Michael Ramirez at Townhall Click for sharper view.
Posted by Ron Hebron at December 17, 2009 06:55 AM | Email ThisThey never met an expensive, dead on arrival scheme, that they didn't want to fund with our taxpayer dollars. And they can't even agree amongst themselves what to do, because the whole plan is such a collectivist failure.
Hope and Change.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 17, 2009 08:28 AMBy the time president teleprompter, the would-be cop killer's friend, is finished with America gold will be worth $3,000 an ounce and we'll be paying $100 for a dozen eggs.
Oh, but wait. The leftist spandex bike-shorts, propeller beanie crew will start liking the U.S.A.
Big "win" for us.
But hey, the "free" market can do no wrong, right?
Posted by: demo kid on December 17, 2009 11:07 AMIf the government does something wrong, and they don't improve, they just raise taxes and fees and subsidize their bad program(s) even further.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on December 17, 2009 11:18 AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill--composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members--will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.
***********
Kill this foolish bill
Businesses exist to support "The State" dontcha know. They should consider themselves lucky to be allowed to exist. And if the profits come up above radar level, or they have ideas disagreeable with the left, or if some execs get paid some ambiguously defined "too much" well then, they just need to be shut up, regulated, or shut down.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 17, 2009 12:34 PMI hate folks whose sole goal is to destroy my liberty but some how I graciously wait for them to join us.
The ungratefulness that is expressed towards liberty and life is tragic. It always perverted that their right to whatever('health care', drugs, sex with anything/one, unlimited taxes, understanding for red handed terrorists) is what should be 'free' and anyone that does not want these faux 'liberties' must be dealt with, harshly. How could you feel excitement stoned out of your mind knowing that you must destroy anyone that would say that's a bad idea or get angry about a company building a plane?
Mind blowing that we wait on you anymore-time for you to leave good bye. We can no long afford the taxes you levy on us.
What part of America should we give #5 and #7 and split up the country and get back to life and liberty with the elimination of tyranny.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on December 17, 2009 12:41 PMHappy Holidays from Capitalism!
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 17, 2009 12:49 PMWonder if Michelle Obama will add to her pricey wardrobe a dress made out of fiberglass insulation...
Posted by: Michele on December 17, 2009 12:52 PMWrong. I can give you a very long list of businesses that do things that you or I would think are "wrong", but are accepted or even established practice, and without regulation would proceed unchecked.
@12: Always the logical "false choice" fallacy from Democrats.
No, there's the absolutist "the free market is ALWAYS right" attitude from far right wingnuts, and then there's what everyone else thinks.
Businesses exist to support "The State" dontcha know. They should consider themselves lucky to be allowed to exist. And if the profits come up above radar level, or they have ideas disagreeable with the left, or if some execs get paid some ambiguously defined "too much" well then, they just need to be shut up, regulated, or shut down.
Only ACTUAL communists think that, not anyone that you mindlessly call a "socialist" or "communist". Maybe there's a knee-jerk reaction when businesses actually screw up and leave other people holding the bag, but the modern American left has never had that attitude towards business.
However, there's quite a reasonable perspective that says that if businesses have impacts on an area, and require services and infrastructure to do business, they should be willing to pay for that instead of getting a free ride. That applies for hard and soft infrastructure, as well as for the services that support the labor pool here.
@14: And don't forget how we got to today. It's easy for lefties to vilify businesses and call CO2 a poison. But what would it have been like last week if CO2 were outlawed?
Again, mindless right-wing oversimplification. "Outlawing" CO2 is pointless, and not a single global climate change policy advocate has seriously talked about a zero-emissions policy. It's impossible, and it's impractical.
However, if you're going to be pumping out 40 billion metric tons a year of a trace atmospheric gas, and there is an unexplained spike in global temperatures that correspond to when we started releasing all this gas, rational folks would at least entertain the notion of reducing how much we release where it is economically efficient.
@15: Wonder if Michelle Obama will add to her pricey wardrobe a dress made out of fiberglass insulation...
Yes! I mean, isn't it great to stand against energy efficiency? So do you shell out hundreds of bucks in energy bills a month, or do you just shiver in cold defiance?
Posted by: demo kid on December 17, 2009 01:48 PMNot necessarily, but since it's THEIR money, businesses have a right to do whatever they please with it.
And that's where conservatives and leftists differ. Leftist politicians consider the taxpayers' money to be THEIRS, with license to do whatever they please with it. Conservative politicians actually understand where the money came from and tend to spend it wisely. Note: I said conservatives, not Republicans.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 17, 2009 02:21 PMIf government had to operate under the regulations it passes for businesses, such as Sarbanes-Oxley, how many violations would there be?
If politicians were held to the same regulatory and ethical standards they place upon business leaders, how many would still be in office?
Government is not the end-all, be-all of panaceas. It is instituted by man and is thus prone to the errors of man - greed, power, and avarice. Unlike businesses, government has the force of law backed by lethal force to make citizens do their bidding.
I'll take my chances with businesses that I can choose to patronize - or not - over government I am forced to accept.
Since I am forced to accept government, the less of it to be forced upon me, the better.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on December 17, 2009 03:04 PMGreat! So you can speak to energy efficiency in practice, then! Why spread all the nastiness about someone doing the same thing?
@18: Not necessarily, but since it's THEIR money, businesses have a right to do whatever they please with it.
Like investment firms? Meatpacking plants? Pharmaceutical companies? I'm sure that because they're just working with "their own money", they can never do anything wrong, and if they do, they'll instantaneously go bankrupt and all of their CEOs / shareholders / owners will instantly be ruined.
And that's where conservatives and leftists differ. Leftist politicians consider the taxpayers' money to be THEIRS, with license to do whatever they please with it. Conservative politicians actually understand where the money came from and tend to spend it wisely.
Again, trite and completely wrong answer. I could just as easily say that liberal politicians believe that folks that come upon hard times shouldn't be thrown away, while conservatives think that if you make a mistake you should be left to rot. What do you think about that? Is that accurate enough for you?
Posted by: demo kid on December 17, 2009 03:09 PMYou are so ignorant. The Dreamliner uses 20% less fuel. That's call "efficiency", you're getting more with the same resources, in fact you get about 20% more...
But idiots like you wouldn't understand that, would you?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 17, 2009 07:02 PMEschenbach has responded in detail to the unsigned article response that appeared in the Economist.
You can find his response here.
Even worse, it's now shown that the CRU cherry picked temperature data in Russia to show warming when none occurred. Read about that here.
Then they tried to suppress two studies that pointed out their errors.
The IPCC is an absolute fraud on the world. And the Democrat suckers are on their way over there to give them billions.
Posted by: Palouse on December 17, 2009 08:37 PMAnd hey, you're absolutely right in that fuel efficiency is great for emissions targets. (If there were any emissions targets for bunker fuels, of course...)
@22: Blah, blah, blah. Again and again, deniers point out minor issues and assume that can overturn a massive amount of research that has suggested that there is a link. There has been no "suppression" and no actual deletion of data, and while I'm certain that anyone could take issue with some shoddy examples of research in some cases, that doesn't provide solid proof for any one of the large number of claims that deniers are making.
But hey, if you'd like to suggest that a political opinion supported by very little evidence is "science", go right ahead.
@23: Doesn't seem like you're gleaning much truth from facts yourself... only talking points.
Posted by: demo kid on December 18, 2009 04:58 AMSimpleton, I pity your lot in life!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 18, 2009 05:33 AMJust curious, since saying that my mind is "closed" and "small" and not backing it up with any proof whatsoever is kinda just lame. You can at least do a LITTLE better than that!
Posted by: demo kid on December 18, 2009 05:50 AMBoeing's making a profit, and has orders lined up for a decade. The plane's a hit, the customers are OK with the delays. Seems your hatred of Boeing and trying to slam it because of the delays aren't based in reality.
Dreamliner has the kind of pull and customer loyalty BECAUSE of the efficiency of the plane. Lower fuel costs, lower maintenance costs, lower price-per-seat. It's efficient all around.
But you can't look at that, because you would have to admit that business - capitalism - did something right and we know your mantra is the only good-and-holy thing is Government.
Can you point to a dropped order because of the delays? Can you point to a dropped order because of the costs? No. But in the PR-driven, closed/small mind of a marxist leftist, it's the message that matters, and that message you want is "Boeing is slow and bad".
To liberal dolts like you, it's the message, and not the results that matter. Your posts here are 100% confirmation of that very fact.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 18, 2009 07:02 AMLiberals claim they are not communists/ marxists but their desired outcomes smell a lot like communism.
Posted by: Attila on December 18, 2009 07:25 AM
Now, focus on the friends and associates of president teleprompter. He *is* in league with those marxist cretins.
Fortunately, the messiah is both incompetent and an idiot. He is managing to alienate his commie base, burn bridges to the right and the political center, .....all while eroding the U.S. economy via feckless government stimulus "job creation", massive spending (is he on his second or third trillion spending spree since january?) and appearing as an AGW cultist.
Eventually inflation will take hold as a result of incompetent leftist policies. We would do well to constantly remind the electorate of the trillions squandered by the reds. Posted by: Attila on December 18, 2009 08:47 AM
Lie. Data have not been "manufactured".
They also believe in saddling future generations with trillions of dollars in debt and resulting economic ruin in order to give themselves more freebies from the government.
What "freebies" from the government would result from this?
Liberals claim they are not communists/ marxists but their desired outcomes smell a lot like communism.
Name one industry that would be nationalized as a result. Just one.
@32: We would do well to constantly remind the electorate of the trillions squandered by the reds
Out of that whole random, schizophrenia screed, that was the one that was the most amusing. Nice to see that your selective amnesia about the Bush years has arisen yet again.
Posted by: demo kid on December 18, 2009 09:56 AMHowever, Qantas did cancel an order for Dreamliners, as did a few other airlines. Whether Boeing lost contracts to Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, or whomever... that's a little harder to pin down. Corporate decision-making isn't quite that transparent. Likewise, it's hard to tell what is the effect of delays versus the economic downturn. But thinking that a delay of well over two years in their production schedule WOULDN'T affect their customers' decisions, though, is unrealistic and really wishful thinking. I mean, seriously... if you're going to adhere to the principles of the free market on one hand, but completely ignore them on the other, you're just being irrational.
But this all gets down to my main point: if a government agency in charge of something similar had a two-and-a-half year delay in a delivery date, slavish followers of the "free" market would be crowing about how that delay was the fault of the government. Loudly professing that this is a "success" of the free market, when you would call it a "failure" if done by the government... well, that's completely inconsistent.
Posted by: demo kid on December 18, 2009 10:10 AMWhat you are apparently missing - not a surprise - is that the process is EFFICIENT ENOUGH because both the PRODUCER (Boeing) and the CUSTOMER (the airlines) are satisfied with the final results.
But then, that's not you or the Government defining success, that's leaving it up to the parties involved to decide if it works. Increasing the efficiency/speed of delivery may or may not have helped Boeing; note that most of the cancellations of Dreamliners have been because of the massive drop-off in travel plans, and in most cases (such as S-7 and Quantas) were to move to leasing planes rather than buying.
You don't get it - the producer and the customer reached a solution both were amenable to. Your claims are ignorant because you don't recognize the rights of either of those parties to set their own priorities. Typical leftist approach!
And you know what? If it was the Government I would call it a failure, because Government would have promised to deliver a product to someone else and I would be on the hook for the results. Government has an open-ended wallet via taxation and doesn't feel the sting of stock price fall, nor does it have to go and negotiate and appease clients - you have no choice.
But you don't understand basic economics, so what's the point...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 18, 2009 11:41 AMANSWER THE QUESTION:
Did you ever serve in this nation's military?
Posted by: pbj on December 18, 2009 06:22 PM"BIPARTISAN congressional efforts to revive the Glass-Steagall Act and reinstate safeguards in the financial industry must focus on restoring consumer confidence and regulatory transparency.
Repeal of the Depression-era law in 1999 allowed creation of hybrid megabanks that melded commercial lending and investment companies. The result was diminished federal oversight, watered-down consumer protections and risky transactions tied to taxpayer-financed government protection.
Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell has teamed up with Arizona Sen. John McCain to introduce legislation that once again separates commercial banking from investment activities. "We must return stability, security and confidence to commercial banking in America," Cantwell said as the bill was announced.
A parallel amendment was offered in the House to a previously adopted bill that would tighten rules for the financial industry.
The term "financial holding companies" does not adequately describe the concentration of power that occurred in the past decade. A handful of banks hold most of the deposits and mortgages, issue most of the credit cards and have vast sums in largely unregulated security transactions.
One of the promises of reinstating the values of Glass-Steagall is to simplify and reinvigorate government oversight. Make it so mere mortal regulators have a chance of monitoring the health of the nation's banks.
At present, America's banking giants are emboldened to make risky bets because they have access to low-interest loans and their rich Uncle Sam is obligated to bailout them. Indeed, the commitment is a double bind. Banks know they have federal commitments to cover them and they are indeed too big to fail. They godown, and the system goes with them.
Change the rules. Let them gamble with their own money and suffer the consequences of any losses. Protect consumers who want a banking system, not a lottery game."
Posted by: KDS on December 19, 2009 01:56 PMRegarding Willis Eschenbach's response to the logical dismemberment the Economist did on his argument in the 11 Dec post "Scepticism's limits", the Economist posted its response, "Climate manipulation gun still notably smoke-free" on December 14th:
"The discussion then continues for several more paragraphs, including more statistical tools. Does Mr Eschenbach dispute the reliability of these techniques? Why? Mr Eschenbach believes himself to be qualified to accuse the scientists who work on these questions of deliberately manipulating their data. I think that this is one of those cases where people who lack expertise in a sophisticated field have an inappropriate degree of confidence in their own judgment."
emphasis added
On Jim Miller's "Worth Study" post here at SP, he refers to UW Atmospheric Scientist, Dr. Cliff Mass's post "Climategate" where Cliff Mass says
"Are many global warming deniers unreasonable and expressing opinions that are not based in facts or rational thought? Yes."
emphasis added
Is this repeated theme that global warming skeptics/deniers are irrational unqualified ninnies not absolute proof that there is a Marxist AKORN conspiracy to enslave the people?
How else can one possibly explain the near uniform consensus on the part of educated professionals in their field that construction managers and random blog commenters are neither qualified to dispute their "science" nor coherent in doing so???
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 21, 2009 09:05 AM