They've already put the Falcon 1 into orbit. I'd say that's an accomplishment.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is our Foreign Intelligence spending was cut, preventing the intelligence community from expending the necessary resources to learn of and prevent the attack.

And started a war, caused about $640 Billion in economic damage, and could have been easily prevented for pennies on the dollar. In comparison, Katrina cost less than $300 Billion. It's much cheaper to track what your enemies are trying to do to hurt you and kill them before they get the chance, than to try to clean up the mess afterwords.

Perhaps you should return to your Liberal propaganda club first. 80% of the millionaires in the United States are first-generation affluent, according to the New York Times. The reason you aren't as successful is because you're lazy and/or stupid, not because you didn't have wealthy parents. The facts among millionaires are as follows:

Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.

And also the intelligence community, which directly lead to the largest terrorist attack in this nations history.

Regulation isn't the solution, it's the problem. My home is currently serviced by two competing cable companies, and Verizon Fios. The cable companies have been competing on price, speed, and features for at least ten years now, and the entry of Verizon only served to further reduce prices. The reason for this is that my county has no cable franchise agreements, so new entrants are free to lay cable and compete. In practice, hardly anyone does since it's expensive, but competition really works. While I currently only have a 20 mbit symmetric internet connection, I could upgrade to 50 with a phone call. Making it harder to compete isn't going to help your situation.

Have you ever been inside of a post office? Talk about a shining example of government "efficiency". The whole affair is borderline pathetic. You really want to spread that disease? You're either stupid or incredibly naive if you actually believe it would be less expensive or higher quality.

The devil is in the details:

Definition of Promote:

Definition of Provide:

Paying for universal broadband doesn't promote the general welfare, it provides the general welfare.

It's entirely possible to have a market cap of $75 million with annual profits of less than $7.5 million. Indeed, for start-ups, annual profit could be a lot closer to $2.5 million, yielding a P/E ratio of 30. All of the additional archiving and compliance measures could easily soak up a large percentage of that profit.

You believe the situation would be better without any public oversight and with large companies being controlled exclusively by select individuals (the people that own the company)? You don't want to see entrenched publicly traded companies challenged by newcomers? You honestly believe that publicly traded companies don't innovate?

Your post title, "Misses the point!", is quite appropriate, since that's exactly what you did. Sarbox prevents large private businesses, startups, that aren't publicly traded from making the transition to being publicly traded, because of the incredible expense associated with getting into compliance. In other words, the millions a year it costs is acceptable to already publicly traded companies, but the millions that much be spent precludes non-publicly traded companies from making the transition, significantly raising the barriers to entry.

When Steve Fossett's plane crashed, nobody speculated that he was killed so he would be unable to break any more world records. Granted, that while suicides and accidents surrounding those in power are always suspicious, some of the conspiracy theorists are little better than the 9/11 truthers.

I'm glad somebody is being reasonable here.

IIRC, we were taught in driver's ed that the police could enforce lower-than-posted speed limits with poor road conditions at their discretion. I don't think it regularly happens, but they do indeed have the authority to do so.

From Wikipedia: