They don’t preserve very much of the original sound, and they distort it quite a bit in the name of increasing the bass power….

csdeven on January 15, 2008 at 1:12 AM

Communist!

j/k

Mark Jaquith on January 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Insisting that people carry health insurance (instead of dumping their medical costs on taxpayers) is collectivism?

Giving R&D support to an industry which is already nearing bankruptcy and has been mandated by the Federal Government to produce energy-efficient cars, despite the fact that adequate technology to produce these Utopian vehicles has not been sufficiently developed, is collectivism?

It sounds like conservatism to me.

Wow. Switch topics from health care to energy and all of a sudden you’re embracing collectivism. If people want alternative energy, they can invest in it themselves or buy their energy from companies who are funding the research. What’s unacceptable is having the government take people’s money at gunpoint “for the common good.” That’s classic “government knows best” / “society is more important than the individual” Liberal bulls***. Of course, this is Romney here, so it’s not unexpected.

Mark Jaquith on January 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM

IMHO you have just demonstrated exactly how some concervatives are completely misguided when they fail to connect the dots on how Mitt constantly drives policy to the right when confronted with a liberal situation. We are already in a liberal “government knows best” scenario for the common good. We already just passed an energy bill. Will already have future tech mandates. We already have government subsidies of ethanol. We already have rising CAFE standards. We already have the government collecing the tax money to implement these ideas.

Advocating the lessening of all of these mandates and government rules and regulation in exchange for more government funding of research is inherently a more concervative aproach then the path we are on. If your ideological purity evaluator is set so high that you only want a candidate who will totally cancel all these programs and directly return that tax money…..then guess what you are not going to ever get a realistic candidate.

As for how much the auto industry has to spend, they don’t have unlimited resources, and there are all sorts of competing technologies out there from hydrogen fuel cells, flex fuels, and so forth. The technology needs to be developed way beyond where it is now before it can be adopted by the auto industry.

It’s like trying to decide if the 8 track cassette is the next big thing, putting all your resources into it, and finding out that it is obsolete in no time.

There is huge risk involved and the Fed dollars can help with absorb some of these risks. The end result will benefit every single one of us, including you – not that you deserve it.

Wow. Switch topics from health care to energy and all of a sudden you’re embracing collectivism. If people want alternative energy, they can invest in it themselves or buy their energy from companies who are funding the research. What’s unacceptable is having the government take people’s money at gunpoint “for the common good.” That’s classic “government knows best” / “society is more important than the individual” Liberal bulls***. Of course, this is Romney here, so it’s not unexpected.

The auto industry directly employs 325,000 people. What do you think that does to the entire economy, not just that of Michigan? Investing in R&D is a win win for all of us, by helping the economy and providing us with better cars.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM

I don’t live in Michigan, am not an auto worker, and already have a car (gas-guzzling 2000 V8 Jeep Grand Cherokee). If you want to support the auto industry, go buy a new American car with your own money. Just don’t expect me to be happy about being forced to help pay for it on tax day.

As demand for more fuel efficient vehicles increases, so will the incentive to develop and buid them increase- without the need for taxpayer handouts.

The auto industry directly employs 325,000 people. What do you think that does to the entire economy, not just that of Michigan? Investing in R&D is a win win for all of us, by helping the economy and providing us with better cars.

Developing alternative fuel directly impacts the auto industry. Oil Prices are already high and there is a huge incentive to make fuel-efficient cars, but it could be a very long time before we have affordable, safe, energy efficient vehicles that are big enough to accommodate families.

Hey Hollowpoint, who does this describe?

Invest in alternative fuels; with R&D to reduce CO2. (Sep 2007)

Deficit spending ok for military, infrastructure, and R&D. (Dec 2007)

Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 4:04 PM

The military and infrastructure are legitimate government expenses. I disagree with Fred on spending taxpayer money on alternative fuel R&D- when fuel prices are high enough, industry will do so on their own. However he’s still not advocating subsidies for a specific industry in the blatantly pandering way Mitt is.

Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Gee, I thought the liberal moonbat position was that government money is the solution to all problems, with hostility to the free market.

All car makers- foriegn and domestic- spend many millions on R&D. It’s part of their budget, no different than payroll or office supplies. It’s up to them to decide how to allocate their budget- not the government.

There is risk in all business endeavors- it’s not the government’s place to eliminate that risk. All they should be doing is insuring a level playing field, and propping up one specific industry with tax dollars isn’t exactly leveling the field.

Any industry would benefit from a federal subsidy… at the expense of everyone else paying for that subsidy. Your entire argument is a socialist one- that government is better at spending taxpayer money than the taxpayers themselves are. If the government wants to benefit me, they can let me keep more of my own money instead of using it to buy the votes of Michigan auto workers.

You have yet to make a coherent argument why this one industry deserves taxpayer money. Probably because there is none, short of being in the tank for Mitt (or a European-style socialist). Federal subsidies for special interests is not a conservative position. Never has been, never will be.

Inability to remember what his position was some time ago…

Says things which clearly indicate that he hasn’t read and/or didn’t understand bills he has voted on…

The ease with which he gets talked into believing liberal fantasies…

It may not be Alzheimer’s, but whatever it is: it’s not good!

Invest in alternative fuels; with R&D to reduce CO2. (Sep 2007)

Deficit spending ok for military, infrastructure, and R&D. (Dec 2007)

Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 3:14 PM

All this corporate welfare talk makes you sound like a Moonbat.

I suspect that because Mitt supports it…you don’t. You don’t have a shred of objectivity when it comes to him and have never found one positive thing to say about him. It’s been nonstop ragging from day one.

As for how much the auto industry has to spend, they don’t have unlimited resources, and there are all sorts of competing technologies out there from hydrogen fuel cells, flex fuels, and so forth. The technology needs to be developed way beyond where it is now before it can be adopted by the auto industry.

It’s like trying to decide if the 8 track cassette is the next big thing, putting all your resources into it, and finding out that it is obsolete in no time.

There is huge risk involved and the Fed dollars can help with absorb some of these risks. The end result will benefit every single one of us, including you – not that you deserve it.

When the Feds (with the help of John McCain) burden us with emissions standards without providing access to the R&D dollars to pursue the technology needed to achieve those standards it is (one last time!) an unfunded mandate.

The Japanese have already complained to the EU that they can’t meet their emissions standards.

Moreover, the Japanese auto industry benefits from an artificially deflated Yen, which works out to about $4,000 per vehicle. This make Japanese cars less expensive here and our cars more expensive in the Japanese market. This puts us at a huge disadvantage before we take into account labor costs, problems with the unions and so forth.

Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Ridiculous. They can spend whatever they like on R&D. By your definition, nearly all government regulations amount to an “unfunded mandate” that warrants government subsidy. You’d have a point if only domestic automakers were subject to the CAFE rules, but they aren’t and therefore you don’t- foreign automakers have to meet the same standards.

But which of the numerous reasons you cited justifies in your mind the corporate welfare Mitt is actively supporting? CAFE standards, which have been around for decades and affect all car makers equally? The Yen? EU regulations? Labor costs? And why auto makers and not every other industry that faces the same sorts of regulation and competition?

I suspect the obvious and most simple answer is as usual correct- Mitt supports it, and therefore so do you.

Nevertheless, opinion makers do not much care for [McCain's] candidacy. Apparently, neither does the Republican congressional caucus. Examining congressional endorsements for McCain and Romney, excluding in-state supporters (as they often act more out of home state pride than ideological proximity), we find some interesting results. 34 Republicans have endorsed Mitt Romney, while just 24 have endorsed McCain. Furthermore, Romney’s supporters are more in line with conservative opinion. Their average 2006 ACU rating was 84.1, and 26 of them come from states Bush won in 2004. Meanwhile, the average 2006 ACU rating for McCain’s supporters is 70.7, and just 12 of them come from Bush states…

Pay attention.

He proposed using the same tax dollars that are already being used, but in a way that is more productive.

That is the difference between a doer, as Mitt is, and a talker like Fred.

csdeven on January 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM

From what he’s been saying it sounds like he has a lot of things he’d be a “doer” on with regards to new and creative ways of spending more and more of our tax dollars.

We need someone who wants to eliminate excess spending on non-essential programs- not increased spending to subsidize whichever industry he thinks will help buy him the most votes using our money.

kcd on January 14, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Not only that, it demonstrates ignorance on his part as to the positive effect on tax revenue that is achieved through tax cuts, and an adherence to the belief that it’s Washington’s money, not ours.

McCain is just another clueless bureaucrat who has never worked in the private sector.

CAFE standards are a joke, but foreign auto manufacturers must meet those standards as well for cars sold in the US- if Honda and BMW can make cars profitably in the US, why not GM or Ford?
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 1:44 PM

When the Feds (with the help of John McCain) burden us with emissions standards without providing access to the R&D dollars to pursue the technology needed to achieve those standards it is (one last time!) an unfunded mandate.

The Japanese have already complained to the EU that they can’t meet their emissions standards.

Moreover, the Japanese auto industry benefits from an artificially deflated Yen, which works out to about $4,000 per vehicle. This make Japanese cars less expensive here and our cars more expensive in the Japanese market. This puts us at a huge disadvantage before we take into account labor costs, problems with the unions and so forth.

Embrace it. Let it wash over you.

Besides, he’ll be finished by Saturday night.

Allahpundit

I thought Fred! was finished last Saturday.

by “investing” with your tax dollars.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Pay attention.

He proposed using the same tax dollars that are already being used, but in a way that is more productive.

That is the difference between a doer, as Mitt is, and a talker like Fred.