Slashdot Mirror

"People" voted for laws in China too, and they have the power to repeal those laws too. Just join the Communist party,

I am glad I don't have to register for a party to vote on laws or run for office. Maybe you don't see the difference but I do.

But you do need to register to vote to elect in the politicians that you want to enact the laws you want changed. And it seems to me that you need to be affiliated with a party.

From the linked site:

"Your political party affiliation is the party that you choose to associate with. You may be asked your party affiliation when you register to vote."
...
"Your party affiliation is usually only important in primary elections. Many states have “closed” primaries. This means that you can only vote for your party’s candidates in its primary election. "

To an outsider to both China and USA, I don't see the difference.

I would start by eliminating add Federal Departments created after 1950. Then I would prune back all Federal agencies created after 1950 as well.

Then, recognizing that the largest share of Federal spending is on Healthcare (2nd place is pensions - 99% of which is SSI), I would cut Federal healthcare spending back to 1% of GDP maximum as it was in the 1950s. This one change alone would cut Federal spending by approximately $1 trillion - our entire deficit. The Federal Government dominates all healthcare spending the US (approximately 40% of all healthcare spending is directly done by the Federal Government).

With these changes, we'd back to fiscally responsible Federal Government spending, and could start addressing our massive debt.

For what it's worth, I would love to see you live in the kind of world you wish to create.

I would start by eliminating add Federal Departments created after 1950. Then I would prune back all Federal agencies created after 1950 as well.

Then, recognizing that the largest share of Federal spending is on Healthcare (2nd place is pensions - 99% of which is SSI), I would cut Federal healthcare spending back to 1% of GDP maximum as it was in the 1950s. This one change alone would cut Federal spending by approximately $1 trillion - our entire deficit. The Federal Government dominates all healthcare spending the US (approximately 40% of all healthcare spending is directly done by the Federal Government).

With these changes, we'd back to fiscally responsible Federal Government spending, and could start addressing our massive debt.

iOS 25%
Android 18%
MacIntosh 9%
ChromeOS 1%
Other 1%

Source: the link in the story that goes to https://analytics.usa.gov/

Turns out that the regulations is on the businesses and organizations, not the kids

Any excuse or evasion to justify unlimited meddling in every person's daily life, I guess.

Thanks for another example of your inane babble, as you try to dismiss a matter of significant importance with a false and misleading objection, as bad as when you tried to claim that these regulations were on individual kids.

Turns out that the integrity of the food supply is a very convincing and significant reason for regulation, and it turns out the regulations we're talking about are on...the schools and the providers of food at them.

You know, the people who the government employs.

So you have to ask who holds them responsible.

The local and state voters.

Unfortunately, Michigan being a hotbed of gerrymandering, means further protections are necessary beyond mere voting. Which is obvious, even the Constitution of Michigan provides for that, though not as expressly as some states.

See the 14th Amendment and Article IV.

Flint residents are welcome to sue and get a remedy from courts.

Yes and they did so however, Courts aren't the only source of enforcement, as in fact, Congress has authorized and required other, subsidiary, entities in the Executive, to act, not just courts in the form of lawsuits.

See how it works yet?

Yeah, any excuse for unlimited meddling by distant self-dealing busybodies.

Ah once again, you offer your vacuous sophistry, but you couldn't even come up with a non-repetitive one.

Too bad you even tried to ignore international law, making the Federal government inherently bound up in this decision.

Yes, I noticed you doing that. It's the real fly in your ointment, no amount of desperate haranguing can get you over the Supremacy Clause. That bothers you, your usual evasions can't get you past black letter law.

There's a larger point to be made here.

Let's review our basic civics classes from back in elementary school and ask ourselves the test question. "What are the three branches of American government?"

Then let's ask ourselves which branch of government makes laws and provides for funding of issues like monitoring Muslims, building Walls, deporting 11 million people, kicking the fuck out of ISIS, changing tax laws, or even making America great again?

Doesn't matter because Trump would build walls around the other two branches (and make them pay for it).

There's a larger point to be made here.

Let's review our basic civics classes from back in elementary school and ask ourselves the test question. "What are the three branches of American government?"

Then let's ask ourselves which branch of government makes laws and provides for funding of issues like monitoring Muslims, building Walls, deporting 11 million people, kicking the fuck out of ISIS, changing tax laws, or even making America great again?

In other words, avoiding Windows 10 doesn't actually solve the problem unless you take extreme measures in all of your digital life, and doing so will get harder, not easier, going forward. You can probably do it if you care enough, but don't confuse the edge of the market with the mainstream.

I don't think wanting privacy and security is nearly as rare as you're making out. Leaving aside personal preferences, numerous small businesses will be bound by contractual and/or regulatory rules that mean they have to handle various kinds of data securely. That may mean Windows 10 in its current form simply isn't an option for those businesses, as it's impossible to control or audit sensibly.

The fear over people leaving Windows when XP finally ended was there too, and it didn't happen. Instead once support finally ended, people did upgrade.

Except for all the people still running XP, you mean? Including numerous security-sensitive environments like banks and government departments?

I expect if we looked back at the stats, we'd find the majority moved on from Windows XP when Windows 7 arrived and didn't suck as hard as Vista did.

In fact, I completely disagree over your viewpoint on Windows 10 being a poor launch, I don't think MS sees it that way at all. It was far superior to Windows 8 and Vista.

I'm sure MS would like to portray Windows 10 as not being a poor launch, but it seems they've only recently achieved double-digit market share after nearly a year of literally giving it away, and to achieve even that result they've already actively alienated a significant part of their customer base in a variety of ways.

I'm not sure the Windows 10 launch being more successful than two of the biggest flops in recent IT history is a very convincing argument, BTW.

Windows 10 isn't "barely" above Windows XP in marketshare today, it is not even close. XP has finally dropped to the small single digits and it continues to lose support.

That depends on whose numbers you read, of course. Netmarketshare still has XP at over 10%, with 10 now up to around 15%. Even if you question the Netmarketshare stats (and I would agree there are reasons you might), another source I've seen cited a few times that puts XP much lower still agrees that 10 has only around one third of the market share of 7 and that 7 retains around half of the desktop/laptop market.

What would replace MS on the desktop?

Well, firstly, you're assuming that everyone needs to replace MS on the desktop. With the variety of devices available today, it's quite possible that a significant part of the market simply won't buy new PCs at all, preferring other types of device such as tablets for some applications.

The obvious answer for those who do want a more traditional PC set-up is Apple. You say they cost way too much, but plenty of businesses I work with routinely equip their staff with Apple laptops. The TCO isn't so very different, and with Windows 10 the TCO of Microsoft's platform doesn't look nearly as attractive as it used to.

Another possibility that is still niche today but could easily change by 2020 is using some variation of Linux. I don't buy the general "Linux on the desktop" hype any more than the next guy, but if you look at Android and even newer products like Valve's SteamOS you can see its strength as a foundation. With so much now running as web apps or on custom hardware anyway, it's not hard to imagine substantial parts of the market increasingly shifting to entirely non-Microsoft infrastructure.

Yes and no.
There are federal labor laws https://www.usa.gov/labor-laws and these are minimums.
A state can have laws on top of the federal laws for example California. For example at on company I work at we offered people the option of 4 10 hour days a week.

since it is much harder to hide nefarious features inside code that can be publicly inspected

Not THAT crap again.

Heartbleed should put that right to bed.

Heartbleed had nothing to do with the potential for "nefarious" hidden functionality in closed-source systems. If anything, Heartbleed might be a counterpoint to Eric Raymond's proposal that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" -- but the truth is that complex problems usually have complex solutions, and the more complex the solution the smaller the percentage of those eyeballs that has expertise.

As far as the article's argument goes, I'm torn. I can see immense value in requiring the software that government uses be open source. It levels the playing field in terms of accessibility while promoting the transparency required for a successful democracy. It also falls in line with other existing aspects of the government, such as the requirement that any works created by the Federal government (generally) are put into the public domain.

However I can see the argument that computers and software are just tools to get stuff done. Interoperability can be simplified when you target specific application versions (say, "MS Office 2010 and newer") rather than a more squishy target such as "Open Document Format". While there's no reason you couldn't do that, it seems like when it comes to software today, sadly, sticking to an implementation of a (possibly proprietary) standard rather than a generic standard itself ends up causing fewer problems.

That said, I'd definitely agree that it should not be required to use Adobe Acrobat to submit a grant application.

>iPhones are the only smartphone

I have an android in my pocket. It cost $50, and I pay $35/month for unlimited talk and text+2GB of 4G internet (speed gets cut if I go over, but not really enough to notice since I don't use it for streaming video). I go to work every day in the ghetto, and everyone there has a phone, including the homeless people. The only ones who don't are the elderly. I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about.

They get the materials from the same place we get them. Remember: by the time everyone has AGI robots, everyone has AGI robots. Including everyone from the top to the bottom of the supply chain for everything you want to buy. That means they will be super cheap, possibly so cheap that it doesn't even pay to charge for them, instead only charging for premium products, or though advertising (the internet model--a few big spenders pay for everything).

As for cheap land: http://www.thepennyhoarder.com... You can also buy from the government, who owns most of the desert and mountains: https://www.usa.gov/buy-from-g... I haven't looked in a while, but they were selling land for about that much ten years ago.

As for the cost of moving, again, it's ZERO. One of the robots goes there and builds you a house as well as its own subterranean workshop, BUILDS A CAR, and sends it to pick up your person who can no longer really be called poor. And yes, they can "magically" produce water by drilling into saltwater aquifers and filtering the water through homemade RO filters made out of graphene, for example. It can do this because it is being controlled by an ASI with a human equivalent IQ of 20000.

I swear, there is just no pleasing you idiots. You are offered ascension to Godhood, and you spit in its face because >muh feelings >muh poor people >muh social injustice

As a Firefox user, I'm very concerned when I see its market share dropping month after month.

These stats from US gov't websites show Firefox's market share at 11%.

Other global stats paint a very similar picture.

Globally, I suspect that Firefox's share of the market is only about 10%. That's pretty abysmal, especially for a browser that was so popular once. It used to hold well over 30% of the market at one time.

Chrome for Android alone now has a greater share of the market than Firefox on all platforms does. Even IE 11, by itself, has about as many users as Firefox does in total.

Why aren't trends like these scaring the living hell out of Mozilla, as an organization?

Because the Firefox devs think their browser should pander to the tablet-interface loving users, with advanced features hidden and the GUI dumbed down - while a large part of their user base specifically wants an "advanced" browser with lots of addons which does NOT look like Chrome. So lots of users are leaving, and the Firefox devs in their ivory tower wonder why nobody likes their "vision" of the perfect browser and why the users do not "get" that the devs KNOW what's best.

As a Firefox user, I'm very concerned when I see its market share dropping month after month.

These stats from US gov't websites show Firefox's market share at 11%.

Other global stats paint a very similar picture.

Globally, I suspect that Firefox's share of the market is only about 10%. That's pretty abysmal, especially for a browser that was so popular once. It used to hold well over 30% of the market at one time.

Chrome for Android alone now has a greater share of the market than Firefox on all platforms does. Even IE 11, by itself, has about as many users as Firefox does in total.

Why aren't trends like these scaring the living hell out of Mozilla, as an organization?

Don't they realize that Firefox is the only reason they have any sort of influence over the web? Nobody really cares about any of their other projects, I hate to say.

Why don't we hear more from Mozilla about this market share issue? The number of Firefox users keeps dropping month after month, probably because so many Firefox users are unhappy about the awful UI changes, and about how its memory usage and performance continues to lag Chrome and even IE. I want to see real results, not just unrealistic benchmarks showing mythical improvements that I don't actually get to experience as I browse the web!

Nobody will care what Mozilla thinks if the number of Firefox users continues to drop each month. This trend won't continue forever. At some point there will be a negligible number of Firefox users around, and Mozilla will be powerless at that point. Google already has enough power as it is. In that situation, they'd have almost full control over the web. That scares me a lot, and it should scare Mozilla, too!

Write to your congress-critters! I have. If enough people write, there could be a chance.

http://www.house.gov/represent...

  https://www.opencongress.org/p...
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/US-...
http://www.contactingthecongre...

That's some funny stuff! Recent stats like these show that Windows isn't just popular, it's still the dominant OS, even when considering the millions upon millions of non-Windows mobile devices out there.

Of those 1.37 billion web requests, over 58% came from a Windows system. Even Windows 8.1 alone has more users than OS X does in total, and that's one of the most despised versions of Windows!

The desktop is still king. Windows is still king. Everything else is a joke compared to them.

What you're saying supports what the GP is saying. Yes, a fad does involve lots of hype, which often leads to sales. But a fad also involves people realizing that what they've bought isn't so useful, and then they end up not using it.

If people were actually using tablets, then we wouldn't see stats like these. So out of over 1 billion web requests to numerous U.S. government websites in just the past 90 days, not even 8% came from a tablet. Meanwhile, over 66% came from desktops.

Why do we see stats like that? Because desktops are usable, and tablets are not. People buy tablets thinking they're useful, but don't realize that they aren't. That leads to lots of sales. But then these people figure out how useless tablets really are, and go back to using their desktop systems, which is why we see them being used so little in reality.

Embarrasing?
Yes. Embarrassingly successful.

CLAIM: Fisker Automotive, Solyndra and other struggling green energy companies backed by Department of Energy loans are evidence that the government wastes money trying to pick “winners.”
FACT:
The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)
The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)
Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, June 2012, http://cnnmon.ie/LBryTy)
The Loan Guarantee program has received bipartisan support in Congress. In 2010, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu to

Embarrasing?
Yes. Embarrassingly successful.

CLAIM: Fisker Automotive, Solyndra and other struggling green energy companies backed by Department of Energy loans are evidence that the government wastes money trying to pick “winners.”
FACT:
The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)
The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)
Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, June 2012, http://cnnmon.ie/LBryTy)
The Loan Guarantee program has received bipartisan support in Congress. In 2010, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu to

Embarrasing?
Yes. Embarrassingly successful.

CLAIM: Fisker Automotive, Solyndra and other struggling green energy companies backed by Department of Energy loans are evidence that the government wastes money trying to pick “winners.”
FACT:
The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)
The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)
Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, June 2012, http://cnnmon.ie/LBryTy)
The Loan Guarantee program has received bipartisan support in Congress. In 2010, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu to

Embarrasing?
Yes. Embarrassingly successful.

CLAIM: Fisker Automotive, Solyndra and other struggling green energy companies backed by Department of Energy loans are evidence that the government wastes money trying to pick “winners.”
FACT:
The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)
The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)
Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, June 2012, http://cnnmon.ie/LBryTy)
The Loan Guarantee program has received bipartisan support in Congress. In 2010, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu to

Embarrasing?
Yes. Embarrassingly successful.

CLAIM: Fisker Automotive, Solyndra and other struggling green energy companies backed by Department of Energy loans are evidence that the government wastes money trying to pick “winners.”
FACT:
The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)
The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)
Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, June 2012, http://cnnmon.ie/LBryTy)
The Loan Guarantee program has received bipartisan support in Congress. In 2010, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu to

Source:
http://www.energyfactcheck.org...
-----
(copypasta)

The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)

There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)

The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)

Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)

Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, J

Source:
http://www.energyfactcheck.org...
-----
(copypasta)

The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)

There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)

The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)

Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)

Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, J

Source:
http://www.energyfactcheck.org...
-----
(copypasta)

The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)

There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)

The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)

Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)

Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, J

Source:
http://www.energyfactcheck.org...
-----
(copypasta)

The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)

There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)

The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)

Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)

Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, J

Source:
http://www.energyfactcheck.org...
-----
(copypasta)

The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)

There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)

The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)

Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)

Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, J

It"s about risks. It was a fair comparison.

Unlike your comparison, which is not.Near as I can tell, skylys ahs done nothing. Obama on the other hand has done a lot. Here is a short list of his accomplishments:
Legislative Prowess.
Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%. http://n.pr/i3d7cY

Fiscal Responsibility.
Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx

He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. http://www.cio.gov/

He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. http://bit.ly/hOw1t1 http://bit.ly/fz8GAd

Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. http://bit.ly/hwKhKa

Improving the Economy, Preventing Depression.
Obama pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package,” despite the fact that not one Republican voted for that bill. In addition, he launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Act. http://1.usa.gov/ibiFSs http://1.usa.gov/e3BJMk

In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE

Obama completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS http://bit.ly/eCNrD6

He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan. http://1.usa.gov/goy6zl

Obama oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years. http://bit.ly/hrrnjY

He oversaw a bailout of General Motors that saved at least 1.4 million jobs, and put pressure on the company to change its practices, resulting in GM returning to its place as the top car company in the world. http://lat.ms/zIJuQx

Obama also doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is designed to improve manufacturing efficiency. http://bit.ly/eYD4nf

He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. http://abcn.ws/g18Fe7

Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices. http://1.usa.gov/gIaNcS

He increased infrastructure spending after years

It"s about risks. It was a fair comparison.

Unlike your comparison, which is not.Near as I can tell, skylys ahs done nothing. Obama on the other hand has done a lot. Here is a short list of his accomplishments:
Legislative Prowess.
Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%. http://n.pr/i3d7cY

Fiscal Responsibility.
Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx

He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. http://www.cio.gov/

He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. http://bit.ly/hOw1t1 http://bit.ly/fz8GAd

Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. http://bit.ly/hwKhKa

Improving the Economy, Preventing Depression.
Obama pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package,” despite the fact that not one Republican voted for that bill. In addition, he launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Act. http://1.usa.gov/ibiFSs http://1.usa.gov/e3BJMk

In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE

Obama completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS http://bit.ly/eCNrD6

He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan. http://1.usa.gov/goy6zl

Obama oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years. http://bit.ly/hrrnjY

He oversaw a bailout of General Motors that saved at least 1.4 million jobs, and put pressure on the company to change its practices, resulting in GM returning to its place as the top car company in the world. http://lat.ms/zIJuQx

Obama also doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is designed to improve manufacturing efficiency. http://bit.ly/eYD4nf

He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. http://abcn.ws/g18Fe7

Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices. http://1.usa.gov/gIaNcS

He increased infrastructure spending after years

It"s about risks. It was a fair comparison.

Unlike your comparison, which is not.Near as I can tell, skylys ahs done nothing. Obama on the other hand has done a lot. Here is a short list of his accomplishments:
Legislative Prowess.
Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%. http://n.pr/i3d7cY

Fiscal Responsibility.
Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx

He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. http://www.cio.gov/

He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. http://bit.ly/hOw1t1 http://bit.ly/fz8GAd

Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. http://bit.ly/hwKhKa

Improving the Economy, Preventing Depression.
Obama pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package,” despite the fact that not one Republican voted for that bill. In addition, he launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Act. http://1.usa.gov/ibiFSs http://1.usa.gov/e3BJMk

In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE

Obama completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS http://bit.ly/eCNrD6

He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan. http://1.usa.gov/goy6zl

Obama oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years. http://bit.ly/hrrnjY

He oversaw a bailout of General Motors that saved at least 1.4 million jobs, and put pressure on the company to change its practices, resulting in GM returning to its place as the top car company in the world. http://lat.ms/zIJuQx

Obama also doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is designed to improve manufacturing efficiency. http://bit.ly/eYD4nf

He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. http://abcn.ws/g18Fe7

Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices. http://1.usa.gov/gIaNcS

He increased infrastructure spending after years

It"s about risks. It was a fair comparison.

Unlike your comparison, which is not.Near as I can tell, skylys ahs done nothing. Obama on the other hand has done a lot. Here is a short list of his accomplishments:
Legislative Prowess.
Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%. http://n.pr/i3d7cY

Fiscal Responsibility.
Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx

He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. http://www.cio.gov/

He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. http://bit.ly/hOw1t1 http://bit.ly/fz8GAd

Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. http://bit.ly/hwKhKa

Improving the Economy, Preventing Depression.
Obama pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package,” despite the fact that not one Republican voted for that bill. In addition, he launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Act. http://1.usa.gov/ibiFSs http://1.usa.gov/e3BJMk

In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE

Obama completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS http://bit.ly/eCNrD6

He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan. http://1.usa.gov/goy6zl

Obama oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years. http://bit.ly/hrrnjY

He oversaw a bailout of General Motors that saved at least 1.4 million jobs, and put pressure on the company to change its practices, resulting in GM returning to its place as the top car company in the world. http://lat.ms/zIJuQx

Obama also doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is designed to improve manufacturing efficiency. http://bit.ly/eYD4nf

He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. http://abcn.ws/g18Fe7

Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices. http://1.usa.gov/gIaNcS

He increased infrastructure spending after years

It"s about risks. It was a fair comparison.

Unlike your comparison, which is not.Near as I can tell, skylys ahs done nothing. Obama on the other hand has done a lot. Here is a short list of his accomplishments:
Legislative Prowess.
Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%. http://n.pr/i3d7cY

Fiscal Responsibility.
Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx

He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. http://www.cio.gov/

He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. http://bit.ly/hOw1t1 http://bit.ly/fz8GAd

Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. http://bit.ly/hwKhKa

Improving the Economy, Preventing Depression.
Obama pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package,” despite the fact that not one Republican voted for that bill. In addition, he launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Act. http://1.usa.gov/ibiFSs http://1.usa.gov/e3BJMk

In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE

Obama completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS http://bit.ly/eCNrD6

He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan. http://1.usa.gov/goy6zl

Obama oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years. http://bit.ly/hrrnjY

He oversaw a bailout of General Motors that saved at least 1.4 million jobs, and put pressure on the company to change its practices, resulting in GM returning to its place as the top car company in the world. http://lat.ms/zIJuQx

Obama also doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is designed to improve manufacturing efficiency. http://bit.ly/eYD4nf

He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. http://abcn.ws/g18Fe7

Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices. http://1.usa.gov/gIaNcS

He increased infrastructure spending after years

It"s about risks. It was a fair comparison.

Unlike your comparison, which is not.Near as I can tell, skylys ahs done nothing. Obama on the other hand has done a lot. Here is a short list of his accomplishments:
Legislative Prowess.
Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%. http://n.pr/i3d7cY

Fiscal Responsibility.
Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx

He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. http://www.cio.gov/

He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. http://bit.ly/hOw1t1 http://bit.ly/fz8GAd

Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. http://bit.ly/hwKhKa

Improving the Economy, Preventing Depression.
Obama pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package,” despite the fact that not one Republican voted for that bill. In addition, he launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Act. http://1.usa.gov/ibiFSs http://1.usa.gov/e3BJMk

In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE

Obama completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS http://bit.ly/eCNrD6

He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan. http://1.usa.gov/goy6zl

Obama oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years. http://bit.ly/hrrnjY

He oversaw a bailout of General Motors that saved at least 1.4 million jobs, and put pressure on the company to change its practices, resulting in GM returning to its place as the top car company in the world. http://lat.ms/zIJuQx

Obama also doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is designed to improve manufacturing efficiency. http://bit.ly/eYD4nf

He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. http://abcn.ws/g18Fe7

Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices. http://1.usa.gov/gIaNcS

He increased infrastructure spending after years

Huh? http://www.usa.gov/ isn't known for it's prankish of humor....

Join Microsoft and others in calling for an update to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Help us to lock in a requirement that law enforcement needs a warrant before demanding access to data in the cloud. www.aka.ms/ECPA. Sign the White House petition here: http://1.usa.gov/1kfoMUc

Exactly.

The answer is first SHRINK IT. Then bin the horrible excuse of an income tax and replace it with a national sales tax so everyone pays tax.

Sales tax is unfairly regressive. It hurts the poor far more than the rich.

Look at this list of departments and agencies and tell me you have even a clue at what half of these do for us taxpayers - and how they don't overlap other federal or state agencies. The size of the federal government is obese and needs to be put on a diet. Simply getting rid of departments and agencies that do not have to be at the federal level would be a good starting place (e.g. Dept of Education). Others like pure science, NASA, etc. should remain at the federal level.

http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/

There are very strong arguments for why education should be regulated at a national level. Also, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with having overlap between federal and state agencies.

Exactly.

The answer is first SHRINK IT. Then bin the horrible excuse of an income tax and replace it with a national sales tax so everyone pays tax.

Look at this list of departments and agencies and tell me you have even a clue at what half of these do for us taxpayers - and how they don't overlap other federal or state agencies. The size of the federal government is obese and needs to be put on a diet. Simply getting rid of departments and agencies that do not have to be at the federal level would be a good starting place (e.g. Dept of Education). Others like pure science, NASA, etc. should remain at the federal level.

http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/

Anyone have an inside scoop why this design with curtain surround excelled over conventional architecture?
See plans and specs here: http://1.usa.gov/1fuSR3W

Instead of complaining that the government is too big, perhaps you could suggest what parts of the government need to be reduced or eliminated?

• Military
• Customs
• INS
• FBI
• DEA
• FAA
• TSA
• NSA
• FCC
• FDA
• NASA
• NIH
• CDC
• FEMA
• OSHA
• NLRB
• Federal Reserve
• Mint
• NHTSA
• NPS
• BATF
• BLS

Actually, I'm getting tired of writing that list. Here is a complete list of every US government agency.

Which ones would you reduce or eliminate?

If you go to http://www.usa.gov/shutdown.shtml you will see these blatant violations of international law are continuing as "Essential Services".

Public records are publicly available and government photos are "not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work."..

Yup. In the USA that's the case. Maybe we should have more copyright controls - that fixes all the other problems on unregulated use of common information.

Public records are publicly available and government photos are "not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work."..

That said, it should be slander to post the records with the implication they mean someone is guilty of something. Posting the final disposition of charges, or something along those lines would be sufficient to defend against that.

I expect you're right about it costing more to 'shut down' some of these depts, than just leaving stuff to take care of itself would have. Do they really believe the parks will implode if they're not watched over every minute of every day?!

You might also enjoy
http://www.usa.gov/shutdown.shtml
Note the prejudicial language, and the inverted descriptions (so it *sounds* like essential services are shut down, and only if you read to the end of each blurb do you learn that THOSE services are not affected).

My guess is they hired a marketing consultant to write this.

I actually made most of this comment in another post about the NSA but it bears repeating.

ACLU Petition to Stop Massive Government Spying Program

Please sign that petition. Or go through the EFF action page. Or Write your Representative or Write your Senators. They are easy enough to find. Seriously. If you aren't telling the people that represent you how wrong, awful, and downright unacceptable the NSA actions are they have no reason to stick their neck out to change it.

Nobody is asking you to fight a war, like previous generations of Americans have. Just sign a petition. Write a letter. It is that easy to improve this country. Whether you think that is true or not, remember that an outcry from a small group of people have altered politics before and it can happen again. The only thing preventing this country from getting better is silence.

ACLU Petition to Stop Massive Government Spying Program

Please sign that petition. Or Write your Representative or Write your Senators. They are easy enough to find. Seriously. If you aren't telling the people that represent you how wrong, awful, and downright unacceptable the NSA actions are they have no reason to stick their neck out to change it.

Nobody is asking you to fight a war, like previous generations of Americans have. Just sign a petition. Write a letter. It is that easy to improve this country. Whether you think that is true or not, remember that an outcry from a small group of people have altered politics before and it can happen again. The only thing preventing this country from getting better is silence.

In this vain I created an online petition for the White House to respond to. The US banking system could use some movement towards a modern replacement to checking.

Petition to Replace the US Checking System

nASSa gasses of Uranus

I think this could be squeezed in the summary, it was added to end of IEEE-article:

UPDATE 12:36 p.m. From DARPA's announcement:

To answer questions regarding the Robotics Challenge and provide an opportunity for interested parties to connect, DARPA will hold a virtual Proposers’ Day workshop on April 16, 2012. This online workshop will introduce interested communities to the effort, explain the mechanics of this DARPA challenge, and encourage collaborative arrangements among potential performers from a wide range of backgrounds. The meeting is in support of the DARPA Robotics Challenge Broad Agency Announcement. More information on the BAA and Proposers’ Day is available at: http://go.usa.gov/mVj

FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act first signed into law by LBJ in 1966. Various states have similar laws that allow requests of state gov't bodies as well. The Act only deals with non-Constitutionally enumerated bodies [courts, Congress and the President] and instead deals only with executive branch government agencies. There are lots, as Rick Perry can attest. ["Name 3!"]

The statute is intended to be broad in scope, with documents only excluded from a request based on specifically enumerated causes: national defense secrets, trade secrets, etc. [all are in the statute here: http://1.usa.gov/aaLL5o ]

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant” is a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. FOIA lets the sun shine in.

Some of these things do fall to government to do - but it doesn't have to be the federal government. Why should a taxpayer in Florida help pay for a bridge in Alaska? Leave things to the states where stuff is located wherever possible and leave the federal government managing the constitutionally mandated functions. Lets leave federal government doing jobs that the majority of Americans would say fell under a particular mandate as well instead of stretching the commerce clause to its breaking point to find cover there for a new desired federal function. If something is really necessary for the federal government to do, there will be broad agreement as to what department it belongs in and why - from the constitution - the government should be doing it in the first place. If an agency makes you scratch your head, either to what department it should be in or why the government should be involved, then it should go away.

Browse through http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml sometime and see just what all is out there that they list. Most of them would find a constitutional mandate, but some are very questionable and all that do need to exist could find a home in other existing departments and cut down on the bureaucracy (and politics) if they were in a department that Ron Paul was looking to axe.

Yes, the vote was 74-13.
It took more digging than it should have (neither Slashdot nor Bloomberg gave links or dates; good going, guys), but here's some pertinent info:
The bill is S.1038, passed May 24, 2011. It was sponsored by Harry Reid, and cosponsored by Mitch McConnell.
I can't see a way to see the actual vote on either the Senate or Library of Congress pages, so here it is from the Washington Post. Votes for: 40 Republicans, 34 Democrats. Against: 3 Republicans, 9 Democrats (and Bernie Sanders, Independent).

As always, please contact your Senator and tell them how you feel about how they voted. Find their information through here. (Remember, a written letter carries a hell of a lot more weight than an email. A hand-written letter will probably go right to the Congressman's desk, rather than their staff.)

And FYI: The House version, H.R.67 is still in subcommittee. The House and Senate versions will have to be reconciled before they're passed. You should probably write your Representative too.