Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

Jon Erik Kingstad

Afton, MN
Commenter for
4 years 9 weeks

Recent Comments

Posted on 06/26/14 at 08:56 am in response to Finally, Mike McFadden offers details on his health-care views

Good work on getting Mr. McFadden to share his views with us, Eric.I must say he does have one good idea in making premiums for individual policy buyers tax deductible.

The rest are incoherent and unconstructive. So much kvetching, as Mr. Foster puts it. Why allow insurers to impose things like "lifetime limits"? I hadn't heard that before but that sure sounds like "rationing" to me. Just don't call the insurance company which imposes such a limit a "death panel."

Or why...

Posted on 06/26/14 at 09:46 pm in response to Finally, Mike McFadden offers details on his health-care views

I've been behind the single payer idea ever since it got that name. So you don't have to sell me on that idea.

But Obamacare is at least some improvement. And if it makes Obamacare more palatable and popular for those who can afford the premiums by also having them be tax deductible, I'm in favor of that.

Posted on 06/16/14 at 02:41 pm in response to Iraq is a state but not a nation; Kurdistan is the opposite

Well done article that puts the problems in perspective.

I think it fair to say that many Americans, which I would include myself, never expected the US to fill the vacuum created by the end of British and French colonial rule. Yet it is becoming increasingly apparent that many Americans and others around the world do expect that to be the case. Maybe there's no choice in that. It's well and good to say that it was a mistake to have invaded Iraq in the first place. I was against it...

I've visited family in Prtland, ORE over the years and have marveled at what a vibrant central community exists there. It makes sense to me that the LRT system has been a big part of this. There's no reason why the Green Line can't rejuvenate University Avenue and the whole corridor area just as the infrastructure has in Portland, OR.

It's obvious to me that at least one side doesn't have a basic understanding of the other side's arguments. My observation is that that side does not want to understand the other side's arguments. This may arise because of an increasingly dogmatic libertarianism of that side that has made a fetish of nonexistent "free markets" and has no idea of his governments make any market workable, if not feasible.

But what about the side that says "government can do something" to help? I count...

a very good point. I hadn't heard that Hillary Clinton is charging $200,000 per speech. I quite agree that charging a speaking fee of $200,000 to a group consisting of Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg, Carlyl, etc. is little more than a campaign contribution. I suppose Clinton rationalizes this by the idea that the campaign finance laws do not kick in until she is an official candidate and she has a right to charge what the market will bear to those who will pay to hear her.

But as you...

In the spirit of offering a better understanding of my leftish understanding of "free markets", I'll try to explain. If your understanding of a "free market" is that it exists whenever you have choice between competing products or services, that's not what I understand the "Right" means when it is taking a position on government noninterference. Do you have a choice when you want to obtain a mortgage? An internet provider? An electric company? Or even a house or apartment?

...

There's some truth in your comment that "governments end up controlling the people for the good of the economy." I disagree that the Left has no problem with that. Except that the Left would say that the Right has no problem with the government controlling the people for the good of the rich, substituting the word "rich" for the word "economy."

Maybe part of the misunderstanding between the Right and Left is in defining what has exactly been the trend and how the rich have become the...

Is to replace the current slate of ideologue justices on the US Supreme Court that will overrule the bad decisions Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas (and Lewis Powell too) and the rest have hung us with. Corporations are juridical entities and have no "free speech" rights. Period. There needs to be stricter legislative controls. Justice Black and Douglas once wrote a dissent in which the laid out the case for overruling the 1884 Santa Clara County decision where the Court simply declared that "...

Posted on 06/07/14 at 12:50 pm in response to Franken and Ted Cruz on a campaign-finance constitutional amendment

I'm disappointed the Al Franken is touting this amendment as a cure to Citizen's United and McCutcheon. Having an amendment authorizing Congress to regulate "political contributions" begs the question of what exactly are "political contributions" and sets the stage for a totally needless confrontation with the First Amendment. A Supreme Court construing it would undoubtedly side with the First Amendment. This proposed amendment would likely resolve nothing.

Citizen's United was a bad...