Monday's letters to the editor

Monday's letters to the editor

There are 21 comments on the Daily Breeze story from Sep 19, 2010, titled Monday's letters to the editor. In it, Daily Breeze reports that:

What the United States does best is grow food. The agricultural cities of El Centro and Merced have the highest city unemployment rate in the nation .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Breeze.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
pril

Klamath Falls, OR

#1 Sep 20, 2010
Mr Katherler- maybe the southwest should learn to do more with less. I suggest you do some research on a recent development in the part of Oregon where I live called the KBRA. Damn right Oregon and Washington do not want their water shipped out of state. 2/3 of both states (everything east of the Cascades) are sagebrush high desert, not the lush temperate rain forest that so many people seem to think covers the whole area. Seriously, they can't even get the water from the wet west side to the continually drought-stricken east side.
Oregon Steelhead

Glide, OR

#2 Sep 20, 2010
Keep your hands off our water.
keep em east of western

Redondo Beach, CA

#3 Sep 20, 2010
@ Fred Fasen:
Regarding your comments about insurance companies:
Right on! The insurance industry is horrible. I keep getting increases on my homeowner's policies because of "regional cost increases", rather than increases based on my usage/claims.

The insurance industry raises rates independent of inflation, and I hope one day that that their collective markets take a dive.

The insurance industry holds Americans hostage.
whatever

Norwalk, CA

#4 Sep 20, 2010
I didn't do well in economics iin high school so I could be wrong, but I think Fred might be advocating the total destruction of our economy.

Whether we like it or not, we are a consumer based economy. Entire regions developed around people spending money. Remember the heat Obama caught a couple months ago when he opened his mouth (again) and said something about people not blowing all their money in Vegas?

Imagine how many people would be out of a job if everybody suddenly stopped going to ball games or on vacation? How many jobs in the South Bay depend entirely on tourism? How many entirely on fools wanting the lastest and greatest cell phone or laptop?

Of course, it might be inevitable, but why advocate it?
whatever

Norwalk, CA

#5 Sep 20, 2010
pril wrote:
Mr Katherler- maybe the southwest should learn to do more with less. I suggest you do some research on a recent development in the part of Oregon where I live called the KBRA. Damn right Oregon and Washington do not want their water shipped out of state. 2/3 of both states (everything east of the Cascades) are sagebrush high desert, not the lush temperate rain forest that so many people seem to think covers the whole area. Seriously, they can't even get the water from the wet west side to the continually drought-stricken east side.
I agree.

But changing habits to conserve water is hard.

We want green lawns, shiny cars, and 30 minute showers.

It's easier to steal the water from you folks in the North West.
Sure

Chino, CA

#6 Sep 20, 2010
Fred, We have not spent and spent as you say and we have been one of the few probably who saved and saved and guess what... interest paid on savings is down to nothing. We are being penalized for saving while those that bought homes they could not afford are rewarded by deals using my tax dollars. All the while my taxes and costs are going up and up and up. Something is very wrong with a system like that.

“cracker-barrel philosopher”

Since: Jan 08

Wilmington/Carson/San Pedro

#7 Sep 20, 2010
Wow. When I jokingly suggested extending the aqueduct to the Red River in Fargo, North Dakota to solve two problems - our drought and their flooding - I didn't think somebody would be so serious as to swing into action with a letter to the editor. You never know what you might find there anymore.

“cracker-barrel philosopher”

Since: Jan 08

Wilmington/Carson/San Pedro

#10 Sep 20, 2010
Fred Fasen got all the talking points, save raising taxes. However, other truths control. Markets work. This whole situation keeps proving that. Profits work to provide jobs and growth. Non-consumer credit leads to economic development. Government can try to control for the irregularities and deviations that often occur, but the effort by government most often also leads to a whole new set of problems that create disincentives, unintended consequences and control so oppressive that it leads to hopelessness.

Individual behavior is just that. We all respond to our wants and how we are able to use the market to obtain those wants. As the price levels in any market shift, consumers and suppliers respond accordingly. If enough react in any one direction, movement is made. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the insurance market to say what influences are driving price changes. But, the attitude taken in Fasen's letter is not too different from when we had the gas problems of the 1970s. Those problems fell by the wayside as government shifted away from market regulation and people adapted to long term changes in expectations.
Clear Thinker

Norwalk, CT

#11 Sep 20, 2010
Free markets do work. However, ObamaCare is the reason for THIS increase in insurance rates. Starting on the 1st, all insurers have to adopt a number of mandated coverages -- as businesses they have no choice but to pass on their costs to the customer.

Some of the mandates include: allowing "children" to stay on their parents policy until 26, elimination of caps on coverage of certain diseases, addition of low co-pays to certain politically correct tests. The list is quite large.

These increases are just a start. They continue year by year until 2019 or until we go bankrupt -- or -- ObamaCare is repealed.

Talk with your doc, he knows the situation.

Again, free markets work. but ObamaCare has nothing to do with free markets.
slug wrote:
Fred Fasen got all the talking points, save raising taxes. However, other truths control. Markets work. This whole situation keeps proving that. Profits work to provide jobs and growth. Non-consumer credit leads to economic development. Government can try to control for the irregularities and deviations that often occur, but the effort by government most often also leads to a whole new set of problems that create disincentives, unintended consequences and control so oppressive that it leads to hopelessness.
Individual behavior is just that. We all respond to our wants and how we are able to use the market to obtain those wants. As the price levels in any market shift, consumers and suppliers respond accordingly. If enough react in any one direction, movement is made. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the insurance market to say what influences are driving price changes. But, the attitude taken in Fasen's letter is not too different from when we had the gas problems of the 1970s. Those problems fell by the wayside as government shifted away from market regulation and people adapted to long term changes in expectations.

“cracker-barrel philosopher”

Since: Jan 08

Wilmington/Carson/San Pedro

#12 Sep 20, 2010
Clear Thinker wrote:
Free markets do work. However, ObamaCare is the reason for THIS increase in insurance rates. Starting on the 1st, all insurers have to adopt a number of mandated coverages -- as businesses they have no choice but to pass on their costs to the customer.
Some of the mandates include: allowing "children" to stay on their parents policy until 26, elimination of caps on coverage of certain diseases, addition of low co-pays to certain politically correct tests. The list is quite large.
These increases are just a start. They continue year by year until 2019 or until we go bankrupt -- or -- ObamaCare is repealed.
Talk with your doc, he knows the situation.
Again, free markets work. but ObamaCare has nothing to do with free markets.
<quoted text>
I wasn't trying to be so partisan with the issue.
To John Katherler

Glendale, CA

#13 Sep 20, 2010
"To all state and national politicians: Turn the engineers loose," as John Katherler said, "to design and build new interstate freshwater systems and support these designs by changing the water-rights laws at the state and national level."

It seems this man in Palos Verdes Estates has the right idea. We all need water, and we can't always wait until it rains. And much is wasted, in many places, when it finally pours down.
slug wrote:
Wow. When I jokingly suggested extending the aqueduct to the Red River in Fargo, North Dakota to solve two problems - our drought and their flooding - I didn't think somebody would be so serious as to swing into action with a letter to the editor. You never know what you might find there anymore.
Clear Thinker

Norwalk, CT

#14 Sep 20, 2010
slug wrote:
<quoted text>I wasn't trying to be so partisan with the issue.
When it comes to healthcare in the US, its no longer possible to NOT be partisan. NO republican voted for ObamaCare. ALL Democrats supported it. Oh sure, the Democrats are trying to play it down, but they jammed that thing down our throats. And it takes 1/6 of our economy OUT of the free market.

Fred talks about insurance companies "screwing us". Well, yes they do, but at the request of govt, specifically: ObamaCare. The govt even FORCES us to buy that insurance, whether we can afford it or not!

Sorry slug, but we don't live in kansas anymore. Its all partisan, all the time now.
To Clear Thinker

Glendale, CA

#15 Sep 20, 2010
"Sorry slug, but we don't live in kansas anymore. Its all partisan, all the time now."

Slug is ony talking, it's "unverbindlich," his retirement is secured. No risk involved, by saying what he says on Topix.

Clear Thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to healthcare in the US, its no longer possible to NOT be partisan. NO republican voted for ObamaCare. ALL Democrats supported it. Oh sure, the Democrats are trying to play it down, but they jammed that thing down our throats. And it takes 1/6 of our economy OUT of the free market.
Fred talks about insurance companies "screwing us". Well, yes they do, but at the request of govt, specifically: ObamaCare. The govt even FORCES us to buy that insurance, whether we can afford it or not!
Sorry slug, but we don't live in kansas anymore. Its all partisan, all the time now.
whatever

Norwalk, CA

#16 Sep 20, 2010
Clear Thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to healthcare in the US, its no longer possible to NOT be partisan. NO republican voted for ObamaCare. ALL Democrats supported it. Oh sure, the Democrats are trying to play it down, but they jammed that thing down our throats. And it takes 1/6 of our economy OUT of the free market.
Fred talks about insurance companies "screwing us". Well, yes they do, but at the request of govt, specifically: ObamaCare. The govt even FORCES us to buy that insurance, whether we can afford it or not!
Sorry slug, but we don't live in kansas anymore. Its all partisan, all the time now.
It's even more impossible to be non-partisan about healthcare when you have your facts wrong.

In the House, 100% of the Republicans voted against the bill (strict party line) but so did 34 Democrats.

It passed, but not with 100% Democratic support.
Clear Thinker

Norwalk, CT

#17 Sep 20, 2010
whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
It's even more impossible to be non-partisan about healthcare when you have your facts wrong.
In the House, 100% of the Republicans voted against the bill (strict party line) but so did 34 Democrats.
It passed, but not with 100% Democratic support.
All you've done is confirm that the only thing NON-partisan about ObamaCare was the OPPOSITION to it! Don't you agree?

All 60 Democrat Senators voted for it. All 40 republicans against it. That's where the real battle was fought.

so yes, I neglected to mention the 34 Democrats who thought the Nation's future was more important than Obama's agenda. And the agenda of Big Pharma and Big Insurance.

Still, ObamaCare was as partisan as you get. Compare to other big issues like Medicare, Civil Rights, Social Security, etc.
whatever

Norwalk, CA

#19 Sep 20, 2010
Clear Thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
All you've done is confirm that the only thing NON-partisan about ObamaCare was the OPPOSITION to it! Don't you agree?
All 60 Democrat Senators voted for it. All 40 republicans against it. That's where the real battle was fought.
so yes, I neglected to mention the 34 Democrats who thought the Nation's future was more important than Obama's agenda. And the agenda of Big Pharma and Big Insurance.
Still, ObamaCare was as partisan as you get. Compare to other big issues like Medicare, Civil Rights, Social Security, etc.
Yup. And partisan politics don't get us far.

“cracker-barrel philosopher”

Since: Jan 08

Wilmington/Carson/San Pedro

#20 Sep 20, 2010
Clear Thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to healthcare in the US, its no longer possible to NOT be partisan. NO republican voted for ObamaCare. ALL Democrats supported it. Oh sure, the Democrats are trying to play it down, but they jammed that thing down our throats. And it takes 1/6 of our economy OUT of the free market.
Fred talks about insurance companies "screwing us". Well, yes they do, but at the request of govt, specifically: ObamaCare. The govt even FORCES us to buy that insurance, whether we can afford it or not!
Sorry slug, but we don't live in kansas anymore. Its all partisan, all the time now.
The market is not locked up by government, yet. The history is clear, though. The strategy of employer provided healthcare insurance became popular during WWII under a wage and price control system. Price controls have a glowing history of failure. Its cousin, the employer based health insurance, right behind. The recent regulation is a "doubling down" on past failure. Part of that past failure is embedded in the inability of policy makers to take action literally decades ago when the problem was obvious even then. Both parties are responsible there. Obama had the voter imperative to take action because that is what he ran on. Voters wanted the wrong solutions, i.e., regulation enhancements, because the characterizations of the health care market and the market idea were weakly formulated in the public discussion. Partisan dialogue reinforces that mistake.

“cracker-barrel philosopher”

Since: Jan 08

Wilmington/Carson/San Pedro

#21 Sep 20, 2010
To Clear Thinker wrote:
"Sorry slug, but we don't live in kansas anymore. Its all partisan, all the time now."
Slug is ony talking, it's "unverbindlich," his retirement is secured. No risk involved, by saying what he says on Topix.
<quoted text>
I don't see the relevance. I have argued for health care benefits to be paid by government retirees who are out prior to normal full retirement age (65-67) as a way to correct for pension deficits. Pension COLAs (already not as liberal as the SS COLA) are being revised by cutting or eliminating them in several states. The other states are waiting to see what happens in the courts. New hires in LB and other government agencies are coming in with the older pension formulas, which is where I am still at where I work. My private sector equivalents, the few whom I know personally, are doing as well or better than me - at least, for the moment.
Clear Thinker

Webster, NY

#22 Sep 20, 2010
Actually, most voters oppose ObamaCare. We need to keep that in mind. Every poll indicates that. We'll know for sure in November.

When something is shoved down your throat, there is no discussion. Americans had no input into ObamaCare. In the letter today, Fred Fasen thinks Insurance Companies are the reason he's being screwed -- in fact, its govt regulation and ObamaCare that both forces and enables that screw-job!

It would have been nice to have had a long, drawn-out debate on how to fix healthcare. But the Democrat had 60 votes and the House -- they simply shoved it down our throats.

So of course, its partisan! What else could it be when the ruling party has that view of things?

And of course there are better ways to solve the problem. Democrats could not have cared less about that. They had the votes they needed. They shoved it on down.

Now we have an election. If its rancorously partisan, what else can be expected?
slug wrote:
<quoted text>The market is not locked up by government, yet. The history is clear, though. The strategy of employer provided healthcare insurance became popular during WWII under a wage and price control system. Price controls have a glowing history of failure. Its cousin, the employer based health insurance, right behind. The recent regulation is a "doubling down" on past failure. Part of that past failure is embedded in the inability of policy makers to take action literally decades ago when the problem was obvious even then. Both parties are responsible there. Obama had the voter imperative to take action because that is what he ran on. Voters wanted the wrong solutions, i.e., regulation enhancements, because the characterizations of the health care market and the market idea were weakly formulated in the public discussion. Partisan dialogue reinforces that mistake.
Clear Thinker

Webster, NY

#23 Sep 20, 2010
slug wrote:
<quoted text>I don't see the relevance. I have argued for health care benefits to be paid by government retirees who are out prior to normal full retirement age (65-67) as a way to correct for pension deficits. Pension COLAs (already not as liberal as the SS COLA) are being revised by cutting or eliminating them in several states. The other states are waiting to see what happens in the courts. New hires in LB and other government agencies are coming in with the older pension formulas, which is where I am still at where I work. My private sector equivalents, the few whom I know personally, are doing as well or better than me - at least, for the moment.
You know there is nothing hard and fast about pensions, right? Even for govt employees. I see that issue coming to a head in the few years too. Way too many promises were made that won't be kept.

My biggest concern is that policy makers will encourage inflation as a way to get out of their promises.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Merced Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
love you... (Apr '15) 12 min S Robinson 125
What God Loves... (Nov '15) Thu SMR 38
Stabbing man in the face 3 weeks ago Jan 4 Monika 1
News Illegal Aliens Rally for Sanctuary for Aliens, ... Dec '16 kyman 2
former playmate Lonny (Lorraine) Chin (Feb '08) Dec '16 Paul 177
Looking for a church in Merced??? (Oct '13) Dec '16 ll 2
gangs and drugs in atwater (Feb '09) Nov '16 4TW4T3R 22

Merced Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Merced Mortgages