Slashdot Mirror

"Is your god a just, good, and loving god or an evil, selfish, vindictive god?"

An interesting question, both because he can be all things, and because it is irrelevant to our discussion.

"Most of the men who found the United States of America were, in fact, deists, not christians."

Benjamin Franklin, a self-proclaimed deist, recommended that the Constitutional Convention, then meeting in relative secrecy, appoint a chaplain. Thereafter, the convention opened each session in prayer, after a brief interruption to reorganize in the wake of that contentious meeting where Franklin appealsed for a chaplain and prayers.

Franklin's best statement about his beliefs might be the one a few weeks before his death. Perhaps most telling is his comment:"and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble". This does present a problem, as to be considered a Christian today would require, generally, that you accept Christ as God's only son. I, for one, would not be inclined to challenge Mr. Franklin's beliefs soley on that basis. But in the letter referenced above, Franklin seemed to express a very common belief among churches and believers at the time. Strictly, no, Franklin was not a Chrtistian. His beliefs, however, were not atheist. You may win this argument, but Franklin's words seem to bring him closer to Christianty than not.

The Contintental Congress first opened in prayer on September 7, 1774. Not very inclusive, granted, but not atheist.

"Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Article VI seems to include the Constitution, laws, and treaties. Are you claiming that the Treaty of Tripoli
supercedes the Constitution? Or that it amplifies it? I would propose that the treaty of Tripoli, along with all others is subject to constitutional checks, as are all other laws and agreements of the nation. More to the point, however, I wrote:

"From there, you can easily teach that while we may have been founded as a Christian nation, we are not exclusively Christian now, nor even then"

I did not claim that American WAS founded as a Christian nation, and while I believe we wre intended to be founded as one, I also believe that as a Christian nation that we need not, and indeed should not, nor were we intended to oppress others nor conduct our affairs as if there is only the one true God and all others should yield to him. Rather, it is Christian to care for others, show compassion to all no matter their beliefs or even their attitude and behavior towards you, and recognize that not all will accept Christ, and loving them despite that. Now, being an Islamic nation does not seem to permit a very charitable attitude to non-Muslims. I'm not sure there is a good example of Buddhism as government to rely on, though the Dalai Lama seems to be a peaceful and genuine leader, and Tibet seems to be as peaceful as they can be given that they are under direct persecution, invasion, and destruction by China.

If I were teaching US History as it was taught to me in 1971, I would be exploring the beliefs of the founding fathers, and recognizing the diversity of those beliefs. I would also be teaching how these and other beliefs have impacted our nation,

Anyone who does 10 minutes of research will find that the whole notion of the "Cristian Nation" is laughable.

Let's see what five minutes research will find:

Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.
-Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
-Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
-Declaration of Independence

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aide can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes; and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge."
-George Washington, in his first inaugural address, 1789

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. ...
I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.
-Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention on June 28, 1787

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
-John Jay October 12, 1816, a Founding Father of the United States, President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States

I fail to understand what you find so "laughable". Facts are facts. The fact that you find them funny does not negate their truthfulness.

Sources:
http://www.house.gov/forbes/prayer/prayerincongress.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay

Right now, all republicans are voting along party lines but only some democrats are.

All? False. Proof by counterexample:

H.R. 2499, Puerto Rico Democracy Act. Roll call on 4/29/2010. Democrats 184Y, 40N. Republicans: 39Y 129N.

Also, I can find plenty of other votes where 100% of democrats voted one way, and not all Republicans voted the opposite.

You have your facts wrong. HP knew what the PIs were going to do and authorized them to do it anyway. A senior member of HP's general counsel, and, in fact, their director of ethics, was told of what the PIs planned, did "about an hour's worth of online research" on the legality of pretexting, and signed off on the plan. http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=444&Itemid=17

For the federal codes, you can get full-text-searchable ASCII directly from the source.

Yeah, it's not like we have an openly gay chairman of a major congressional committee or anything...

The exception to the rule ;)

Yeah, it's not like we have an openly gay chairman of a major congressional committee or anything...

Yes I have, actually.

I've emailed both senators from my state:

Senator Kyl
Senator McCain

And my congressman:

Jeff Flake

But thanks for assuming that I haven't done anything and being sarcastic. Hey it's ok - there's different ways to karma-whore.

is here.

Weird that nobody who reported on this linked to the original letter.

I went looking for it primarily to get the complete list of signers:

Joe Barton (TX), Frank Pallone (NJ), Mike Rogers (MI), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Tim Murphy (PA), Bruce Braley (IA), Mike Burgess (TX), G.K. Butterfield (NC), Steve Scalise (LA), and Donna Christensen (V.I.)

I was expecting to see someone from Redmond, WA in there...

On extending the patents from 5 to 12 years:

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/09/14/us/house-debates-bill-to-extend-drug-patent-term-by-7-years.html

http://www.milliman.com/expertise/healthcare/publications/newsletters/pa/pdfs/president-obama-pharmaceutical-industry-PA-03-31-09.pdf

The actual bill. It is hard to read, but go to the page 1869 and read it. You'll see it. But you can also read around it. Apparently all kinds patents are going to be extended, by half a year here, by seven years there, various interesting stuff.

Also look at Obama killing the bill, that would have allowed cheap drug imports from Canada or other countries.

Dorgan introduced the bill

You will find shadows of this information in the news:

how the White-house killed this bill.

Dorgan had 30 or more Senators supporting this on his side, it still ended up dead.

Obama is nobody to love.

Seems I'm also confused as hell about what exactly has "passed" [the House].

After looking at it again, it seems that:
H.R. 3590 was the main piece of legislation commonly called the 'Health Care Bill' which was voted on yesterday.

H.R.4872 is the 'reconciliation' portion with the amendments that the house wanted.

They were both voted successfully in the house: Here and Here .

I'm guessing the first one is basically done and needs to be signed by the president. The second one still needs to go through the Senate? I'm not sure.

At any rate, the parent post I responded to had linked to a bill that was old and irrelevant.

Seems I'm also confused as hell about what exactly has "passed" [the House].

After looking at it again, it seems that:
H.R. 3590 was the main piece of legislation commonly called the 'Health Care Bill' which was voted on yesterday.

H.R.4872 is the 'reconciliation' portion with the amendments that the house wanted.

They were both voted successfully in the house: Here and Here .

I'm guessing the first one is basically done and needs to be signed by the president. The second one still needs to go through the Senate? I'm not sure.

At any rate, the parent post I responded to had linked to a bill that was old and irrelevant.

Here's a link if you would like to read the health care bill (PDF). It is 1,990 pages.

The 1,990-page health care bill (PDF) is ugly. It's full of insufficiently rigorous thinking and poor quality communication.

Most of the manner in which the new legislation will operate is not specified in the bill. For example, on page 77 it says, "The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described in paragraph (2)."

The U.S. Congress uses an outdated font. It is not possible to generate a readable copy because each line is preceded by a number. There are numerous quirks, like sometimes capitalizing the word "website".

Here is a guess: Possibly there is no one in the media who writes about the bill who has actually read and understood the bill.

Still, in my opinion the bill is better than nothing. As many have mentioned, the present U.S. health care system would otherwise be one of the biggest causes of U.S. government bankruptcy.

Go to the actual proposal on whitehouse.gov [whitehouse.gov] and read it for yourself.

I don't see anything about an expansion of Medicare there - it proposes closing the donut hole and other tightening. You're right that it expands Medicaid - but more in the nature of a tweak than anything significant.

You may prefer to look at the current text of the bill.

I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior and is trying to do everything he can to boost the current US economy, but those of us who are knowledgeable and have a strong opinion on this should contact the White House as well as your Senators and Congresspeople to let them know why we should not be supporting ACTA.

White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Congresspeople:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

A lot of good that will do to buttered hands and well-paid lobbyists with personal access to those in power.

But I would agree we should all still do this. As soon as our calls and letters stop, America loses. I'm only being realistic when I say it probably won't work, but you never know, our leaders have listened to us before *sarcasm*.

I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior and is trying to do everything he can to boost the current US economy, but those of us who are knowledgeable and have a strong opinion on this should contact the White House as well as your Senators and Congresspeople to let them know why we should not be supporting ACTA.

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Congresspeople: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Because they are monitored and recovered.

Fraud happens all the time, but the banks have developed heuristics to stop it before too much money is lost. Often transactions can be rolled back and accounts frozen before the money disapears, but not always.

Banks do lose huge amounts of money however, much of it through credit card fraud. That's the reason credit card interest rates are as high as they are. Customers are willing to pay those rates for easy access to money, so there is no incentive for US banks to move to something more secure like chip&pin or other techniques. Also, much of the cost of fraud is pushed back on the merchants, who have virtually no say in the card security policies.

If you're interested in learning more, there's some great inforation that was presented to the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology as
“Do the Payment Card Industry Data Standards Reduce Cybercrime?” on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 from the perspective of both the merchants and the credit card industry.

http://hsc.house.gov/Hearings/index.asp?ID=185

Some good selections from the talks can be heard on the Risky Business podcast, episode #102.
http://risky.biz/netcasts/risky-business/risky-business-102-washington-spanks-pci-dss

Save America!

Lynch your Congressman

How did you know?

http://www.house.gov/lynch/

Well, don't just stand there, do it.

http://www.house.gov/
http://www.senate.gov/

Found the original Gilbert testimony - a very interesting 5 page read: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20100223/Gilbert.Testimony.pdf

The US House subcommittee has been holding several hearings on this (as relates to America Competes and science education in general) for both the college (analysis of above) and K-12 level. It's worth a look. For both sets, it seems the consensus to give up on the current crop and focus on new teachers coming out of college / just started teaching, as the others are set in their ways and don't want to change.

The US House subcommittee has been holding several hearings on this (as relates to America Competes and science education in general) for both the college (analysis of above) and K-12 level. It's worth a look. For both sets, it seems the consensus to give up on the current crop and focus on new teachers coming out of college / just started teaching, as the others are set in their ways and don't want to change.

But you missed the fact that you already are paying for someone else's health care in both taxes that go to public hospitals, and in higher premiums. The fact is that with universal coverage, premiums *should* go down due to market forces since the pool of sick people gets diluted with healthy people. Now given that health insurers have an antitrust exemption, have no competition in each state (thanks to collusion) and increase premiums to boost profits (“The average increase is 23 percent and is intended to return California to a target profits of 7 percent, versus 5 percent this year.”), don't bet on it without real competition. Competition driven simply to lower rates, a public option.

how the hell did we arrive at this retarded status quo

Government regulation. Health care became bundled with employment as a response to FDR's wage controls. Later tax benefits for that made it more common. The Federal Government created HMOs, which then expanded the role of health insurance from unexpected events (ie, cancer, breaking your leg, etc) to covering your kid getting a cold. Harry Browne explains this better than I have.

Currently we have a third party (insurance or medicare/medicaid) paying the bills rather than the patient. When a third party pays, costs generally go up since people don't bother to shop around for better deals (or are forced to not to shop around by the insurance company). This raises prices. Real competition will lower prices.

If you look at things people pay for out of pocket, such as Lasik, prices have dropped both in Federal Reserve Notes and in gold/silver while prices in every other form of health care has risen sharply. Same goes with veterinary care. Prices, adjusted for currency devaluation, have dropped over time. John Stossel explains this well.

We need competition. Real competition. We need an end to state mandates. We need competition over state lines (the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution is meant to stop states from preventing commerce across state lines). We need an end to government price fixing. The role of insurance needs to be reduced back towards covering unexpected conditions. We need better fraud laws to protect people from getting dropped from their plans when making a claim. Etc.

Also, we need a focus on nutritional medicine as the majority of our diseases are caused/induced by poor nutrition. Proper nutrition can cure disease rather than just covering up the symptoms with drugs and cause a lower need for surgery.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE. do you not see that?

when you oppose socialized medicine in the usa, because of all the evils of that you see, you merely support a MUCH WORSE STATUS QUO

are you resisting because you have a better solution? (crickets)

The current plans in Congress are, as Representative (and Medical Doctor) Ron Paul puts it, "Corporate Welfare". Howard Dean even agrees with that and referred to the plan as "this is is a giant bail-out. This is a bail-out that makes AIG look cheap. Sixty billion dollars a year go to the insurance companies under this bill."

Every think the tea baggers with signs that say "MORAN" might mean this guy:

http://moran.house.gov/

Please give me one example of how the Obama Administration is more transparent than the previous administration. Second, I was unaware of the Bush Administration using unofficial email addresses, please provide a reference. I believe there was a story about Sarah Palin using an unofficial email address when she was governor of Alaska, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether the Obama Administration is more transparent than the Bush Administration.

http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2469&catid=44%3Alegislation&Itemid=1

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2007/04/rove-and-co-broke-federal-law-email-scam

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/12/nation/na-emails12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_e-mail_controversy for a summary of the whole thing and more references.

No shit, and I have to live here!

I perfectly remember when Democrats and other left-wing idiots brayed continuously that federalizing airport security would make us so much safer because http://www.house.gov/platts/opeds/op_airportsecurity.shtml

The TSA is required to: 1) enact stricter standards for the screening of airline passengers and baggage; 2) conduct extensive background checks on all airport security personnel; 3) provide the training for and testing of all airport security personnel; and 4) provide uniformed federal officials to supervise the screening of all passengers and baggage at airports.

Next time we conservatives say that government control isn't going to make things any better, please listen!

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public

This is how it should be. Default of 3 months review by public eyes before final decision. Fat chance of that happening.

WHAT?!? Do you really think that much is being hidden? Almost all legislation already spends months going through committees, and once a bill is introduced (i.e., before it goes through months of committee bureaucracy), it's available to the public. Take a look at http://www.house.gov/ and http://www.senate.gov/ to see what's currently being considered.

Sure, there are last minute amendments and other things, but the vast majority of legislative text is already available for months for anyone to review by "public eyes before final decision."

You know what the problem is? Nobody cares enough to dig through the mountains of pages of proposed legislation... not individuals, not the media, and certainly not most Congressmen (sometimes even those sponsoring the bill). Since the advent of CSPAN most Congressmen aren't paying attention to debate in the chamber -- they're wheeling and dealing in their office, with CSPAN on mute in the background. That's what "public access" to the live actions of Congress has gotten you.

The only people who read bills are generally the minor staff lawyers who draft them. Do you want things revealed before "public eyes"? Fine. Go to the websites yourself, start reading bills, and when you see something interesting, start blogging about it. Get a couple hundred people doing this, and maybe Congress will pay attention. But stop with the conspiracy theories about Congress -- if you don't know what legislation is under consideration, that's your own fault.

Speaking of ass clowns, you must not have even bothered to look closely at the census data you linked to. Yes, non-Hispanic whites will account for less than 50% of the population by 2042. However, that same census data shows that the growth of the Hispanic population will not keep the aging problem at bay. This is exactly why, no matter how much "breeding" is done by Hispanics, Social Security is expected to go broke by 2037.

Next time you start calling people politically correct ass clowns, make sure you've checked your facts and that you aren't being an ass-clown yourself.

This is an issue which every politician should help to resolve. The few honest ones who actually support open government might actually do so!

I sent this email to my US Congress Representative - Harry Mitchell D-Arizona 5th District http://www.mitchell.house.gov/

"President Obama was elected on a promise of more openness in government. One of the organizations which support this goal is a website known as WikiLeaks. http://www.wikileaks.org/

Wikileaks does not accept government money in any form, but rely on independent donations. It appears that today PayPal has suspended their account as WikiLeaks struggles to raise funds for their 2010 expenses.

Quote from the website:
"Paypal has as of 23rd of January 2010 frozen WikiLeaks assets. This is the second time that this happens. The last time we struggled for more than half a year to resolve this issue. By working with the respected and recognized German foundation Wau Holland Stiftung we tried to avoid this from happening again -- apparently without avail.

We are working on resolving this issue as fast as possible. Please use our bank accounts for direct transfer in the meantime, or contact wl-donations@sunshinepress.org for any further questions.

WikiLeaks is not the only non-profit organization with this problem. This is a regular occurrence, that from our perspective should not be tolerated by the global community using this payment system."

This appears to be politically motivated and something which should be investigated!

I am sure you will agree that this is not merely an issue between private parties, but one of immense importance to supporters of open and accountable government everywhere.

As your constituent, I urge you to use whatever influence that you can bring to bear to investigate this situation and to expose whatever wrongdoing is involved - wrongdoing by EITHER party in this dispute.

Not to be a party pooper, but you are faulting China for doing something congress tries hard at every opportunity it can to do as well: force government procurement to buy American first. And lets not get started on agricultural subsidies.

The Buy American Act

Sections 10 (a-d) of Title 41 of the United States Code are known as the Buy American Act (BAA). U.S. government exceptions under NAFTA Chapter 10 and the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement allow for such procurement preferences.

The Buy American Act applies to all U.S. federal government agency purchases of goods valued over the micropurchase threshold, but does not apply to services. Under the Act, all goods for public use (articles, materials, or supplies) must be produced in the U.S., and manufactured items must be manufactured in the U.S. from U.S. materials. Many states and municipalities include similar geographic production requirements in their procurements.

That guy needs a lawyer. But looking at the authorities referenced in the "subpoena", there are some real questions. It's an "administrative subpoena", not one issued by a court. Some agencies can do that. (The FBI has been refused that authority by Congress). The Department of Transportation has subpoena authority for its hearings and investigations, and Homeland Security inheirited that authority when TSA was transferred from DOT to DHS. For all administrative subpoenas, the party served can file a motion to quash the subpoena with a District Court, and the court has to rule before anything happens.

But that section (49 USC 46104) refers to a "hearing or investigation", a formal proceeding presided over by a hearing officer. This is just some "special agent", and the subpoena is signed by someone with the title "Senior Counsel - Civil Enforcement". There's a list of people who can sign these things at 49 CFR 1503.303, and a "Senior Counsel" isn't high enough up the food chain to sign off. A Deputy Chief Counsel or the Chief Counsel is supposed to sign. This probably reflects who the TSA had in the office on December 26. A more senior official probably would have considered the political implications of doing something this embarrassing.

This is a touchy area, related to the "National Security Letter" debacle. See this Congressional Research Service analysis. The FBI got in trouble for issuing demands for documents without statutory authority.

The Associated Press reports that the blogger is going to challenge the subpoena in court.

This is an excellent suggestion, but not quite complete. Do not just complain. Ask for instructions on how to change the setting back to what it was. Under no conditions should you accept that it can not be done. You could change it yesterday, so you must be able to change it today, right? Be nice to the poor guy on the other end of the line. He is not at fault. But, when he says you can't change it kindly say that you believe he does not know how, and then demand to talk to a senior technical person so you can get your phone working again. Stay on the phone as long as possible and talk to as many people as possible.

After you call Verizon and complain you *must* then call the FCC. You can find the number at http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm?sid=d1e640&id=d1e697 or just 1-888-225-5322 if you trust me :-) Then, you call the senators and your representative. You find your senator at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and then your representative at http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.html

Calling Verizon costs Verizon money, but it will not force them to change their actions. Calling the FCC forces the agency that regulates Verison to take notice of what Verizon has done. If the FCC doesn't get complaints they are not forced to "notice" the problem. Calling the Senate and the House of representatives makes sure that the people who make the laws that govern Verizon notice that the people who vote for them are not happy with the laws that govern Verizon. Believe it or not, no matter how large a bribe ... OK "campaign contribution" your elected officials have been paid by Verizon (each and everyone of them has been bribed by Verizon) they will take action if they think it will affect their ability to stay in office. You see, no matter how much money Verizon can give them, Verizon can not vote for them. And the elected bastards know one thing, if they do not get elected they get no more goodies from Verizon and the rest of the megacorps.

And, Ya'know, if you are just feeling mean, call Microsoft support and ask how to turn off Bing on your phone. It is their product, they should know, right?

The idea is to make this policy change as costly for Verizon as possible. That means you make them pay to handle your calls and you make them pay even more by generating bad feelings toward them in the Senate and the House.

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot. If you want to call and leave a comment for at the White House for President Obomo, 202-456-1111 or, if you do not trust me as you should not, you can find the number here http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact. You can also send an email from there.

Stonewolf.

Why isn't this information listed at the top of the page on Slashdot?

Just for the record here, here is what I could find on the US Tax incomes:

Year US Tax Income ($M) GDP ($B) Tax/GDP
2009 $1,398,542 (a) Not Available ---
2008 $1,602,823 (a) Not Available ---
2007 $1,571,322 (a) Not Available ---
2006 $1,478,945 (a) $11541.614 (b) 0.128140224
2005 $1,339,363 (c) $11163.759 (b) 0.119974200
2004 $ 998,328 (c) $10822.914 (b) 0.092242970
2003 $ 925,477 (c) $10466.951 (b) 0.088418967
2002 $1,006,389 (c) $10095.771 (b) 0.099684214
2001 $1,145,414 (c) $ 9910.034 (b) 0.115581238
2000 $1,211,749 (d) $ 9887.749 (b) 0.122550542
1999 $1,064,160 (d) $ 9671.089 (b) 0.110035178
1998 $1,017,274 (d) $ 9237.081 (b) 0.11012938

(a) source: http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b2009_4fd.doc
(b) source: http://forecasts.org/data/data/GDPC96.htm (c) source: http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b45.pdf
(d) source: http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b42.pdf
This, combined with historical information about Congress:

Year House Maj.(e) Senate Maj.(f)
2009 Democrat even
2008 Democrat even
2007 Republican Republican
2006 Republican Republican
2005 Republican Republican
2004 Republican Republican
2003 Republican Republican
2002 Republican even/Democrat
2001 Republican Democrat
2000 Republican Republican
1999 Republican Republican
1998 Republican Republican

(e) source: http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/index.html
(f) source: http://senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

We also note that this is *not* spending, but simply tax income. Keep in mind we should expect that tax income should lag tax law by about a year for the tax law to take effect. The GDP steadily rises, so the main difference is the tax income (total dollars). As a nation, the US tends to hang out around 11%-12% Tax/GDP ratio. There were some low years (2002-2004) which seems to align (with said lag) with the Democratic control of the Senate, although it could also be blamed on the "Bush Tax Cuts" (2001, if I recall correctly).

Short answer, looking at a president, a congress, a party, etc. is potentially a myopic view.

Ann Eschoo represents much of Silicon Valley.
I'm pretty dang happy with most of what she does. I wish there were more Reps out there like her (maybe one day she can be Senator... that'd be great)!

Congressional action on an appropriation measure is not complete until both the House and Senate have successfully disposed of all amendments between the Houses eventually agreeing on an identical text pursuant to the Constitution - at which point the President acts on the bill.

It passed 317-93, with most of the no votes being liberal Democrats.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml

It's not at all about banning coltan, tungsten or tin.

Quoth the corporate spinsters:

The EICC and GeSI launched an effort in early 2009 to enhance transparency in the minerals supply chain and to better determine how these minerals flow from mines to final manufacturing. This workgroup has engaged companies from all levels of the tantalum mining and processing industry to drive toward a solution that promotes the responsible sourcing of tantalum.

Quoth the congress guy:

It commissions a map that will overlay areas of conflict with areas rich in mineral resources in the DRC, so refiners will know which mines are likely to fund conflict. The bill also requires importers of potential conflict goods to certify whether or not their imports contain conflict minerals and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) will report to Congress and the public which companies are importing goods containing conflict minerals.

That said, it looks a lot like what they did about blood diamonds, including the same possibilities for laundering (as some AC noted above).

That may well be true

It is easy to believe, isn't it?

Everyone sees it. Some people even admire it.

It does, however, make them unpopular among people who harbor a strong dislike for felons.

A bunch of fascists in the Honduran Congress, Courts and Military do not legitimize the fact that they staged a coup

Yeah, call them names... The actual fact is, they followed their country's Constitution to the letter. Except for the bit, where they threw the offender out of the country, instead of locking him up and putting him on trial. (I can't remember a "fascist" showing a weakness like that, BTW...)

There are many examples [of the US installing brutal military dictators, who slaughter their subjects for generations to come], this is only one of them: [Project FUBELT]

Pinochet — the "brutal military dictator" that the US helped get to power in place of a Socialist Allende — was, most certainly, not a slaughterer. His entire count of victims is measured in under 3000 people, most of whom really were Communists and deserved the worst fate possible. Allende's economic mismanagement is, no doubt, responsible for far more suffering. Seriously, Castro and Ch Guevarra are responsible for far more blood, but I'm sure, you own at least one T-shirt with the latter's picture.

Oh, and Pinochet stepped down volunterely — leaving Chile, until him a basket case — South America's strongest economy (by far). If that is, who you'd accuse of "slaughtering for generations", I wonder, what kind of case you are building against the Castro brothers...

I don't know if it made the final bill, but there was a provision as of a few days ago that there will also be jail time and hefty fines involved:

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

  Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

  Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

Nice that the caring liberals are coming up with new ways to throw people in jail and fine them extraordinary amounts of money. Yet another government hand around your throat.

Um, no, that's another program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System [wikipedia.org] or CARS. THATS cash for clunkers.

Yes, please read that link. Scroll down to section 'legislative history', fourth paragraph. Notice this is Betty Sutton's bill. She got it passed on HR2454 on May 19th. Here's John Dingell congratulating her about "Fleet Modernization/Cash for Clunkers". Check that previous link I sent you to her website - as of May 21st, it was pulled as an amendment and offered as its own bill, HR 2640, which was re-introduced as HR 2751, which Wikipedia verifies as the CARS program. Go ahead and compare the bills, there are some minor changes (always are if the bill number changes), but it's the same bill.

The full title of HR2751, aka CARS aka C4C, is: To accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles.

But please, feel free to check out the offical site and show me where it says businesses are eligible for the rebate: http://www.cars.gov/ [cars.gov]

Who ever said anything about businesses?

If you've been curious, why have you wanted until now to search?

Eh? I'm well aware of the issues, I was giving you some links since you couldn't find the first hit on Google.

But let me do some searching for you and point you to an article thats NOT three months old already: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQcFan9QMe0k [bloomberg.com]

Do you understand that article? It says that the booked revenue in GDP was inflated due to the Cash for Clunkers sales. It does not refute the source I showed you that the auto manufacturers were ramping up production to back-fill inventory due to C4C, which was counter to your claim. Manufacturing activity would not be booked as GDP revenue.

Um, no, that's another program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System [wikipedia.org] or CARS. THATS cash for clunkers.

Yes, please read that link. Scroll down to section 'legislative history', fourth paragraph. Notice this is Betty Sutton's bill. She got it passed on HR2454 on May 19th. Here's John Dingell congratulating her about "Fleet Modernization/Cash for Clunkers". Check that previous link I sent you to her website - as of May 21st, it was pulled as an amendment and offered as its own bill, HR 2640, which was re-introduced as HR 2751, which Wikipedia verifies as the CARS program. Go ahead and compare the bills, there are some minor changes (always are if the bill number changes), but it's the same bill.

The full title of HR2751, aka CARS aka C4C, is: To accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles.

But please, feel free to check out the offical site and show me where it says businesses are eligible for the rebate: http://www.cars.gov/ [cars.gov]

Who ever said anything about businesses?

If you've been curious, why have you wanted until now to search?

Eh? I'm well aware of the issues, I was giving you some links since you couldn't find the first hit on Google.

But let me do some searching for you and point you to an article thats NOT three months old already: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQcFan9QMe0k [bloomberg.com]

Do you understand that article? It says that the booked revenue in GDP was inflated due to the Cash for Clunkers sales. It does not refute the source I showed you that the auto manufacturers were ramping up production to back-fill inventory due to C4C, which was counter to your claim. Manufacturing activity would not be booked as GDP revenue.

Given that I can find no information that it has yet passed, I really again fail to see your point.

Wow, really? The very first hit from Google?

To save you the trouble, "Cash for Clunkers" is the colloquial name for the Sutton Fleet Modernization Amendment.

do you really think they were pumping out more cars to meet the demand here? Also, check you facts again.

This is all I've been asking as well. To save you the trouble of searching again:

More importantly, the new projection is that this will sustain the increase in GDP in Q4 as production is hiked to refill some of those inventories. On the jobs front, the DOT said this will have created or saved roughly 42,000 jobs in the second half of 2009 as Ford, GM, and Honda have announced production hikes.

"So what, we should be asking, is the FCC doing anywhere near it? Doesn't someone need their hand slapped about now?"

Peacefully, yes! Multiple states including TN and MT are now in open defiance of federal gun law, not because of guns specifically but as a more general push to restore the 10th Amendment. We'll see what develops from there, and from the states now considering nullification of a health insurance mandate. We need to be willing to peacefully resist unlawful federal activity and protect our people, whether the specific topic seems like another "for the children" power grab or something else.

To decide what ought to be done, it's important to ask yourself whether you think the US Government is one of limited (as the Founders said) or (as Pelosi has said) "essentially unlimited" power. You can't logically say that the feds have authority to do half of what they do today, without also allowing that pretty much anything else is also within their authority.

Sorry, I'm an old fart. This was a big scandal in the 80s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-16-pentagon-travel_x.htm

http://armedservices.house.gov/list/speech/armedsvc_dem/AndrewsOS092409.shtml

http://www.cdi.org/adm/725/
(excerpt :
Senator GRASSLEY [R Iowa]: The Defense Department wants you to believe that they are making dramatic changes in the way things are purchased, particularly spare parts. I think the most out-standing example is the $600 toilet seat of 1983. And we thought that we had that problem taken care of and, 16 years later, the $600 toilet seat was costing $1800. )

Studies by researchers from Computing Research Association (CRA), Duke, Georgetown University, Harvard, RAND Corporation, Rochester Institute of Technology, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Stanford, UC Davis, UPenn Wharton School, and Urban Institute, have reported that we have continually been producing far more US citizen STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) workers than we've been employing in these fields.

Examination of employment data and projections from BLS when compared with NCES (US Dept. of Education) records of degrees earned by US citizens confirms these findings.

"As late as 1987, 60K graduates were competing for about 25K open positions, according to Janet Ruhl, author of _The Programmers Survival Guide_" --- Margie Wylie _CNET_ "The skills shortage that isn't: When the rising tide floats employees' boats, employers proclaim disaster" http://news.com.com/2010-1077-281060.html http://www.kermitrose.com/econ1998.html#19980204

In testimony to the House Science and Technology Committee, Harold Salzman reported that we've been producing as many as 3 times the numbers of STEM workers as we've been employing in these fields. http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/tech/06nov/salzman_testimony.pdf http://www.kermitrose.com/econ200711.html#Runnerup2007

But it's not just college loans. our entire culture has shifted so far toward individual wealth and away from the common good. The 28/40 year republican rule in the country has pretty much decimated civic values, put us 12 trillion dollars into debt (almost all of it in republican administrations)....

The richest people WANT to see high interest rates on the poor. That's how they make their money. Investing. As far as they are concerned, the higher the better. If a student will pay 8.4% interest, then they are a lot more likely to give him money than the guy only willing to pay 3%. And the more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the rich, the easier it is to raise interest rates to the absolute maximum possible.

The fact is that the free market systems we all love, start to fail at some time. It's always cheaper to pollute the stream, pass debt on to future generations, and screw the poor. It's more expensive to treat the water, raise taxes, and educate and help the poor.

The truth is we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and start putting money back into the common good like an educated public and public infrastructure instead of idiotic private McMansions.

Let's start with the idiotic low taxes on capital gains and the social security tax cap...Rich people pay FAR less of a tax percentage than the middle class, and the middle class is unbelievably ignorant of it. How many of you knew that there is a 13% Social Security tax that ENDS when you make over $106,000? The richest person in the world (Warren Buffet) pays a lower percentage in tax than his secretary? The rich don't even pay tax on money made through stock appreciation, until the stock is sold? But the wage guy has to pay every year?

It's gotten ridiculous, and the public needs to demand that taxes are raised...The rich will fight it tooth and nail and use all sorts of scare tactics and , but that's the only way things are going to get better....and the rich will NEVER do it voluntarily.

Write to your congressman..ask him to raise taxes...especially on the wealthy

http://www.house.gov/

http://www.senate.gov/

The bill is 7 pages, and the portion worth reading is 2. Double spaced, with huge margins. You've probably read more text of comments on this story than there is text in the bill.

Being annoyed when legislators propose weasily laws is reasonable. Assuming laws are weasily may be understandable. But it's dumb to rant on about how weasily a particular law is without making any attempt to determine if it is true.

I've read the bill. I don't see the evil. It just sounds like an obviously good idea: programs that are going to share your files must inform you what they are going to share at install time, and must not prevent you from stopping sharing and uninstalling them.