Crux

Mmmmkay.... Prole's pro-audacious propensity for professing the obvious punctuates again.

Taxes are the price of government services. When prices are increased for a service, the demand for that service goes down. A reduced demand compels an increased efficiency. And improved efficiency translates to a reduction of waste. Raise the taxes on the poor, and you get the injustice of poor people paying the taxes. Raise taxes on the rich, and you get rich people screaming for justice when it comes to wasteful spending -- and you get a more effective support for improved efficiency in the pubic sector.

Fwiw, a few minutes ago, I signed up here , for Alan Grayson. Again.

Dyad 5mm wider than Deep-V ...interesting!

Laced mine with 36 Sapim Laser spokes to Deep-V rims. The current set is built with DuraAce hubs. Last set had Velocity hubs. Lived on the bike with that set for a year, and it kept rolling through some memorably jarring hits suffered fast in the dark, cold rain and snow, all that: A curb, a pothole, a railroad rail. A couple hits caused denting, but none mattered much as the bike still went fast and true into the summer. In the end, the brake surfaces thinned and the bearings blew.

Gulf oil spill: BP says 'top kill' plug going to plan

And of the three cases that have been brought with this legislation one plead out and two were dismissed. Ex Post Facto is generally regarded as unconstitutional, but you knew that, right? I'd love to hear about the telecom legislation you mentioned, I'm unfamiliar with it but I'd bet its more of the same. I think the use of Ex Post Facto legislation against the BP will only result in an expensive legal battle assuming the proposed bill passes. In the end I think the legislation is just going to make a bad situation worse. Ex Post Facto imposition of penalties for crimes comitted (e.g., fines and imprisonment) is clearly prohibited by the Consitution, but this limitation does not apply to civil penalties (i.e., compensatory and punitive damages). However, legislated limitations to damages, which are a civil matter, are subject to change Ex Post Facto. Therefore, to whatever extent the BP offenses of topical concern are a civil matter, rather than being a violation of criminal code, the legislated cap on penalties for those offenses can be changed by the legislature now or later. Moreover, to whatever extent that damages can be shown to be a result of fraud on the part of BP, all bets are off for contractual obligations that would spare BP from related damages; that is, contractual protections that BP might otherwise enjoy are null and void to the extent that BP fraudulently claimed compliance with said contract(s). In this case, BP explicitly -- and fraudulently -- claimed a full preparedness to prevent the damage now underway.

By a unanimous decision, the U.S Senate voted today to audit the Fed. Who here will call that bad news? Meanwhile, the Fed is now planning to bail out Europe. Who here will call that good news?

BBC News: Oil firms 'set to clash in US Senate' over rig disaster

BBC: Oil workers describe methane 'explosion' on Gulf rig

Slick Operator: British Petroleum

The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill

Schwarzenegger turns... (Thank you for all you do, Halliburton)

Goldman Sachs fraud charges 'just the tip of the iceberg': prof

You do realize that everything you say here is on the Internet, don't you?

Of course, as the article posted by Prole makes clear, the mandate requiring everybody to have insurance is another idea from the big-government, tell-people-what-they gotta-do-folks, the Republicans. It might seem paradoxical that the Republicans now unanimously oppose the plan, until one remembers these people have moved so far to the political right that even the Democratic party, a somewhat conservative political entity, now seems leftist by comparison.

In my thinking, for the Blessings of Liberty to be legally predicated upon the purchase of anything from a private entity would be unconstitutional. As it turns out, however, the health insurance reform bill does not do that: The bill does not provide for any fines to be imposed upon persons who do not have or fail to obtain medical insurance. What Congress has done to mandate citizen participation in the collective medical insurance pool is to enact a new tax. Under details of budgetary reconciliation, the new tax is designated to raise revenue needed to defray costs the Government incurs by paying for emergency or other medical care for persons who have no medical insurance. As the new tax is leveraged in the insurance reform bill, it comes with an exemption for citizens who have insurance, thus compelling most everybody to have insurance. For those who cannot afford insurance, reconciliation has enacted means of revenue collection to provide subsidies that will make their insurance affordable. Individuals will be able to choose their insurance providers, to whatever extent choices are available by the industry cartel -- pretty much the same as now, only with government subsidies to make premiums affordable for buyers who have lower incomes. Lower incomes are those below 88K, from what I understand, and subsidies will be paid directly to the chosen insurance providers. I'd like to see a public option made available, rather than deal with a predatory cartel we hope to tame with the new law, but I believe the new provisions for medical insurance will be significantly better than what we have now. At any rate, once I learned the mandate that I buy insurance is to be imposed by a germane tax incentive rather than legal fines, the law seemed congruent with constitutional principles and unlikely to be viewed otherwise by federal courts, including the SCOTUS that is presently doubted by so many people after its recent decision on the Citizens United case.

We're not finished: Medicare Part E What's now in progress: WeWantMedicare.com

[video:youtube]

...too fat to fail?

Yes, according to warnings from Republicans, the Democrats are not moving far enough Right. But at least Repubicans have been courteous enough to give helpful advice in regard to this terrible mistake: [video:youtube]

Crrrrack! In the Senate, we now have 51votes... It's back on Pelosi now, to ensure there is sent up from the House to the Senate a reconciliation amendment that includes -- a public option.

When shopping for medical insurance?

People who conversed with the former president recall that Reagan manifested signs of debilitating Alzheimer's disease as far back as 1983. While his wife, Nancy, rightfully receives credit for helping to conceal his presentations of delusional memories, I think Ronald Reagan might deserve credit as the most successful Alzheimer's victim ever. After all, is it not quite an accomplishment to make it as president while crippled by such a disease? Surely, while it is arguably true that Reagan was but an amiable dunce to start with, for him to continue to hold office while his brain was turning into cabbage is remarkable. In regard to whether or not Reagan's courageous battle with Alzheimer's disease somehow makes him ultimately a successful president, I suggest judgment be left up to fans who might be more intimately aware of the special challenges he faced. To provide such an evaluation, maybe one or two of the locals are qualified to volunteer.

Past: Obama Health Care Plan Drops Public Option Present: Obama promises progressives he’ll revisit public option after bill passes Future: The obstructionist party goes after the Parliamentarian.