law says or whether it’s been declared constitutional. The Supreme Court lost real credibility long ago and especially with its ruling on Obamacare. The guy wasn’t convicted of anything. It ain’t right. I hope he gets his 63k back plus another 100k in damages.

    • saltycracker says:

      A lot of really strange doings have spilled out here from his defense and due diligence suggests the judge should return the cash, right after he verifies the guy and his businesses have filed tax returns.

      We should overhaul the drug laws and the enforcement empires around them but not the criminal activity surrounding them.

  4. Ellynn says:

    Two words why Campus Carry will not happen. Liability insurance.

    Even in states that have passed laws allowing guns to be carried in schools by teachers, their insurance carriers have rufused to cover a building that allows non-law enforcement people to have a gun (even a legal one). That means no coverage for any event that happens in a building. Even if you could find an insurance carrier willing to cover every single Georgia owned campus, there is no way GSFIC is going to be able to justify the rate increase in their budget, which will come out of Joe or Jane Taxpayers pocket or end up cuting (insert your favorate major) from the entire Georgia system inorder to pay for it.

    • Michael Silver says:

      I believe that its illegal in Georgia already for insurance carriers to deny or charge extra because of guns. It is in the OCGA somewhere.

      The liability issue is pretty simple to solve. Prohibit carriers from not covering locations where guns are allowed or even better make the owners of gun-free zones financially liable when someone is harmed in their defenseless victim zone.

    • gtmatt says:

      Do you have any cite for this insurance refusal story?

      Campus carry by permit holders is legal in many states. This is more common for colleges, but it is also true for K-12 schools in a few states (one example of this is Utah). We are talking hundreds of K-12 schools and colleges in these states. Are you saying that these schools all have either no insurance coverage or prohibitively expensive insurance?

      As a side note, Georgia law already provides for “non-law enforcement people” carry on K-12 and college campuses in several ways. Some of these are pretty restrictive as to what is allowed, but they are there nonetheless. Take a look at OCGA 16-11-127.1 in particular. There is also a long list of people who are exempt from having to have a GWCL at all and the off-limits places don’t apply to them.

      Just to make a point here, Utah has reciprocity with Georgia on weapons carry licenses. So a Georgia GWCL holder can go to Utah and carry all over K-12 and college campuses. And, oh the horror, the Georgia license holder does not have to have any training!

      • Ellynn says:

        I am very aware of OCGA 16-11-127.1. I have a copy of it printed in a file on my desk and a book mark of the rule on Lexus. I deal with construction sites that have rattle snakes. I like having some one near by me or one of my co-workers who has good aim. Some of sites are Title II owned projects – like schools, courthouses, jails, and colleges. I don’t take issue with the wording or the law. You just jumped to that conclussion because I stated a realistic point that is not very “campus carry friendly”.

        My point was insurance carriers and what they will or will not underwrite and for how much if they do. Not the law or an opinion. Insurance carriers don’t care who can legally carrier in the state. All they are interested in is what they have to pay if the worse happens. In states with insurance claim limits, they are more then willing to cover the schools (see Texas). In other states where a carrier covers over 50% of all buildings in the state, a few shooting in a few years will can mean the end of the company or lower share prices for investers.

        My reference is mainly Kansas, since that was the state in the article I read orginally. Here’s the article.

        http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20130728/NEWS06/307289980

        Additionally,

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/schools-seeking-to-arm-employees-hit-hurdle-on-insurance.html?pagewanted=all

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/07/09/kansas-law-aims-to-arm-teachers-but-misfires-with-insurance-companies/

        In the case of Georgia, GSFIC carries alot of weight in how buildings and state own property are protected and insured. The insurance industry has some history with coverage and pay out of large scale shootings. What it does not have is experance is small scale accidental gun fire on a campus that allows carry.

        Is GSFIC the only player involved, no. I can’t even tell you how big of a player they are. But insurance is a big part of the conversation.

        As for me personally, as I have mention here before, I grew up with guns. I know how to fire and clean one if I really had to. I don’t own one, which my gun loving survilalistic Libertarian lumber jack and Holstien herding brother will tell you is a good thing. Personally, I am holding out on owning my very own set nuclear arms. The 2nd ammendment does state the right to bear arms… 😉

Comments are closed.