The Goat Pen

One of the highest ranking leaders in The Religion of Peace wants to destroy Christian churches:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... -churches/

So what do the scotus watchers say about today?

1) The major airlines were bailed out by the Federal govt right after 9/11 as IB said. Several of them probably only survived thanks to federal intervention.

2) The FAA and TSA are primarily funded by general revenue, not taxes on the airlines. Without govt support, it's unlikely that private enterprise could turn a profit while simultaneously being responsible for the entire costs and operation of all traffic controllers everywhere.

3) There are literally dozens, maybe even several hundred airports, that are kept operational only through taxpayer support. This is thanks to the "Essential Air Program" which was set up after deregulation in order to keep rural airports alive. Places like Glendive, MT, Hagerstown, MD, and Muscle Shoals, AL

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 42018.html

If the govt completely wiped its hands of the industry and didn't fund a dime for airports, runways, the FAA, or security, it's pretty likely that most companies would go bankrupt and the cost of a ticket would rise so dramatically that it would no longer be an option for most travelers.

puterbac wrote:So what do the scotus watchers say about today?

Puter-

Oral arguments aren't terribly important but the consensus from conservative and liberal commentators I've read today is that Obama's Solicitor General was spectacularly awful. If I had to guess, the law will be voted unconstitutional, at least in part.

We have come a long way from the 90's when the Republican Party was proud to tout the individual mandate as it's own brainchild.

innocentbystander wrote:

aTm wrote:How much has the airline industry received in subsidies and infrastructure development? trillions?

Quite a bit, billions (in the single digits), immediately after 9-11, mostly loans to tide them over. But that was a very short lived airline depression, they recovered in months, not years. That said, there isn't exactly a lot of "infrastructure development" in this industry outside of the airports. It isn't like they build super highways in the sky. The subsidy from government (much that it is) is the government keeping the tiny, bullshit, municipal airports open, and government subsidizing the little bullshit regional airlines to fly in and out of them. There are actual lobbiest groups in DC working for Mesa Air Group, SkyWest, Spirit Air, and quite a few others, paying Congress Critters to make sure those subsidy dollars keep rolling in....

Prior to CAB, the major airlines didn't need government money. They had government intervention instead preventing other airlines from competing with each other for the same routes. So airlines had a monopoly on their runs and could charge whatever price they wanted for a route, any price that guaranteed a profit (and half empty planes.) Flying was for the wealthy only. The poor and middle class didn't fly. Ever.

The airlines couldn't give a shit less about empty seats. The aircraft will fly because of the cargo loaded in the hold along with your baggage. Believe me, any passenger is extra money, because the trip was paid for by the cargo Delta / AA / whatever is flying. We have parts brought to JIA many, many times for FedEx aircraft by Delta.

puterbac wrote:So what do the scotus watchers say about today?

Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts will probably vote to overturn Obamacare, or at least the individual mandate. Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer will vote to keep it. It will probably hinge on Kennedy. He didn't sound too keen on the individual mandate today.

DSL is wacky

From what I gather, the conservative justices are going to vote against it. The liberal justices are going to rule in favor of it.

Just one more bit of evidence to prove what a joke the judicial branch is, too.

SCOTUS is divided, just like the country.

USS Enterprise on her last deployment. Her decommisioning will truly be the end of an era. In an age where nuclear power is still a controversial subject, "Big E" sails into history after a half-century traversing the globe on nuclear power. I only hope there will be another Enterprise.

Professor Tiger wrote:

puterbac wrote:So what do the scotus watchers say about today?

Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts will probably vote to overturn Obamacare, or at least the individual mandate. Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer will vote to keep it. It will probably hinge on Kennedy. He didn't sound too keen on the individual mandate today.

It all depends on Justice Kennedy.

Awwwwwwww.......


Dennis Rodman's attorney, Linnea Willis, said in court documents that the former Laker is barely capable of paying for his living expenses, let alone the $5,000 he has for one child from another relationship, and the $4,500 monthly payment for spousal and child support to Michelle Rodman.

The attorneys who have represented him to date have worked pro bono, Willis said.

"Respondent Dennis Rodman is broke and cannot afford any additional fees," according to court documents filed on his behalf.

He is "extremely sick" and his marketability is diminishing with age and illness, according to court documents.

I was wondering when they were going to decommission the Enterprise. That ship is almost as old as I am. But she is indeed a uniquely historic ship. I'd like to tour her wherever she winds up.

I also hope there is another Enterprise. We may have to wait for Star Fleet to do the right thing.

Hacksaw wrote:USS Enterprise on her last deployment. Her decommisioning will truly be the end of an era. In an age where nuclear power is still a controversial subject, "Big E" sails into history after a half-century traversing the globe on nuclear power. I only hope there will be another Enterprise.

PT beat me to it, but yes I hope there is another Enterprise or Kirk and Picard are going to be PISSED.

USS Enterprise on her last deployment. Her decommisioning will truly be the end of an era. In an age where nuclear power is still a controversial subject, "Big E" sails into history after a half-century traversing the globe on nuclear power. I only hope there will be another Enterprise.

One of my two best friends (/ds) and the guy I enlisted with, was on the flight deck and injured during the Big E fire. My other BF lost an eye and an ear and most of his face in Nam.

Me? I was KIUA.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

puterbac wrote:So what do the scotus watchers say about today?

Puter-

Oral arguments aren't terribly important but the consensus from conservative and liberal commentators I've read today is that Obama's Solicitor General was spectacularly awful. If I had to guess, the law will be voted unconstitutional, at least in part.

We have come a long way from the 90's when the Republican Party was proud to tout the individual mandate as it's own brainchild.

See I understand that there has to be a mandate for it to work. The problem is if commerce clause covers being born, which is what this really means, then there is NO limit to govt power and that is wrong. I actually have a dumb question (insert rat comment here), but isn't insurance a state by state thing? Perhaps tick can answer but I can't buy a policy offered to someone in Iowa can I? Maybe I am way off base, but does insurance actually cross state lines? Maybe I'm way off base.

The other problem with Opramacare is they over reached. Forcing coverage for 26 year olds as if they were a kid? REALLY? DUMB.

I can see the pre-existing condition thing, but you have to allow for different prices for different risks. It should be capped so they can't say your premium is a million bucks, but the whole point of insurance is those that are a higher risk cost the company more and therefore pay a higher premium.

The forcing of coverage for things that people don't want or will never use only adds cost. There should be bare minimum catastrophic coverage option. Should a menopausal female coverage include coverage for childbirth? It shouldn't which would make things cheaper, but I think it has to by law. Tick can correct me if I'm wrong.

They wanted to go as socialist as they could at the time instead of addressing the actual problem of the 15 million or so who do want insurance but can't afford it. They had a 15% problem and went for a 200% "fix". In addition I fully believe the tax/penalty being so low was done on purpose to encourage business to drop coverage and pay the tax/penalty instead. Why? It adds more people to the govt rolls which is more power to the feds (aka libs) and gets people to start thinking of healthcare being the responsibility of govt and not the individual. Turning the water in the pot up a degree on the path a rolling boil of single payer.

That having been said there is another "solution" that will never happen: Those that want insurance, but can't afford it could get a subsidy for a BARE BONES catastrophic policy. Those who can afford it, but refuse to purchase have to either pay at the door when sick or they don't get treated. They made the decision. Live with the consequences. Again those who CAN afford it, but choose not to. Now the problem with that is kids. So there would have to be some provision where kids get treated, because we as a nation are not going to allow children to not go treated nor should we. Adults who refuse act responsibly.....much more open to that IMO.

And one other thing...this doesn't have to be done by the feds. If CA wants to setup Opramacare in thier state and pay for it with taxes from CA residents, then by all means go ahead and let the people of CA pay for it if they vote people in who push it. Then its up to the state constitutions and whether a mandate for breathing is allowed or not.

ANyway rambling...off to a meeting.

CNN's Jeff Toobin thinks the individual mandate is toast.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t1#/vi ... -three.cnn

The MSNBC politburo was saying similar things last night. They were blaming the solicitor general for the debacle, not the tyrannical nature of the law itself, of course.

I think if SCOTUS strikes the individual mandate down, Obama the statist will be sad, but Obama the politician will be relieved. Obamacare is by far the most unpopular thing he has done as president. If SCOTUS throws it out, they are taking that big vulnerability off the table so it can't be used against him in the fall.

The other big winner if Obamacare is struck down would be Romney. We will all be spared the spectacle of watching him oppose Obamacare as the R nominee, which would be like watching Bill Clinton campaigning against adultery.

shaddup

Professor Tiger wrote:CNN's Jeff Toobin thinks the individual mandate is toast.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t1#/vi ... -three.cnn

The MSNBC politburo was saying similar things last night. They were blaming the solicitor general for the debacle, not the tyrannical nature of the law itself, of course.

I think if SCOTUS strikes the individual mandate down, Obama the statist will be sad, but Obama the politician will be relieved. Obamacare is by far the most unpopular thing he has done as president. If SCOTUS throws it out, they are taking that big vulnerability off the table so it can't be used against him in the fall.

The other big winner if Obamacare is struck down would be Romney. We will all be spared the spectacle of watching him oppose Obamacare as the R nominee, which would be like watching Bill Clinton campaigning against adultery.

I don't buy it. The liberal is taking a page out of Talent's reverse sandbuggery book...