You would be totally right, however, I believe he was being sarcastic (God, I hope :D). This is a total load of crap. It is just as unconstitutional (and plain against natural rights) as the airport nude searches.

So much for:
Capt. Borodin: "...maybe even a recreational vehicle. And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?"
Capt. Ramius: "I suppose."
Capt. Borodin: "No papers?"
Capt. Ramius: "No papers, state to state."

God, would they even bother to defect now (if the USSR still existed, and if they, well, existed)?

Tell that to the TSA. I digress... I wouldn't mind a computer driving my commute for me. As long as I can disable it for drives I take for enjoyment, I don't really have a problem with it. I also would prefer some sort of over-ride (like being able to still use the wheel when I want) just in case an evil computer virus strikes. Barring the end of civilization, I believe computers driving cars is inevitable. For countries with poor rail infrastructure, this makes some sense.

No mod points or I'd mod you up. Excellent comment.

This is very true. However, the Federal government does throw its weight around with the money. For instance, years ago, the Federal government would threaten to withhold money for repairing roads if the states didn't set a speed limit they (the Federal government) approved of (e.g. 55MPH speed limit on interstates). Nevermind the fairness of the Federal government taxing state residents, and then threatening to withhold the state residents' taxes from the state if the state didn't comply with Uncle Sam's wishes. I don't know why in 2000+ pages of legal garbage, the writers of the bill didn't just work it that way. The way it is written is without a doubt unconstitutional. Should the Supreme Court agree (and that is no sure thing - when the expansion of power of the Federal government is at stake, the Supreme Court tends to side with the Federal government), I think they'll only strike down that part. They don't have the balls to kill it outright.

Also, before most of the states required auto-insurance, the supporters of such laws often cited that insurance premiums would drop dramatically since everyone would be in the pool. I'm sure you can guess how that ended.

My general feelings about Obamacare - I would consider myself a Libertarian, but I would agree that something needs to be done about healthcare - tort reform, ER refusals, and probably gov't all probably need to be included. Unfortunately, the solution we arrived at was a compromise when only all or nothing would have probably worked. In the end, I think my cost of health insurance will go up (and it would, anyway), a few more people will be covered (but at a higher than necessary $ cost), and my life will go on relatively as it has.

“A driver’s license is not a matter of civil rights. It’s not a right. It’s a privilege..."

So says the government(s). I disagree. Just because something isn't specifically protected by the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. Travel by the standard means of the time (in this case, automobiles), is a natural right. Also, it is nice that a system used to "prevent terrorism" is being used to suspend driver's licenses of ordinary, non-terrorist, citizens.

Government(s) in the US are at flank speed ahead towards power and control. Even the court system is on their side (e.g. imminent domain for increased tax revenues from a few years back, recent rulings about police entering homes w/o warrants in IN, etc., etc.). In the end, it is all about the $$$. Where is it, who has it, and how can we get more of it.

GM has been bailed out once. While I was not happy about it (should've filed Chapter 13 months before the bailout was needed; also, it was nice how Uncle Sam kind of changed the rules for their eventual bankruptcy), the parent comment is correct. I see so many complaints about GM and Chrysler being bailed out to the tune of $30 Billion, but far less complaints about the banking industry being bailed out at a cost of around $700 Billion... all the while, the banks sit on the money rather than putting it back into the economy (because, "giving out home loans was what got us into the problem in the first place"). So, bailing out corporations who make actual stuff for $30 Billion, is apparently far worse than bailing out companies that buy and sell air (and "repackage" it to buy and sell it again) for about 23 times that cost is OK? A country that doesn't make anything can not stay on top. The "service" economy is a farce.

Oh, and much of the truck "surplus" that GM currently has is probably extra capacity to make up for coming shut downs to re-tool those factories for the new models.

No. Never. Then we citizens would see the true tax rate in one simple number, which might cause some sort of organized revolt (I seriously doubt it, myself; revolutions are inconvenient, and Americans dislike being inconvenienced more than anything else). I don't know if there is even a point to Amazon fighting this. Even though I think this violates the Interstate Commerce Clause and most of the court precedents related to it, I can't see the Federal Government getting in the way of any state and "their money". The main things the modern Federal court system will trample on anyone and everyone, and their apparent rights for are - protecting and growing Federal power and money, and protecting and growing State power and money (except when it conflicts with Federal power, which is not the case here).

60% of Americans support raising the gas tax? I find that hard to believe. Gasoline is infrastructure in America. Raising the price more just hurts the economy more. Plus, there is only so much one can cut back. People need to travel to get to work, and most parts of the country have a serious lack of mass transit. I think this bill is garbage, and probably (rightly) won't make it out of committee. I can understand that our infrastructure needs repair, but lower spending somewhere else to pay for it (defense, federal doe, dhs... the good thing about being surrounded is that one can attack in any direction :) ). As for blaming Obama - he's a big boy, and he signed up for the job. It's not really even on my radar of things to complain about when it comes to his policies, however.

I believe there was an old ad campaign / marketing stunt in the '70s by some soft drink manufacturer (I think it might have been 7Up). I believe the most drinks were available in a 2 quart bottle size at the time, and 7Up (or which ever company it was) switched to 2 liter bottles, and had an ad slogan claiming "It's a Liter bit more!" Most others followed suit there-after.

What rebooting can't fix, formatting (imaging) can. A few more years, and maybe someone can write a program to re-image my virtual servers automatically, and then I can go flip burgers somewhere. :)

No kidding. First chips in credit/debit cards, now cash. I guess I better start panning for some gold.