Slashdot Mirror
Democrats May Promise Broadband for All
andyring writes "According to CNS News Service, the Democrat Party will have an agenda that guarantees every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years as part of their 2006 election year agenda, according to Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader. Absent, of course, are any details as to how they will accomplish it when they are the party out of power in Congress."
In any case, the Republican Party says the Democrats' real agenda involves the censure and possible impeachment of President George W. Bush.
What an accusation! I thought the Democrats loved George W. Bush?!I don't want to start any political debates over this, but I admire the fact that Pelosi is trying to move away from that "John Kerry Democrat" (Republican) view and take a stand for what her party believes in.
While I think most (if not all) of this is just idealistic rant, I do respect the political distinction it is attempting to draw. Nancy Pelosi is doing for the Democrats what Gee Dubya did for the Republicans: unifying and separating themselves from their opponents. This country has two parties for a reason, and they need to keep each other in check. People have different views so they should be given choices as to what party they will support to represent those views. I'm not gonna go in to how the bi-partisan system fails here (nothing is black and white, dammit!), but at least a line is being drawn.
The downside is that making promises that seem idealistic and impossible just to drum up support will usually come around and bite you in the ass... hence our president's 36% approval rating.
--
"Man Bites Dog
Then Bites Self"
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
Absent, of course, are any details as to how they will accomplish it when they are the party out of power in Congress.
;-)
Hey, that has not stopped the party currently in power from jumping into things where they had no plan either.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
But I would have prefered the newest party line read: guarantees every American will have affordable access to health care within five years.
oh well, I guess there is always WebMD.
... seeing as how Al Gore invented the Internet.
When the Republicans were swept into power in 1994, they drew up a whole "Contract with America" that, in the end, went mostly unimplemented. As I was of tender years at the time, it was my first lesson that campaign promises are worth absolutely nothing. Even if the Democrats were in power, I doubt half of what they offered would get done.
everyone also will have a digital tv along with a subpena for MPAA.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
Remember the Gore Tax - a 'universal service' fee on your phone bill to make telecomm. services 'widely available' to public schools. So where are they going to get the money for universal Internet access. Where do you think? Expect a hefty new federal tax on your broadband access to pay for this new universal access.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Absent, of course, are any details as to how they will accomplish it when they are the party out of power in Congress."
Simple. They completely ignore the promise if elected, then blame partisan politics for the promise never bearing fruit. It's the same thing done when there's a majority in Congress, after all.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Democrats will promise broadband access, and ISPs will agree to support the plan if, and only if, they don't have to provide the whole internet to the "charity cases." Democrats, advised strongly against such a deal, will nonetheless accept just for the sake of claiming a victory. ISPs will come smelling like roses, because they gave broadband to people who wouldn't have had it, but at the same time, get to move away from a single standard for internet connections (content-wise). Like welfare, the Dems will take a good concept and execute it in a disastrous fashion.
Nice to see the Demopublicans focusing on the things that the public really cares about. Broadband for all, a chicken in every pot, basic healthcare for everyone, affordable housing, diplomacy instead of war, stopping corporate influence on the political system, getting a court's permission before wiretapping; what's the difference?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
2. Claim the success of the market as your own.
3. Profit!
And if 1 never happens, just blame it on Bush.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
The people in the party are Democrats. The party itself is the Democratic Party. In many parts of the US, calling it the "Democrat Party" is considered pejorative. Next time you may want to reword.
... That the US are trillions of dollars into debt.
Broadband for all? I think not.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
This "Democrat Party" name is a very clever idea whipped up by Republicans. This way, they can subtly imply that the Democratic Party is not really Democratic. I'm proud to say that most members of the "Democrat Party" don't stoop to this kind of newspeak.
Of all the things I would like to see the political parties of these united states do, as I would prioritize them this is somewhere down on page 700 or so.
With all of the things that could be done to make this country better, universal broadband isn't really what I think is going to bring the Democrats back into the majority . I'm just ashamed to even be registered as a democrat if this is what their big plans are.
How about limiting corporate control of the law making process? How about dropping our spending under two trillion dollar a year. HOW ABOUT PAYING DOWN THE 7 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT. How about opening up the federal healthcare group to all US citizens or permanent residents.
Don't get me wrong, broadband is a wonderful thing - but universal broadband isn't really a "hot-button" issue for Joe and Jane America.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Grrrr... Handouts like these help no one except the politicians.
I'm all for your poor, your tired, and your hungry people having cheap access to broadband.... But am I the only one that thinks this may be a bad idea, since most that want broadband have it? The way I see it, unless our government plans on funding huge sums of money into broadband programs to upgrade systems, the "cheap highspeed broadband" that I belive they want may give broadband to many probably won't be any faster then what we have now, and will probably hold back system upgrades. They said they want cheap high speed affordable broadband to everyone, but I'm hesitant to think they can do anything to actually get telcos and TW to up our speed to be anywhere near what modern Asian countries like Japan and Korea enjoy that is closer to LAN speeds then what we have.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Let's see....
1) DHS fails security tests on all counts.
2) The CIA and FBI are still suffering from bureaucratic management that has crippled field operations.
3) We're stuck in Iraq with no easy way out.
4) Spending is wildly out of control, and no, not even getting rid of the Bush tax cuts would fix this and our economy cannot handle higher taxes at this point.
5) Our borders are out of control.
6) Jobs are being lost to countries with lower taxes and regulations.
7) Inflation is killing the dollar.
And all the Democrats can come up with at this point is the 21st century equivalent of bread and circus for the middle and upper classes. But wait, it's "for all Americans..." so that makes it more important than having the basic security we need to protect ourselves like forcing all state governments to actually do background checks on their drivers' licenses. Know why port security is so bad? DHS recently did a study that showed that thousands of the drivers going into the ports were illegal aliens or convicted felons. How did they get there? The states were too politically correct to do anything because that might offend the Hispanic citizens that actually want to be confused for illegal immigrants or the potential fradulent voter base of illegals that both parties court.
This is why the Democrats are out of power. They have even less national security credentials than the Republicans, and their domestic ideas amount to blatant acts of prostitution like this. This is also why I vote Libertarian. If Bush can barely bring himself to make a serious attempt on certain aspects of security, then how can we expect someone like Kerry to do any better? The last election, believe it or not, was decided primarily by voters concerned by national security, not morality or domestic spending.
This proposal, if enacted, would only end up being one of two things. A huge, wasteful government agency that destroys market competition by being cheaper through subsidies, or a major, almost unprecedented corporate welfare package the likes of which should make any good leftist scream in outrage. It's going to cost a lot of money to wire up all of those small towns around America, especially in the areas outside of the coastal parts of America. It'll cost a hell of a lot of money to wire up places like Montana or the Dakotas where the population is spread so thin.
If the government does decide to hop on the "broadband for all" bandwagon, broadband will become more scarce and worsen in quality - just like all other government handouts.
..
So here's a hearty cheer for "Stay the FUCK away from our broadband!", you god damned government assholes
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
If they actually do this, here's what will happen (and the same would happen no matter who is in power):
1. They pass the bill for the program with about 50 riders on it. Result: Plans for broadband Internet start and vendors in the districts of the senior politicians that proposed and passed this bill get no-bid contracts for networking equipment, which they sell for 10x the market rate. Also, somebody gets a statue, a fish pond, and a bridge to nowhere in their district.
2. The funding bill for the Intrenet program gets passed, but this time with 100 riders. The *AAs get a rider that mandates TCPA, HDCP, and whatnot because their lobbyists had to be bought off so that the funding could pass and make the incumbent party look good for getting it passed. Oh, and there are still many "regular" $1000 toilet seat pork-barrel deals in this bill too.
3. The telecom companies sue the government for billions for unfair competition. The project is tied up for five years while this happens and a bunch of lawyers get rich. The outcome is that the tiered Internet proposal by B(ell)S(outh) is allowed in exchange for the public broadband. The public broadband is also limited to 256K by the settlement as to not compete directly with BS and the other monopoly data providers.
4. The project gets completed ten years late at ten times the original cost. Most of us are on 20Mbps+ fiber at that time and few use the public 256K broadband. The project still gets hundreds of millions in funding every year even though it is almost never used.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Sure the will talk the talk and say what is so wrong with the other party. But when they get in power they will just do the same old and the Republicans will start saying how irresponsible the democrats are. After they get in power you will see them go on some nice trips paid for by Time Warner, Verizon, etc... When they got back they have a hole new outlook on life without affordable internet.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
. . . . the porn industry.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
they did all but the last item, so check your facts, and admitted that they failed because they were not able to get it passed.
And what is to happen to the companies who currently offer internet access for a fee, and more important, the workers who currently make a living working for those companies?
Broadband to every american they say huh? Will the government be the one paying Time Warner to bring a cable line the ten miles to my mother's house? Or will they force sattelite companies to not decrease your bandwidth if you "use it too much" as part of their fair use clause? I highly doubt it, and I really wouldn't want my tax money to go to such a program... Eventhough its a semi-good cause.
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
CNS News is about as credible as Ann Coulter. It's a right-wing site with no particular attachment to truth.
And there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party". That should have been your tip-off.
*Very* disappointed in Slashdot editors today.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
I'm actually forced to vote Democrat in 06.
Like hell you are. Look around for independent candidates looking for signatures to get on the ballot. Take a good hard look at what they believe they can do. If you think they represent you better than the democrats, don't just vote for them, bring them up at parties, the water cooler, any chance you can get without sounding like a total idiot. Point out that you feel that now that the Republican party has gone off the deep end that this person's got what it takes. Assure them that you're voting for them and you don't feel like your vote is wasted because you know other people are going to vote for them. The thing about the third parties and independents is that unlike the Republicans and Democrats, these people have something to prove so you can count on them to give it more than the good ol' college try.
Failing that, look at the Libertarian party candidate and try to figure out if it's just a corporate toadie in your district or if they're really serious about the title. The toadies will be talking about how the world needs less FDA and EPA. The serious people will be talking about how the world needs less FDA and EPA because the government will no longer have the power to protect the company executives and employees from manslaughter charges and hard prison time for their actions.
If the Libertarian party is off the deep end and there's no independents that will at least promise you what you want, then depending on your state and it's election laws, you've still got a chance. It's time to rise up in defense of your country, and by that, I mean run for office so that YOU can make the changes you want. At least here in Texas for the Governor position there are still a couple of weeks left to get the signatures you'd need to get on the ballot. If nothing else, getting some friends together to go door to door talking about the problems in government and what should be done to fix them might even get some awareness back into our apathetic public.
If all else fails, then and only then, vote Democrat.
I agree. Health care is much more important. Also, only the federal government probably has the resources to provide it to all citizens.
How to get it done though, well, let us see.
One, you can have patent reform. Have drug related medicinal patents expire after like five years. This would hypothetically lower the cost of prescription drugs.
Two, non-tax related laws. Require businesses to provide a basic health care to their employees if they employ over a certain number. Perhaps require all businesses having more than 150 employees to provide a basic health care plan. There'd be stuff like as to what needs to be covered, and what percentage the company has to cover (like 80% of the cost of a doctor's visit, etc.).
Three, a single payer health care plan or whatever it's called. Have people opt in to a federal health care plan, covering certain things, for like $300-400 per year. Children should be exempt though. I don't know how much health care the average person needs, but imagine if we set aside simply $300 billion per year. Modify how those EBT cards work. Allow clinics, hospitals, and pharmacies to get the EBT system. Allow people to simply slide their card deducting from a debit system to pay for their medical care. It's already done for foodstamps, so why not extend it to medical care, but for anyone opting into the system?
I am not trolling, only being realistic here. Our firm fixes Joe Public's computers. The first thing that happens when the average everyday PC user hooks up to broadband is his/her introduction to the bigger pipeline of viruses/malware/spyware. They bring in their machine to be de-flea'd to the tune of $200 bucks or so.
I would like to see what Ms. Pelosi has in mind as a cost/benefits in her "broadband for all" proposal. There are other things Americans need much more than a faster way to download music and porn :P
Americans need fiscally responsible government, this "shiny penny" is just that, a shiny penny.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
While everybody likes something for nothing, I think that this is a bad idea for a couple of reasons:
The government isn't the solution to everything and I think that this is one of the things that the government should say out of.
If people want Internet access can't they go to a free public library?
If you want to put some money towards them, that's fine. But do we really need to put access into everyone's homes? I would rather give money to, I don't know, teach people how to read at a high level, do basic math, etc.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
According to TFA, the issue [of available broadband] doesn't seem to be tied to any particular agenda. How in the hell does broadband mean more jobs unless we're assuming there will be a large shift towards telecommuting?
Further, since "creating new jobs" is always an agenda of both major politcal parties, any actual effect that broadband would have would not be recognized as a Democratic contribution. Rather, it may be attributed to his highness, King Bush Jr. and the Republican-controlled government since they are the ones in office right now.
In fact, it almost sounds like the Democrats may be trying to ride the wave of potential good fortune. Think about this: "We said there would be more jobs with an increase in broadband availability. See the more jobs? We did that with our push for more broadband." It's a given that broadband will continue to see an increased number of total users. It's also expected that the number of jobs will continue to rise (note that I didn't say employment rate here, but gross employment; since the number of people consuming resources continues to climb, so will our need to satisfy those allocations in product and services industries).
Most importantly, I would hope that no one - Democrat, Republican, or otherwise - would expect a broad statement about broadband and jobs would help win an election. Until people learn to not vote based on religion (think abortion issues), most of these statements/promises/whatever will have little effect.
Flame on.
The Contract with America specified a lasting balanced budget. This didn't happen.
The lady is no friend to real opposition and champions of the people of America.
_ mckinney_seniority.html
http://www.blackcommentator.com/171/171_blankfort
http://www.counterpunch.org/donham12092004.html
People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction
rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
This means Pelosi would sell you to the glue factory, if it meant keeping her mansion in Pacific Heights.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
...it was illegal to buy votes?
The signs are all there; Dick Cheney talking up nuclear threats, C. Rice is talking mushroom clouds, Boltan wants to bypoass the UN, Bush is getting closer to issuing an ultimatum. I think some Brittish betting form is putting the odds at 3 to 1 for an attack this year. It's looking like Iraq all over again - stupid.
;)
If the democrats did nothing it would be better than what the republicans are doing now. That may, in fact, be their strategy.
...Congresswoman Pelosi does not read Slashdot or she would have learned about the slowdown in Internet growth in the US. Broadband is not nearly as important to everyone as she thinks, and most people who want it porbably have it already. If she's hoping to sway the Internet voter, she's a little behind the curve. That doesn't say much for her other promises.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
If the Dems do run Hil, I'd state that as proof they not only don't want to win, but are merely shills for the Repubs.
There's been a few politician names kicked around as The Candidate but that's for primaries to wash out.
Your party would be better served by running McCain. Maybe get some credibility back in there, potentially conscience and good ol' conservative values instead of the demon child Defense Democrat we have running the country. Well sort of Democrat - Dems were characterized by "tax and spend" instead of "tax cut and spend". But what did we expect? Bush Jr ran every business he was a part of into the ground, why would anyone expect differently when it was the country?
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Because lord knows how many people were sitting around going "Dammit! I could afford to pay for health insurance to cover that new kidney if I only didn't have to pay those bastards at Comcast $50 a month so I could watch the Final Four on a 14" screen in the spare bedroom! Where's the phone, Marge - I'm callin' my congressman!"
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Absent, of course, are any details as to how they will accomplish it when they are the party out of power in Congress.
Also absent, of course, the cost of the service to taxpayers, the price of the service to the taxpayer (and, will that be a tiered pricing based on "need" so that "the poor"(tm) get it for "free" (cough!) while the rest have to pay?), or any mention of how it's going to be funded (more 30 year bonds!).
As a conservative (in case you didn't notice!), I must say that the Republicans don't do a great job on these points either, but this just screams out to be a new plank in Democrat's "digital welfare state"(tm!).
Score:-5 Conservative
After being equally disappointed by both the mainstream parties then finally realizing that there is no such thing as a viable third party in the US I have become a "Political Agnostic" which means that I believe:
If there is such a good thing as a "good politician" they are so far removed from me as to make no practical difference.
[signature]
As noble of a proposition this is, does it do any good before we ensure that every American has a computer (or web viewing device)?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
I used to worry about the national debt, but I figure the country has already jumped off the cliff and the time to worry about it is LONG gone. So, with that in mind I think we should just run the ole credit card as far as it will go! Think I'm crazy? We should buy (the U.S.) stuff that can't be repoed by overseas creditors or countries (Physical items). Want that wall across the southern border...20 billion? 30? NO prob! Need 4 or 5 more Space shuttles? Give everybody GigE to the house! Put it on credit! What are they gunna do (the overseas banks)? They can't repo the stuff if the U.S. defaults. And after we default they'll STILL loan money to us because people still live here and still make money.
I know...it sounds crazy. And it is humor...but the scary thing is you are probably thinking about it seriously...just a little.
... I'm all for connection everyone to the Internet. The ability to have access to pretty much any information a person could want is a great thing.
On the other hand, I'm not really a fan of the government providing this access. Privacy issues, spending issues, quality of service issues, market issues (if the service is free and "not quite absolute shit" it's going to really damage the ISP market - and, hell, we'll be paying *anyway* just via taxes instead of a monthly bill) - lots of problems with it.
What I would rather see the Democrats focus on are the following:
1) Feeding, clothing and sheltering the absurd number of children in this country who are living below the poverty level.
2) Providing free preventative and maintenance health-care for all.
3) Beginning the process of repairing our image abroad.
4) (Ironically) Curbing spending/fiscal responsibility - digging us out from under the mountain of debt.
5) Stabalizing the Iraq situation and getting us the hell out of there.
6) Overhauling DHS so that it's actually, you know, secure. And not just in IT, but in ways that actually matter. We're *less* secure than we were pre-9/11, and it's mainly because it seems that everyone who's "responsible" *thinks* we're secure and is pulling a "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!" when anyone mentions the glaring holes.
Actually, I don't care if it's the Dems or the Repubs - I just want those things (among others I no doubt missed) addressed. I'll vote for the person I think is most likely to have a real plan for addressing those issues. Unfortunately, it'll probably be some "fringe" candidate who's not got a hope in hell of ever being elected dog catcher, let alone president.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
People already have free internet. This is really funny. The public has free broadband access its called your local library. I a network admin at a library (awesoem salary) . we have our public computers connected to a t1 line and we have free wireless that is conencted to a cablevision conenction (wich is free to all schools and libraries) wich is a 15/2 connection. everybody has access to this and its free. Why spend money when you can go down to your local library and use the computers there?
Don't have health insurance? I'll pay for your care!
/. in a long time.
Don't have car insurance? I'll subsidize your accidents!
Don't have a house or place to live and don't want to work? Why, I'll pay!
This 'story' has to be one of the funniest I've read here on
Keep up the good work, idealists in the 'other' party - you're doing a great job!
How can it be possible that people in this nation think the Democrats can GIVE them anything without first TAKING it from someone else. We are a goverment of and by the people. We can't extend to govenment a power that we don't have as individuals. Can I walk up to you on the street and demand money from your pocket for my internet access!? If I can't how can I extend that power to my elected officials? Whats next? Flat screen TVs? This is the most pathetic effort at vote buying I've ever seen. Its unAmerican, anit-Freedom and plain ole theft from some to buy off others. Next time I see someone who agrees with this junk, I'm taking your stuff, ALL OF IT, by force, lets see how you like being left standing naked in the middle of the street, cause hey, I NEEDED your property to pay for my internet. I just can't believe this. At what point did we gain the "Right" to internet access at the cost of our neighbors property? I hear the Democrats have a new term, instead of "theft" they'll call it "permanent borrowing". GRRRR!
In 5 years there will still be people who are homeless in America, there will still be people who don't have access to health care in America, there will still be people who go hungry in America, there will still be people who can not get a good education in America, Social Security will still be headed toward bankruptcy, Medicare and Medicaid will still be headed toward bankruptcy, the nation debt will be larger than what it is today, the budget will not be balanced and we'll still be in Iraq ... but hey ... if Republicans are still in power we will be protected from gay marriage and we'll save $100 dollars a year in taxes and if Democrats are in power we'll all have access to the Internet. Excuse me if I sit the next few elections out. Both parties are a fucking joke....
And that is to fool you into thinking you live in a democracy. :)
IIRC:
Two things only the people anxiously desire: bread and the Circus games." -- Decimus Iunius Iuvenali (Satiric roma poet)
If he were here today I bet old Decimus would say:
Two things only the people anxiously desire: broadband and the Computer games."
I wonder what he would have to say about US politics?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
This is just a bad idea. A few arguments against it, which are reiterating other concerns:
1. The subsidies for broadband come from somewhere.....our taxes! So we pay for it anyways. This money would be well spent elsewhere.
2. Any gov't funded infrastructure becomes the gov't bitch. If they "own it" they "pimp it". Meaning they do what ever the hell they want with it. Censoring, spying, etc, etc.
I'd rather have lower taxes and less government involvement than pork barrells like this. I can see it now... they will start the Bureau for Internet Affairs and royally screw it up, wasting billions of our dollars.
The US of A is a Constitutional Republic. Hence, no one in the US of A lives in a Democracy.
Feel free to call the politions on that one when they are campaigning.
But wait - They have Al Gore on their team, you know, the guy that invented the internet. Don't question their promises, just trust them.
...and now the Dems are jumping in to take credit for it. Kudos to them for beating the Republicans to the idea.
:)
SBC (I just can't bring myself to call them AT&T) recently announced that they'd be bringing DSL to a nearby rural community--it's not even an incorporated town--of a few hundred people. It will cost about $15 a month.
SBC has the right idea; they're pushing for IPTV so that demand for broadband increases and areas with low population density become profitable to equip with broadband. Their stated goal is to bring fiber straight into the home. I'm fortunate to live in the state they seem to be using for a proof of concept
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Throw that one and only single vote away. Ignore that an independent has never been elected - go ahead a vote for one and sleep better knowing that instead of choosing the lessor of two evils you tossed your opportunity to choose out the window and let someone, everyone, else choose for you.
Getzen
Please, please, please, please quit wasting our money on this kind of stuff. Protect the country, build roads, provide for the common good, protect the weak and model the beliefs of our founders (honor, courage, compassion, greatness).
Do the things you were given the authority to do and leave the rest to us. You are supposed to work for us, not us work for you.
Remember, we the people made you and our founders believed we had the right to change you.
I'm not calling for an over throw of the government, I'm calling for you to serve us in only the fashion that our foundational documents declare.
We are not little children. Please stop treating us like we need to be taken care of. We are adults. We can take care of ourselves.
Sincerely,
The Citizens of the United States of America
While I think most (if not all) of this is just idealistic rant, I do respect the political distinction it is attempting to draw. Nancy Pelosi [wikipedia.org] is doing for the Democrats what Gee Dubya did for the Republicans: unifying and separating themselves from their opponents.
The majority of America is red state America and elects conservative candidates. The next democratic candidate is going to have to flip red states to win. I would argue Nancy Pelolsi is not the one to do that, simply because the politics of the place she represents, San Francisco, are so radically different from the rest of the country. Anti-war snipping, second guessing, and stonewalling may play well to the democratic base, but that base is increasingly irrelevant. For similar reasons Howard "The Screamer" Dean is a disaster as democrat party chairman. What were they thinking?
an ill wind that blows no good
For my forty acres and a mule, that the Democrats killed off back in the late 1860's
But I would have prefered the newest party line read: guarantees every American will have affordable access to health care within five years.
Yes, everyone should have "affordable access to health care".
But what kind of health care? The fact of the matter is that the more money a person makes, the more they choose to spend on health care.
A rich person might choose to go the extra mile and pay more money to have that expensive MRI. I mean, how much is that peace of mind worth? Sure, it's expensive, but they have the money to spend, so why not ensure that you have the best quality health care you can afford? A person of more meager means may decide that it's acceptable to live with the risk. There are no guarantees in life, after all.
This is when the socialist health-care advocates will amend their request to say, "guaranteed access to basic health care". Well, what exactly is "basic"? The answer to that question usually involves a knee-jerk response along the lines of, "You don't want people to just DIE if they get cancer, do you?" whereas what I'm looking for is an answer to the much more difficult question: how will the government ration the health care?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
So free broadband for the poor who can't afford a computer. That makes SO MUCH SENSE!
Wow! Provide everyone with broadband, call it free, take it out of everyone's taxes, make it actually far cost more than if done privately, make it mismanaged out the ass, and make it such horrible service that you might as well be on dialup....well, that's what will happen if the Dems try and run with this ball.
Republicans have a clear plan. Democrats need to do a better job actually planning, because right now they look like Republican lite, and honestly, I'd rather vote for the Republicans than for the Republican lite or Republican little party.
The Republicans have an agenda, a plan, and while people may debate and disagree with some of the tactics, at least theres a plan, an agenda, and a set of tactics that exist. The Republicans basically outlined what they want and how they plan to go about getting it, they have a complete agenda. Democrats just have a bunch of issues that they highlight but which have nothing to do with an overall agenda.
Democrats want to make people vote on stuff like abortion, or racial issues, or to try to talk us into going toward the FDR style government. I don't think we can turn back the wheels of time, I think Republicans represent the future. Republicans also have plans for dealing with Iran, and Democrats have said next to nothing on this issue. Republicans have actual plans on how to organize the country, while the Democrats just are a bunch of special interest groups.
The main debate right now is about tactics. Democrats have no tactics, and Republicans have tactics which are debateable. Debateable tactics are better than no tactics at all. If we don't deal with Iran, if we don't prevent Iran from getting nukes, this situation will become very scary, not just for Isreal but for the entire world. We have to deal with the middle east, that much is clear, and we have to deal with Iran. If there is a war with Iran, we all must be united in the interest of national security. We also must be united in dealing with terrorism. Terrorism does not benefit any of us, terrorism harms all of us. Currently Democrats are making themselves look soft on terrorism because they arent outlining their plan for dealing with terrorism. If Democrats want to have a chance at winning they need to figure out how to deal with terrorism.
The welfare clause of the Constitution was not meant to actually take care of people, but to make sure that no government blocked anyone's ability to provide for themselves.
Let's look at Federal guarantees that we received in the past:
1. The guarantee that no old person who is unable to work will be able to live at a bare means level (Social Security). Now all of us pay 15% or so of our salaries to pay for our retired parents who had every chance to save their own money.
2. The guarantee that no child will go to school without lunch. Now everyone, even the wealthy, qualify for subpar school lunch programs that do nothing but fatten the children up, cause them to carb-crash after lunch, and pander to the large food farming cartels that backdoor sponsor the law's expansion.
3. The guarantee that no child will be left behind. Every child is now brought down to the level of the child least able to learn. Instead of promoting the brightest, we're just equalizing everyone out so everyone can get a C. A C grade is enough to say they need more money, but not bad enough to complain about.
4. The guarantee that college tuitions will be available to those who need them. This caused an excess amount of money to enter the college system -- more money within any limited supply market means that all money is worth less, so prices will go up.
5. The guarantee that all employees have an opportunity to have managed health care. If you take 19 friends to dinner and ask everyone to pay themselves, they'll generally buy burgers. If you agree to all pay an equal share of the bill, some will buy steaks. In the long run, everyone eats steak, except in our situation the steaks are paid for by our children as the group needs to borrow against future wealth to pay for steaks on a burger budget.
6. The guarantee that medicines and drugs will be safe. Instead of supporting medical safety research alone, the FDA has become a complete pawn of the drug companies used to keep new drugs out at high cost to the citizen base. Rather than rely on your doctor's advise for what is best for you, we have to wait for bureaucrats to accept a drug as safe. Even worse, many drugs are released for political reasons that end up not being safe, but still pad the pockets of those who made them.
I have no desire for the Federal government to keep expanding way beyond what they're allowed to. Broadband and communications has NO allocation in the Constitution -- none at all. The Interstate Commerce Clause was written specifically to use the power of Federal government to PREVENT individual states from harming open and free trade. The Welfare clause was written to give people the chance for equal opportunity by preventing governments from harming their ability to provide for themselves.
The Democrats are going to tax me well more than I already pay for broadband so that we can all have it. I already provide a few of my neighbors with free WiFi (and charges others who can afford it). I support 6 families in my church who homeschool by paying for their broadband. I don't need your help, and I don't want to help you if I don't know you and I can't hold you accountable for your actions with my money..
I have mentioned this before, but I prefer the government create a public infastructure (much like public roads) that is turned over to a public corporation and leased to various providers. In the end this would reduce prices for everyone, provide service in remote areas and unbundle services, i.e. you could use vonage without internet access.
...Michael...
I detail it more here: http://michaelsilver.us/?p=1
Taxes aren't the way to do it. Competition is.
The Republicans kept the promises made in the "Contract with America". They promised to bring certain issues to a vote in the House, and they passed them in the House with a simple majority (Some Constitutional provisions that required 2/3s votes failed because the Democrates refused to go along). But you must remember that passing a bill in one House does not make it law. The Senate and the President must also approve. The Democrates in the Senate simply refused to pass the same bills approved by the House and Clinton vetoed some of the proposals that did manage to make it through the Senate. As noted in Wikipedia "despite the failure of many sections of the Contract to pass the Senate or overcome President Clinton's veto, the Republican leadership did introduce bills that would have implemented virtually everything they had promised to introduce in the Contract."
So, while politicians may still richly deserve our cynicism, if you are basing it on this one issue, you are doing so wrongly. They kept their promises, but were frustrated by the system and their opponents (which is not necessarily bad, since the system was designed that way on purpose).
Actually, they did most of what they said they would do. Unfortunately, they're not still doing it. Any fiscal responsibility or promise of small government has gone right out the window. It used to be:
Democrats: Big Government
Republicans: Small Government
But now it's:
Democrats: Big Government
Republicans: Even Bigger Government
Government is not what makes the U.S. a great country, the people are. Or, sadly, were. There have been changes to political parties before... the republicans are not what they used to be, and neither are the democrats (JFK, Allah praise him, would be turning over in his grave at what democrats are doing these days... and Reagan for what republicans are doing). We can do it again...
But sadly, in the 20th and 21rst centuries, we became preoccupied with radio and television and movies. Now more people can name the remaining American Idol contestents than can name their two senators and representative in congress... more people can name all the Simpsons (a fact recently proven) than know the constitution.
A sad number of people actually think "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs" is from the constitution.
And Bush... my goodness. I voted for Bush over Kerry, but what a choice! A socialist who supports the war in Iraq, or a socialist who doesn't.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"Political Agnostic"... nice! It's too late for me though, there is no such thing as an "honest politician".
I feel like we've all been voting for the Whiggs or something.
The only way I'll be happy is when all these fuckers are in jail, where they belong.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
I like the idea of more people getting more information information - I think that would be truly in the public interest.
However... If the government is providing access to the Internet, I don't want too many of them to then feel that they are responsible for the bad content that people will have access too. As if they as a government have injected things into a family that they then need to clean up.
I'd only support such an idea if it also guaranteed full protection censorship on the base connection. Filtering of any kind must be optional, and without a legal presumption of decency even then.
The worst outcome here would be if people started decrying the presence or abscense of some religious ideal on the Internet... and had a legal basis for pushing to 'resolve' that complaint. Crime should not be special for being internet-based, not all rule in every community need to be applied to everyone, and communications shouldn't be less free for being wide-scale because of this proposed set of laws.
Ryan Fenton
While you might be right, most Americans are ideologically in the middle. I don't think "throwing the bums out" is a very smart plan. Politicians have a job to do, they do the job we tell them to do ultimately. Throwing the politicians out and starting all over again, may not be so wise.
I think experience does count for something in politics, and we should not just throw politicians out unless you have a very good reason to do so. The issue here is national security, just throwing the bums out, how does this make us more secure?
it is not the government's job to provide the people with "things". this is just another move by the democrats that is making the united states a socialist country - and i'm not joking. we've already got "paychecks for all" - even if you're not working (welfare). and we have "retirement accounts for all" - even if you hold a job and want to plan for your own retirement (social security). it's just insane... if you want broadband access, get a job and pay for it. government needs to stay out of industries (internet, healthcare, charity, etc...) and allow for some personal responsibility in this country. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
That's a fault of the (plurality) voting system, not the merits of any of those parties. A single choice can only select between two things. Work for voting reform. If the electorate has no chance to honestly express its preferences in the voting booth, how can we expect government to reflect the true will of the people? We need to implement a Condorcet method as soon as we can.
Constitutionally Correct
"A government thats big enough to give you everything you want is a government thats big enough to take it all away" It amazes me how people fall for this kind of ploy. The only thing that is going to happen with a plan like this is higher taxes, more income redistribution and more government control over your life. Poverty is a mental issue and it's not governments issue to be involved in...
It's better to be a pirate than to join the Navy - Steve Jobs
The basic points of Ms. Pelosi's speech:
1. No tax subsidies to companies which outsource overseas. -- IMO, we ought to do away with all subsidies, period. It is not the governments responsibility to manipulate the free market when it behaves is ways which do not equal votes.
2. Protect "the right of americans to organize", and the "Employee Free Choice Act" -- In other words, they support legalized blackmail as long as you're paying union dues. The "Act" they have drafted would allow employees to force a union on an employer. I wonder if this would make it illegal to fire someone for their participation in a union strike. How about the "free choice" to go get another job if you don't like your current one? After all, Delta Airlines is so grateful for their wonderful union. Remember Eastern Airlines?
3. "universal broadband" -- and when did it become the responsibility of the governement to make sure we all had broadband? I'd rather the government keep from touching the internet any more than it already has. If this happened, how long until the government demagogues its way into monitoring those "guaranteed" connections? What if you don't have a computer? Does this mean that we have to have "universal computers" also?
4. "energy independence" in 5 years -- How? Government regulation? Opening up ANWR to drilling? Oh, wait, Dems won't do that, as caribou might be offended by the sight of a drilling rig. What does that leave? Solar--too inefficient; Hydrogen--unproven tech(BOOM!)and/or too expensive; hybrid cars--anyone ever replaced one of the batteries in these things (estimated costs are between $2000 for a Toyota and up to $6000 for some hondas)? My father has owned an Insight for some years now, and has repeatedly tried to get Honda to give him an official price on a battery replacement, to no avail.
5. Socialized health care -- I can't wait to get in line for 6 months for an MRI. Will we pass out government health insurance cards at the Mexican border? How about deregulating health insurance so that we can buy it from whoever we want instead of being force-fed whatever our company can afford? Ever have a problem getting auto insurance?
6. "Real security" -- Apparently, to Ms. Pelosi this means inspecting 100% of the containers coming into our ports. I'm sure that would be very effective in stopping morons from getting a WMD into our country. I doubt it would be as effective against someone striding brazenly across our ridiculously porous borders.
To sum up: socialism, government regulation, increased bureaucracy, and economic protectionism. Someone please tell me exactly which of these things has historically proven to be successful?
Not to mention it will be heavily influenced by what happens in 2006. There's an outside chance that the party majority will flip.
It's not a great chance in the House, gerrymandering has guaranteed that. There's really only about 6-10 seats up for grabs. But, if Dems win all of them, the balance of power flips.
I'd think if that does happen we'll see a lot worse than censure of Bush. I could be wrong, but I'm running off the implication that democrats winning implies they grew a spine and (to borrow from Twisted Sister) they aren't gonna take it anymore. (cue picture of Bush falling into a pool with some sort of grenade glued to his hand, in a cartoony manner not at all like what he's exposed our troops to)
The lack of an incumbent running is actually a great thing for the Dems: it means they have to develop a plan and show why they should be in charge, instead of keying their party line to the "Hey, we're not that guy!" bullshit they tried to pull in 2004. Which failed. (allegations of voter fraud aside - it shouldn't have been close enough for voter fraud to swing it, if the Democrats had been able get serious)
Who knows. The Democratic Party is a lot like being a Mets fan - their division kind of sucks and you see them hovering around or above .500 at the all star break. You think "hey, they have a legitimate chance at the playoffs" and then it all goes to hell.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
From the parent:
Absent, of course, are any details as to how they will accomplish it when they are the party out of power in Congress.
Interesting question, I'm glad SOMEBODY asked it. I suspect that "they'll" pay for it using some of the 6.9 BILLION dollars per month that we are currently spending between Iraq and Afganistan. Do the math. We are currently flushing ALOT of money down the crapper each month for a war that we should not have started to begin with.
Reference
The presidential candidates are supposed to represent AMERICA'S views. Not your personal views. Elections are about voting according to what is best for America, not what is best for just you personally.
The Republican party and Democrat party both represent two sides of America. Pick a side. Liberal or Conservative?
I think the problem with liberals is that liberals don't know or can't explain what their believe in or what their agenda is. Conservatives are actually straight forward about what their agenda is.
Couple free broadband wireless with very low-cost computers and free web services like GMail, Blogger, and the like, and suddenly every American has the online capability of any other.
That's revolutionary.
I live in California and I am represented, if you could call it that, by Nancy Pelosi. She is great at promising all kinds of things but she always falls short when it comes time to deliver. Several years ago I wrote all my representatives including Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Not one democrat replied to me not even a form letter. Every republican either wrote me, called me or made an appointment for me to meet with them. Wanting to give the democrats another shot at it I both emailed them and sent a letter via snail mail. Nothing, nada, not even a form letter. I guess it is okay to elect her as long as she does not have to talk to the "little people".
She could promise everyone a new car but she could not deliver it. Not surprisingly she is up for re-election this year. Coincidence?
How about they repeal the "PATRIOT" Act and get the NSA out of our domestic communications, first.
Otherwise this is just a bigger pipe for Big Brother.
Plus SBC (AT&T) is putting its ducks in a row to be the content gatekeeper (and skim off a take of each transaction). Give everyone broadband now and the taxpayers just bought AT&T their monopoly. Perhaps this is about a perception in Hollywood that the ubiquitous broadband channel is needed now to offset declining interest and rentals/sales?
A bad idea. Just like the all-go-digital-television legislation, which ignored that people just didn't want digital television, was bad (and I will not be coverting and taking that subsidy from our exhausted treasury).
Keep in mind it was Clinton/Gore who gave the big telcos several hundred billion to fiber everything by '06. That worked out well.
Broadband for some, miniature American flags for others!
so they're going to promise us fast broadband so we can ignore the fact that the rest of the party is weak, divided, and doesn't even represent most americans on its views?
/.ers, but most people in america are very conservative, and i'm not just talking about republicans. the democratic party used to be strong because it had strong conservative roots, and most americans don't really feel like going to environmental rallys and flashing their tits all over the place and bitching and whining about implementing socialist welfares and public services.
i hate to break it to you
the democrats right now are having problems with prioritizing, even though the republicans aren't doing so well on their agenda, at least they have one.
broadband for everyone is great, but it's not what i'm looking for in a political party. FIOS is already availible - why should I wait 5 years for politicians to catch up?
. . . all."
Hey - how's that impeachment coming along?
Ha ha ha!
What?
How can you have broadband if you don't have a computer. I guess this means computers for all! I'll take two, please.
You can't get online if you didn't pay your electric bill. Free Power!
What about a desk to put your computer on? How about Software? (is MS going to be subsidised now?) Computer education for the masses?
Don't libraries already have computers with broadband for all?
Don't get my sarcasm wrong, I wish I didn't have to pay that extra $50 a month just to get faster download speeds. But broadband for all is kinda worthless if you don't have a computer.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The tax system is not the most efficient way to help people. The church is a much better and more efficient way. It is much better to help people out individually, in a personal way, through the church. I don't think that the federal government is talented at helping people out. Do you have any idea how the federal government is run or how it works? It's not the role of the federal government to help people. It's the job of the federal government to protect our interests in the present and perhaps in the future. The federal government handles national security. The church helps people.
Um, guys?
CNS is one of those fake news sites the GOP sets up to get their talking points past "the filter" of real reporters. I wouldn't put any more stock in this than I would in the reporting of that male prostitute they hired to ask softball question at W's press conferences.
I'm still waiting for my 40 acres and a mule.
---How can you tell that a politician is lying?
--His/Her lips are moving.
I'm not attempting to attack Marxism, but Communism had its chance and it failed. Capitalism won. The reason capitalism won is because people don't want an equal society, people want unequality. We NEED bosses, authority, and structure in society. Capitalism is simply easier to organize, because money allows you to organize the masses better than communism can.
It's not the governments job to distribute wealth. Charity also does not really solve problems in peoples lives. The only sort of charity which works is charity which helps people help themselves.
We have to teach people how to survive in the world. The government cannot stand in the way of this process.
This country has two parties for a reason, and they need to keep each other in check
Uhh, no. The seperate branches of the government were meant to keep each other in check. If you think the president has been overstepping his boundries, then congress and the senate has failed you, not the democrats. Washington hated political parties. Also, the only reason we have two parties is because they collude to sqash third parties that are a threat. Back in 1992, Perot gained 19% of the vote, which was mostly attributed to his showing in the debates since he was polling at 7% before the debates. So what did the Republicans and Democrats do? They came to an 'agreement' that no candidate would be allowed in the debates again unless they were polling at better than 15%.
Anyway, it's nice to see the Democrats actually suggesting policy rather than jumping on George W, but I'm sure she will get around to that. At some point this will turn into "George Bush doesn't want poor people to have Broadband!"
Every American already has affordable access to broadband. When a Democrat tells you "affordable", he means "we'll make the people with jobs give it to the people without jobs for free, because there are more of the latter and they'll vote for us that way."
...one of the promises of the present government was that it would make broadband affordable.
What happened was pretty decent, for a government programme. 256 kbps broadband was rolled out in all the larger cities, at Rs. 500 (USD 10) per month - however, there was a rider - a 1 GiB transfer limit.
This scheme, however, was sufficient to start a major price war, and broadband prices have been steadily falling, upto the point where it's now being pushed way more heavily than dial-up.
The problems:
However,
Whether it was the best idea, whether it helped starving people...those are all debatable points. But surely, it is hardly an incredibly expensive project, which will kill off the American economy?
Even if the government doesn't offer fiber-connections to the rest of America, 256k broadband is perfectly capable of accessing Wikipedia, joining and taking part in mailing groups...there will be a section of the society whom it will help.
Cheers,
Rahul.
So Pelosi says: ..... health care for all American within five years; and "dignified retirement" (no privatization of Social Security) through an "AmeriSave" plan."
"Democrats support
But then states:
"Pelosi attacked Republicans for writing a prescription drug bill that has seniors "paying higher prices on drugs at the pharmacy"..."
First.. Any 'universal' Hillary-care would include the drugs right? And cost a fortune right(G'ment costs)? (See Canada, UK). But then whines about Bush's perscription drug plan. (And even wrongly claims about higher prices at pharmacies under the plan).
Only in the world of liberal democrats can one get away with such a bi-polar schitzophrenic statements.
And they want to 'buy' votes with 'affordable' net access?
Any thinking person knows that you can get access for 20 bux a month or less.
If you can't afford access, how do you expect to afford a computer?
The net is 'not' a 'necessity'.
I suppose such 'plans' would be part of the yet unvield 'democratic platform' that has been a 'secret' for the last 8 months. (We americans are too dumb to know what the dems want huh?)
Sorry..but the dems have 'no platform'.. Only rhetoric that continues to fail. I honestly wish they would put up some competition. But with so called leaders like Pelosi, Dean and Reid stearing the ship, such 'leadership' wont happen anytime soon.
Popular internet site Slashdot.org upgrades its connection from 14.4kbps broadband to 28.8kbps ultra-wide broadband.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
Here's a silly question - what is wrong with simply providing Internet access at places like the public library, and allowing all citizens (and gasp! even non-citizens) to use that?
That way, even people who have no fixed address (from the homeless to full-time RVers) can also find the local public library.
www.eFax.com are spammers
50%. For the first time in history 50% of the public thinks the country would be better off with Democrats in power. (Republicans are down to 37%).
50%. This is the FIRST TIME in history that the opposition party has hit 50%.
50%. This is such a staggering number that even the Republican leadership will admit that, if the election were held today, that the Democrats would retake control of both houses of Congress. Six years of Republican stonewalling into dozens -- hundreds -- of critical issues will be broken. There will be blood on the walls --- already there are reputable claims that the Abhramcoff(sp?) scandal will take down dozens of Republican (and only Republican members of congress. Not "forced to resigned" either -- the former Representative Cunningham won't be alone in federal prison for corruption.
I don't want to turn this into a political thread -- go to Daily Kos is that -- but the "so what, they're out of power" argument ends on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The country is pissed off.
(P.S., did I mention that Nixon was more popular before his resignation than Bush is today?)
BTW, answering the point upstream -- the Democrats ensure affordable broadband to at least half of the population by passing a single law that costs no money. "No state, or subdivision within, shall pass any law restricting the ability of any government entity from offering municipal broadband service if it so chooses." Some cities are seriously considering offering citywide WiFi as a municipal utility, same as they offer water, sewer, trash collection, even power and natural gas. Yet the state legislature may pass a law saying that only for-profit entities can offer such service. Huh? Nobody is saying that people _must_ choose municipal WiFi, just that it should be an option on the table, esp. for people in areas where the commercial providers do not or cannot offer service.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
How DARE you attack the beacon of truth, the wellspring of knowledge that is Anne Coulter.
...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No."
From a CBC interview between the great Ms. Coulter and Bob McKeown:
Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"
McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam."
Coulter: "I don't think that's right."
McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."
Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?"
McKeown: "Uh no. Canada
Coulter: "I think you're wrong."
McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam."
Coulter: "I think you're wrong."
McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada."
Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops."
McKeown: "No."
Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."
McKeown tags out in script:
"Coulter never got back to us -- but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam."
Hilarious video here.
However, those concerns come further downstream on the political process. In this brief comment from Nancy Pelosi, the DNC is simply trying to point out issues of potential interest to the public. Both parties use this type of strategy.
Simple statements like this serve to:
"Seven years of college down the drain. Might as well join the f-ing Peace Corps." - John 'Bluto' Blutarsky
And yes, this includes the similarly misguided "Guaranteed Housing Ammendment" circulated on New York streets...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The very first thing that jumped out into my mind was the governmental acts that gave telephone lines and electrical lines to (MOST, not ALL) most of the rural and remote communities of the US. The government subsidized the energy companies and the telco(s) to make sure they could run the expense of running out hardware to even farmer Jane's house in the middle of (rural state here).
For the most part, this was a very good thing. At the time, the telcos were loathe to spend the bucks to run lines to anywhere but where lots of people lived... there were massive numbers of people who did not have access to telephones. Lots of good stuff happens for rural communities...
Fast forward to today... The government is still paying subsidies to the telcos for the rural telecommunications act... even though the telcos aren't really doing much new line work for basic POTS. Many billions of dollars in unintended windfalls have been paid out to companies that recouped their rural investments decades ago.
Will this new legislation cause good and bad consequences, too?
A Passionate Independent Musician
It could be worse -
I'm a Mets fan AND a Michigan State alum. I'm bitch slapped every sports season of the year.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
It's great to start the day with a big belly laugh!
:) Black and white politics - oh how I miss being 12.
"There is only so far left you can go before it becomes a national security risk."
Orwell would be proud
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Mostly unimplemented, huh?
This seems to disagree with you.
Sorry, but I'm not throwing away my vote. Your vain attempt at trying to convince me to make myself completely powerless is noted and certainly won't make me go back to my heritage any sooner. Shame on you.
What will happen is that my tax dollars will be used for that and that my friend is just wrong. I don't care how you roll it up and try to smoke it.
Right now, your tax dollars are funding things from road construction, to educating children, to feeding lazy welfare persons, to corporate CEO's free lunch with a government contract, to a bridge to no where in some other state than yours, finding the cure for cancer, to a million dollar missle landing in a families home in the middle east, to sending a man to mars.
You sir have no idea what your money is being spent on. Nor can you hope to control it.
These things may be very good in your eyes, waste of money, or supporting something that you morally object to.
The best solution in my view is to attempt to pay as little tax as possible... Which is something we can control with good accounting.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Democrats always promise everything but provide no plan for how to do it and when they gain power never do it. Happens all the time.
The feasibility of offering everyone in the U.S. broadband internet access is impossible in 5 yrs time. Excuse me, we have places a 100 miles out in the boondocks. Are you suggesting we launch satellites to offer internet to those few remote individuals. So we'll spend $20 billion on bringing broadband to the outskirts so a handful of people can have broadband. Um....yeah.
Please Nancy...think outside of your arse for once. Democrats...does everything for you have to be about winning elections? Why not quit promising, quit criticizing...and start !@#$% doing something.
She is my congressional represenative.She is a champion of no one but herself.
Unless your idea of for the people is cutting sugar cane in Castro's Cuba, Racial demagoguery , and spreading bizarre conspiracy theories.
How can it be possible that people in this nation think the Republicans can GIVE them anything without first TAKING it from future Americans? We are a goverment of and by the people. We can't extend to govenment a power that we don't have as individuals. Can I walk up to you on the street and demand money from your pocket for $700 military-grade toilet seats!? If I can't how can I extend that power to my elected officials? Whats next? Total Information Awareness? These were just some of the most pathetic effort at vote buying I've ever seen. Its unAmerican, anti-Freedom and plain ole theft from everyone to buy off a few. Next time I see someone who agrees with this junk, I'm leaving your stuff, ALL OF IT, and wiping out all civil liberties of any kind, nope, nada, zilch. Let's see how you like being left swimming in a goldfish bowl, cause hey, you NEEDED my children's property to pay for your false feelings of safety. I just can't believe this. At what point did we gain the "Right" to security at the cost of our neighbors property? I hear the GOP has a new term, instead of "theft" they'll call it "pre-emptive warfare". GRRRR!
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Since when have the Democrats had a clear plan on how to accomplish any of their goals when they are in power?
Here's what'll happen. They'll levy a new tax on Internet usage on both customers and providers. The telcos and ISPs will increase prices to compensate. The money will then get sucked out of the economy and into the government, where 75% of it is pissed away on paying yet more federal and state employees to file papers and process applications for vouchers and what not. The remaining 25% will be wrung back into the economy in the form of vouchers to those who have no "affordable" access, and the price of Internet service will jump up. Because that's how Democrats solve almost every social problem. Tax and spend, tax and spend. And frankly, I could live with it if any of their programs were working. I'm sure I'll now be inundated with anecdotes about how Program X saved your family or whatever, and that's fine. But our poverty rate hasn't changed much. Homelessess hasn't changed much.
And lest you think I'm picking on Democrats, the Republicans are no better. Look at any major government program that has been implemented by the Republicans. What has the return been on our enormous investment in the "war on drugs"? More gun violence, more gang activity, no meaningful improvement.
The government is not the solution to problems. Its solution is usually worse than the problem. Aegrescit medendo. "The cure is worse than the malady." Prices are being driven down by market forces, competition, and technological innovation. If broadband isn't available in your area yet, it will be. And if you're one of those people who lives 15 miles away from the nearest human being on a ranch in Wyoming, why on earth should tax money pay for the inconveniences you impose upon yourself by your choice of living area?
I challenge the notion that anybody who can't afford the $22/mo for cable broadband really needs it. If you can't scrounge up $22/mo you've got far more pressing issues than fast access to email.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
and gee, I can't think of why that might be. Go here, about halfway down, to read up on poverty. Or, go here to read up on poverty and access to food.
Oh wait, I remember now how to deal with professional trolling organizations...
The detail of how they will accomplish anything is right there in your statement: it's their 2006 election year agenda. Vote out the corrupt, lazy Republicans, and replace them with corrupt, lazy Democrats. At least the Democrats' corruption doesn't destroy the country.
--
make install -not war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_represe
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
for my bread and circuses
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Well...they've got my vote...
"The thing about regulation of all kinds is that although it makes business difficult and slows growth, the established corporations love it; it makes breaking into the market almost impossible for new competitors."
Regulation stops companies from externalizing their costs on the rest of us. Corporations HATE regulation of any kind, although they can happily live with regulation that is not enforced strongly enough so they can:
1. break the law, earning 100 extra profit
2. get caught, and pay a fine of 10
3. repeat
4. Profit!
Regulation is also used against monopolistic or oligopolistic practices, to stop incumbents in a market from creating entry barriers to competitors or exit barriers for customers moving out, so your statement that it hinders competition is absolutely wild.
Of course excess of regulation is also possible (as in useless burocratic rules) but that's certainly not the problem in the US right now.
> Absent, of course, are any details as to how they will accomplish it when they are the
> party out of power in Congress.
Let's try that in English:
"They didn't say how they'll do this when everyone knows they will lose."
Nice impartial reporting there bucko.
Check out the Apostrophe open-source CMS: http://www.apostrophenow.com/
Your tax dollars already paid for the internet. They paid for its developement and continue to pay for the high-level infrastructure. Unfortunately, a bunch of monopolies (and duopolies) control the last few miles from the backbone to your house. How would you like it if there was a 'free' 12-lane interstate highway out there that your tax dollars paid for, but some local cartel charges you $50 per month to drive on their dirt road from your driveway to the interstate on-ramp? I know I'd be pissed.
Oh yeah, and that cartel is now considering limiting what kind of cars can drive on their road, probably only the cars that they sell at a huge markup. And dispite the fact that you give them $50 per month for 2-way access on their road, they want to charge extra to FedEx and UPS for using their road to deliver stuff to you. And they also want two speed limits; 10mph for people who pay $50 per month and 100mph for people who pay $100 per month. And they're not doing any maintainance on the road so if you hit potholes and can only drive 5mph, don't expect a rebate on your $100.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Oh, wait... politicians. The idea of self sufficient citizens is a nightmare to them, Democrat or Republican. Honestly, you Party loyalists on both sides are pathetic creatures, and I blame you for the mess. The politicians, from Bush to Hillary, are just sociopathic megalomaniacs, and can't help themselves, but you all don't have to be such enablers.
... as soon as the telcos start lining the politicians pockets with cash, there will be enough exceptions to keep business as usual.
Meaning, like all other seemingly good bills, it's full of flash from the outside and full of shit from the inside.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
The contract was briefly pushed and then dropped. For example, it requires a continually balanced budget. The Republicans seem to have stopped caring about that a long time ago.
This was reported as a footnote in a speech Leader Pelosi gave to the Communication Workers of America. Although it's well known that I generally defend the Democrats, in this case Pelosi was just pandering, imo. The CWA is the union that would install any 'nationwide universal broadband'. Universal BB access was not the focus of the speech and the little mention of it was blown out of proportion by Drudge, as usual. The submitter misread the article, as Pelosi was listing the goals of the Democrats after the 2006 election, not the goals for the current Congress.
Also, there is no "Democrat Party". My membership card says "Democratic National Committee".
Yes there are socialist countries in Europe, but these countries make money because America makes money. The economy is global, and if there were no capitalist countries in the world they could be no socialist countries in the world.
Was not the AT&T monster created out of desire to guarantee every American a telephone? I'd rather this part of history did not repeat itself...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Everyone can make a promise, but can they deliver?
Any scientist should be able to explain to you why criticism is necessary and alternate solutions are not a prerequisite for criticism.
If you could have multiple parties, it would some what resemble the various factions infighting within the DFL(and to a lesser extent the GOP.) Government would move slower, but we'd have real debates on issues in the public instead of inside the party. Political parties HURT the country, the more there are, the better off the country is.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Less than a month ago I read a few articles concerning the fact that there are already ridiculously large subsidies to telecom companies to "offset" the costs of laying down cable for broadband internet. Essentially, this subsidy was supposed to create a market where several companies were competing to offer access on par with what the Japanese provide. So far all I've seen are companies lining their pockets, forming monopolies (I'm looking at you AT&T), not competing except in extremely dense ubran markets, and offering up a service that is only 1/10 the power we were promised and pitiful when compared to any other first world coutnry of comparable technical capacity. The only thing I believe the Dems could do on this front is pass a law that tells the Big Telecos to piss of when a local municipality tries to form citywide wireless or broadband. When Philidelphia gave it a shot they were taken to the State Supreme Court for trying to provide their citizens a service! Despite what it sounds like, I'm not an anti-business kind of person, I just can't stomach the kind of greed and corruption that exists at the highest wealth bracket in our country. If you don't agree, just think about this, ever notice how basic employee benefits like healthcare and pension are the first thing to go and any wage cut for the top 10% of executives are the last?
I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
Way to use statistics to try to brow-beat us off the topic, but you're talking AROUND the GP's point. Every single one of your points is qualified: "41%", "two-thirds", "nearly three-quarters," etc. What is your point? That there is a range to any set of data? Well color me shocked. Of course if you define a set there will be some people who fall near the high end of the range, and some who fall near the low end. You would have us pay attention only to the high end, I guess. Sorry, not falling for it.
In addition, the concept of "poor" makes no sense without a context. In the context of the United States, poor means poor nutrition, poor health care, poor living conditions, and poor education. Yes, if you compare to say Darfur, where poor means no nutrition, no health care, no living conditions, and no education, that's not bad. But is "slightly better than Darfur" really your ideal standard for American citizens??
Of course the Heritage Foundation like most conservative think-tanks (and you apparently) utterly misses the irony of using statements like this to attack social programs:
Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
In fact, numerous government reports indicate that most "poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more personal property than average Americans throughout most of this century. (from your link)
Geez, I wonder why the poor are so much better off now than they used to be?? Oh well, let's get rid of all these social programs since they don't seem to have any positive effect on the nation...
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
In any event, as for the problem at hand: I don't trust the government to run my Internet connection either. Just look at how well they run the Department of Motor Vehicles, or the Post Office, or Amtrak. (Beware the Libertarian political cartoons! :)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
In order to protect their party's status, the party tends to shift left and right according to the "hot issues" and their constituency.
I don't know if you're lib/con but if you look at some of the things MoveOn.org is doing, it's pretty refreshing.
They're funding progressive candidates to challenge incumbent conservative democrats, for starters.
They're doing their fancy little petition things all the time.
They're quite the fund-raising PAC at this point, generating a not-insignificant amount for a PAC, and distributing it to progressive candidates.
Bottom line is the parties tend to shuck and jive to maintain power, and that often means shifting their stances on issues.
Yes, there's corporatism (business welfare has been an issue since we were founded, however)
Yes, there's shenanigans.
But your choices are rather clear:
Throw up your hands in disgust/capitulation and embrace disenfranchisement, ensuring the system will only get worse
OR
Attempt to make a difference. You know, that whole Gandhi thing of "be the change you wish to see in the world". OK maybe that's not a great quote for this application but I really thought Gandhi had nice legs.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Its so typical of the DNC to wait until the project is 90% complete then jump in and promise what already exists. 80% of the US population has access to broadband, with the remaining 20% being rural areas (which I'm in). Those rural areas are rapidly getting landline broadband, and have access to satellite broadband already.
The other option is that the DNC is promising to PAY for everyone's broadband. That simply means prices go up, because you just know this means a new taxes on broadband access to fund it. This is similar to the goverment funding digital TV for everyone when they kill off analog signals.
This would have been nice about 10 years ago when companies were slow to roll out broadband, but now its pretty much upto personal choice. If its possible to get broadband to your house (ie no technical limitations, like you have fiber phone lines and can't get DSL or your cable is from 1975..) then its upto personal choice now. I don't think anyones waiting for the cable co to wire their neighborhood anymore...
Next we'll see, blogs for everyone! and free webspace!
How about incuraging small businesses so people can make money and then go buy broadband.
Getting "facts" from the Heritage Foundation is like getting "truth" from Fox News. This "think-tank" organization is prop'd up by the trust-fund money of some very paranoid right-wing whackos. They tried to indoctrinate me in high school, but I actually like to help my fellow man. You know, that Christian moral value thing.
And, no, that list doesn't change the lack of health care, the monthly bills (for, say, electricity and gas), the fact that ownership is defined as a mortgage (or multiple mortgages) by people who do not champion the poor, eating fatty food is cheap but not healthy, nor that this single report you cite as an authoritative source (as the end-all and be-all of "facts") on poverty is over 8 years old, itself drawing from data many years older than that.
Cherry-picking is easy. Damning the poor this way is reprehensible.
Broadband for all and making sure kids in inner city schools all have access to laptops. Great prioritization, people! I don't know about you, but for me, broadband falls on my list of necessities after air, water, food, shelter, heat/electricity, beer, transportation, and owning a computer. I mean, it's all well and good to offer cheap broadband, but if you can't afford a computer (and many can't), what good is it? And giving laptops to schools? I learned very well without a computer (didn't own one until college). And judging from the way kids usually treat books, giving them laptops seems like a very expensive way to get a bunch of doorstops.
So here's what I propose. Instead of cheap broadband, concentrate on education, providing for the mentally ill, treatment for drug/alcohol users, some sort of health care reform, etc etc. You know, stuff that helps people. I mean, that used to be one of the things Democrats stood for, right?
Well, I can agree with you on many points. Republicans are no better. We have republican officials on the hill talking about stuffing the Highway Appropriations Bill like a turkey. He should be tared, feathered and run out to the highest tree outside DC. You make many assumption, like assuming I'm GOP. What liberties have you lost? Can you not speak freely and go? I dare to say that the only rights you've really lost is the right to the ownership of yourself and what you produce. Kelo vs New London was no help with that. Has GW been snopping around your computer? Has the FBI been in your home. Who's the one with the problems about imaginary boogymen? Yeah, GW is trying to take away all your liberties and force you to eat at the slop tray of Christianity, but Sadam has NOTHING to do with terrorists, doesn't have a sadistic bone in his body and spends his day worrying about how to provide cheap energy to his people through green methods. As far as "Pre-emptive warrfare" goes, If I shouted across the street at you, "I hate you and all those like you, and I'm gonna kill you!" and then proceeded to walk back in my house, would you stand there and wait to see what would happen next, or would you take "pre-emptive" action in the form of a weapon or a call to the police in order to stop me just in case I was serious? Face it, Democrats AND Republicans shouldn't be taking money from anyone in this nation for pork or charity. They do not have that "right" anymore than you or I have the right to do it on the street. Even if it is for a good cause, you can't walk up to someone on the street and force them to give up their property for that cause. If you can't do it yourself you can't extend that ability to those that REPRESENT YOU!
Morbo will now introduce the candidates:
...and Morbo's good friend Richard Nixon.
Pathetic human number one!
Pathetic human number two!
Nixon: Hello, Morbo. How's the family?
Morbo: Numerous and beligerant!
Nixon: That's good. Nixon is pro-war and pro-family!
And then the robots elect Nixon by a single vote.
{Sigh} I guess its pretty much the same way that Bush got elected.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Once the government (this goes for Dems and Reps) get their toe in the door with this, they will use it to justify every action to control your use of the internet.
While you all argue over whether or not internet access is a "utility", just like water and electricity, do keep this quote in mind:
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."[H. L. Mencken]
Having lived in what is considered the inner city, and having gone to what is considered an inner city school I have to say that those statistics are fairly accurate.
I cant count the number of students I've driving to school in their own cars, many of these being on government assistance and paying a reduced fee for lunch. School was a fashion show with these kids walking around in $150 sneakers and decked out in the latest styles. God forbid if anyone wore the same outfit twice in two weeks. Being cool also meant having to shop at select stores even though they were significantly more expensive than anywhere else.
I've known guys who work for cable companies who've gone into projects and have discovered that the tenants there own huge television screens, decent audio equipment and fairly expensive furniture. These are people living on government assistance.
Then there are the ones somehow manage to drive around in a Lexus, Cadillac, or some other expensive car and still have money left over to get huge chrome rims for the thing.
I have a friend knew this women driving around in a new car, dressed up expensive clothing who would go to her church and ask for money to help feed her kids.
I think those Heritage Foundation findings are spot on. These people have a poor sense of priorities; they care more about bling bling than they do leading a successful life. I think the US is one of the only nations where the "poor" are over-weight.
For the most part, in the United States today there is no reason whatsoever why anyone can't live a reasonable comfortable life, assuming, of course, you work for it. I had classmates in high school who wanted to do nothing but skip class, hang out with friends and go to parties. These were the kinds of people who made fun of those who were studious. Some of these kids sure had a good time making fun of the black kids who didn't speak ebonics.
What are they doing today? Nothing. At best they've got some crappy job making not much more than minimum wage.
Who's fault is that? It's their own fault for not asserting themselves. It's their parents fault for letting them slack off. And it's society's fault for encouraging this kind of behavior.
But them I'm expected to give away a portion of my hard-earned salary to pay for these kinds of people. I'm all for helping the disabled, the ones who really came upon some back luck. Those people really need the help. But I have no desire to help the freeloaders. Free money isn't the solution.
The democrats are basically trying to buy votes and they're trying to make those well off feel guilty. This idea of taxing the rich is bullshit. First of all, we're not living in a socialist state. Secondly, the ones who get screwed aren't the wealthy. They won't notice much if their taxes go up for a few percent. The middle-class, however, who work for a living are the ones who get screwed.
Free broadband is not a necessity. It's a luxury. What the hell do people need this for? To watch movies on the internet? To download music? If you're looking for work on the web a standard 56k connection will suffice. Those plans cost $5 a month. Shop around. In fact, they don't need the internet at all to find work. There's a reason we have the unemployment office. Better yet, go back to school, there's plenty of government assistance there. The problem is too many of these people want handouts; they don't want to be responsible for anything
Financially I tend to agree with (TRUE) conservative principals: Let people take care of their own money, charge as little as possible, and don't let the government interfere any more than is necessary.
These are Liberal principles. All those Liberals who designed the Constitution and wrote the Federalist Papers pretty much said the same thing. The only real difference between "Conservatives" and "Liberals" in the modern US political environment is disagreement on what government interference is necessary.
Those who call themselves "Conservative" like to also call themselves "Classical Liberals", I believe this a provable error in logic. Essentially, the Conservative argument is that what was necessary government interference classically, is still all that is necessary. Milton Friedman would be a classic example as he is considered a Conservative, identifies himself as a Classical Liberal and believes that the state should not interfere in racial discrimination in employment (Freedom and Capitalism).
"Liberals", on the other hand, claim that what is necessary government interference changes with time and that in order to actually maintain the goals that the Constitution was designed to achieve, we have to modify how and when government interferes. George Soros and Karl Popper are examples of this Liberalism. Each have described "subjective rights" (Popper) and "special drawing rights" (Soros) based on the idea that the Liberal system cannot allow for concentration of power in economic spheres without inviting it's own destruction. In other words, every citizen has the right to the opportunities afforded to first class citizens and the creation of groups that are effectively (not just the legal codification, but economically as well) second class citizens are a threat to the entire Liberal system. These rights today would be access to the global communications network and other parts of the national infrastructure that are necessary to compete in the free market, regardless of an individual's financial means.
This is, I believe, the main reason that Liberals are confused with leftists. As Popper stated in the Open Society and Its Enemies, Liberalism sympathizes with the goals of leftists, but vehemently disagrees with the methodology and means to achieve those goals.
Now, in US politics, there are a lot of theocrats (both left and right wing), leftists and fascists. These people are not Liberal, either Classically or otherwise. Many of their respective goals may match up with Liberal or Conservative goals, but their theoretical basis for these goals are different.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
You like to be in charge of collecting and purifying your own drinking water?
:)
Well, city-slicker, some of us with wells already do that sort of thing.
Of course, that doesn't mean that I didn't have to pay plenty of associated fees to the county to obtain approval for the location of my well, the inspection of the equipment, and the subsequent water test (which is laughable, considering they don't offer any alternatives if it doesn't pass).
What has happened is certain legislators have realized that broadband has become a necessary and basic right.
Having just experienced a month-long outage as we moved, I can understand how convenient broadband has become and how much I take it for granted. However, calling it necessary or "a basic right" is exaggerating quite a bit. Keep in mind that broadband is only a necessity if you consider a computer a necessity and are willing to subsidize that expense for every citizen.
I would rank phone service as far more important and closer to a necessity than broadband. The government provides 911 service, but the actual phone is your responsibility to obtain and further communication, even limited to local service, still requires a monthly fee.
This is win-win
Take the competition out of the industry, make it a government-managed project, and then charge the taxpayers for it? I currently pay about $40 for broadband. Having worked for several government contractors, I guarantee that I won't win with your alternative.
Nothing from the government is free people. Think.. Dont let them suck more of our tax dollars for this crap
---- Booth was a patriot ----
| 1. No tax subsidies to companies which outsource overseas.
| IMO, we ought to do away with all subsidies, period.
I'll agree with this as long as you can include "environmental" and
other hidden costs in the development of a product; a very high gas
tax should be supporting our wars in the middle east and the
damage done to the environment due to carbon emissions.
| It is not the governments responsibility to manipulate the free
| market when it behaves is ways which do not equal votes.
A "free market" requires a dozen or so competitors who are not colluding
or doing other forms of price-fixing. By and large, there are very few
free markets in the United States (unless you're talking about ones run
by small businesses, such as restraunts). If you look at the competitors
and there arn't a bunch of small business people in it... it probably is
not a competitive marketplace and the government _should_ be getting
involved to break it up so that it is competitive.
| 2. Protect "the right of americans to organize", and the "Employee
| Free Choice Act" -- In other words, they support legalized blackmail
| as long as you're paying union dues.
The problem is, you're assuming a free market for labor. In "corporate
towns" where there are only a hand-full of behemoth employers, there is
not a free market for labor: if you quit your job you often have to pick
up your bags and move. This cost to switch jobs is very huge burden on
middle-class employees; so much so that large companies have an unfair
barganing position. Labor Unions are one way to approach this; another
way is to limit the size of companies so that they form mini-competitve
marketplaces rahter than "stove pipes" under one one management.
| 3. "universal broadband" -- and when did it become the responsibility
| of the governement to make sure we all had broadband? I'd rather the
| government keep from touching the internet any more than it already has.
Well, considering that it was the goverment (through DARPA) that boostrapped
the internet and nurtured it into existence, I'm open to ideas here. At this
time large international Companies are actively lobbying to setup tool booths
along the internet highway: and varied pay structures could greatly hurt
productivity, growth -- and your access to slashdot.
Finally, Nancy is talking about "universal service", not "free service"; should people living in small farming communities not have the opportunity
to participate in the political process (since they can't read blogs?)
| 4. "energy independence" in 5 years -- How? Government regulation?
Research and Development: something that has been soley lacking under
"corporate leadership" in this field.
| Hydrogen--unproven tech(BOOM!)
It is quite proven, and doesn't go BOOM. The problem with hydrogen is that
it is an energy storage and transport technology: not a generation
technology. As such, it is quite effective for distances over 50 miles
and for times when generated energy can't be used immediately.
| 5. Socialized health care -- I can't wait to get in line for 6 months
| for an MRI.
Frankly, most health-care programs today do _not_ support MRIs (for example,
to screen for colon cancer: a big killer). The problem with insurance
programs is that they arn't driven to reduce their cost structures nor
provide better service: they are not in a competive marketplace since
one doesn't usually "shop around" when you're on death's door. Further,
insurance companies have *zero* motive to work on preventative care.
Socialized health care will make things alot cheaper for 90% of the
preventitive care and routine procedures (Canada is a good example,
as well as most of Europe). It works. I think you're confused since
you wrongly assume that a universal health care system would imply that
you would be *forbidden* to get your own botique insu
Let's call this what it is -- vote buying. But can you blame them? They're just trying to catch up to the enormous entitlement programs Dubya has signed into law.
But come on! Since when is the federal government a telecommunications company? And this is exactly what poor people need, too, to help them accumulate wealth -- Internet distraction.
Well it's simple, in this country we have conservatives and liberals.
Not really.
What we have in this country is the usual witches brew, a few of the ingredients being: fiscal conservatives/social liberals, religious social conservatives with leanings towards government paternalism, business types who tend libertarian except where there's money to be made, ultra-reactionary anarchists, ultra-leftists utopian anarchists, people who call themselves communists but are really socialists, people who call themsleves socialist but are really communists, people who will enthusiastically kiss the ass of anybody who wraps themselves in a flag, and people who will gladly put a match to the same.
You can't sell to a mess like that. So we have the time honored marketing technique of market segmentation and product positioning. You have "Red Brand", which encourages people to think of themselves as "conservatives", and "Blue Brand" that encourages people to think of themselves as "progressives". Since you only have two choices, you pretty much find yourself queueing up with people who, if you look at them carefully, aren't very much like you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Well if the people who say they are democrats and pro-life (~40% last time I checked) than maybe one day abortion will hopefully end with free contraception for all. I rallied with Democrats for Life and they are good people, they know that the solution to abortion is going to be more social and economic than moral.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Why is that so better? The US has the second oldest continuous government in existance. Our system keeps the crazies out.
. . . then I'm all for it.
If not, however, this doesn't really matter that much.
Patrolling ftw
Am I supposed to take this seriously?
Frankly, this looks to me like nothing more than Republican bullshit. The use of the phrase "Democrat Party" (instead of the more proper "Democratic Party") gives it away.
Finding God in a Dog
The teachings of Jesus and Ghandi vs the teachings of reality. In reality, Jesus and Ghandi are dead. There is a difference between helping individuals, and helping the masses. I believe in helping individuals.
This is so typical of the old skool Socialist morons who are in politics.
The Democrats want to "give" something. OK, fine. "Give" all you want but who PAYS for this?
What they really want is to steal money from producers, pocket a bunch of it then pass on some over-regulated, clunky "benefit" to a few people.
What a desperate attempt to play on people's greed.
The really funny thing about this is broadband is only attractive to people who are mentally active, you know, the ones who earn the money the Dems want to steal.
This reminds me of when the state of Maryland tried to get me to pay unemployment tax for my companies employees. My company doesn't have any employees and I'm the only stock holder. Their office drones actually tried to tell me I should send them money so I could collect unemployment if my company fired me. Hoookay...
"Political platform" = "Here's what we propose to do if you put us in power."
Note that we are in an election year.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Well, congratulations. It's not often I see a right-wing opinion that's well reasoned and honestly presented. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.
I happen to think that if a bit of socialism is what it takes to not have poor people dying of tuberculosis on the streets, then sign me up for some socialism. You apparently differ, but I'm pleased to see that you acknowledge it honestly.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
.. that's the real problem. They can't agree yet on a set of themes that they feel will win.
Remember that this is an election year. Expect partisan bickering and lots of it. I bow humbly to the GOP masters
who've been able to use 9-11 for partisan gains on
whatever issue they wish to push at the moment. It's
truely awe-inspiring.
It is also interesting that you do not demand of our president and majority party in congress real solutions for solving pressing problems like: energy waste and dependence, fiscal burden of the entitlement programs, etc.
Actually, Kerry voted for the war in Iraq. His position was "I support the war in Iraq, but I would have done it better than Bush". So the situation's even worse than you made out.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
America lags behind other countries that have universal broadband deployment, Pelosi said; but the Democrats' agenda "guarantees" that every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years.
Translation: People who can afford it today will continue to pay for it, plus we will pay more so that people who can't afford it will get it for free or a substantially reduced price.
You know, I could get behind some of the Democratic Party's socialist ideas if they applied to everyone. Unfortunately it seems like I'm always "too rich" to be on the receiving end of the benefits - I just get to pay for them.
You want to have free (as in beer) internet access for EVERYONE, like libraries? Great - I'm for that - I'll pay some taxes for that.
You want to add a tax somewhere so that I can continue to pay for internet access AND pay for everyone else to have it too? No thanks.
Democrats support "energy independence" within ten years; health care for all American within five years; and "dignified retirement" (no privatization of Social Security) through an "AmeriSave" plan.
I'm all for the energy independence. But my guess is that "health care for all" will really mean I will continue to pay for my own plus pay for everyone else under me. Likewise "diginified retirement" will mean in addition to saving my own funds for retirement I'll be taxed to provide savings for others to retire on, too."
It's hard enough to provide for my own health care and retirement!
I'm tired of being asked to pay for programs that I can't take advantage of myself. If I pay for it, I should have the same level and cost of access as anyone else - just like a library.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
And, the side benifit is that the government will have us locked into a single universal form of communication that they control.
I mean, why develop high-speed packet radio, or cheaper sat based internet, or some sort of packet microwave network, or airship based relays, when the government can pay to lay cable all over rural areas... and since it is economically unviable to maintain, communication is wholly and completly dependent on the government.
Of course, it will be no big deal when the government says "Yeah, we will give you funding to build these lines, but we must have the ability to spy on people if you want the funding". And the feds will have huge leverage to threaten communities with ("you need that fiber optic funding, so don't jepordise it by going against my other bills!").
The government can have a glorious, highly controlled, highly tracked, form of communication that doesn't threaten the status quo.
Yeah, it is comforting to know that what FEMA did for New Orleans, the government is going to do for all of us when it comes to communications.
I don't think it's conservative and progressive, I think its conservative and liberal. The conservatives in this country are more progressive than the liberals. Liberals still are thinking back to the days of FDR, and the 1960s civil rights movement. Liberals arent even thinking about the future. Conservatives on the other hand seem to be thinking 50-100 years into the future. So I don't think the labels matter, it's simple, theres 2 parties, the party of no, and the party of ideas.
You can call it the red or blue party, but ultimately the red party has all the ideas and the blue party simple says no. The ideologies you break the country up into are just mood politics, and moods can change. A socialist can become a communist and then a capitalist. A capitalist can become a socialist and then a communist. So these labels arent the same.
In my opinion, most of the people who are anarchists are simply young kids who don't know that theres no such thing as anarchy. Even tribes in Africa and Native America had government, chiefs, and laws. There never was or will be true anarchy. The government may change between socialist and capitalism, and right now we are capitalism. Communism is dead.
I think most people who are socialists, should read more about how the economy works. I'm not pretending to be an economists expert, but from what I've read, socialism is an idea from FDRs time and does not apply anymore. The whole concept of a socialist society just will not work anymore and cannot work.
Over time, society will become more and more capitalist. I guess I'm being a realist here, but people need to keep up with the times. Saving social security is a lost cause, and its costing more to save it than to just dismantle it and save money in taxes. These social programs cost money, a lot of money. These social programs also are not good for the economy, if you know how the economy works. Ultimately, within out lifetime all social programs will be gone, and all this talk about socialism and communism will be like talking about ancient history, because these systems are ancient and not efficient enough.
"So you'd be against spending $40 less each month with that being offset by government spending?
I guarantee you - that is not the way it will work.
Here is how it will work. Everyone who is "rich" enough to currently able to afford $50/month for broadband will continue to pay $50/month for their broadband. But their will now be a $5 tax on top of that used to pay for everyone else to get government subsidized broadband.
It's just like the "Universal Access Charge" on your phone bill. You're going to end up with a "Universal Access Charge" on your broadband bill.
If the Democrats could come up with social programs that I pay for but get to take advantage of, I might support them. But so far, most social programs just become additional taxes for me to pay on top of what I'm already paying to provide the services for myself.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I guess you are a liberal, because you assume all conservatives are "greedy". It's not about selfishness, in fact it is selfish to be liberal. Liberals are the party of handouts and special interests. I'm not saying there arent conservatives who are greedy, but conservatives are trying to reduce the size of government and cut out the social programs. Conservatives are giving tax cuts while the greedy big government liberals are raising taxes? Please tell me how being conservative is equal to being greedy. Please explain how cutting taxes, reducing government spending, and promoting an efficient family oriented society is greedy. I'd think that if society did this that it would make people less greedy because people would be able to choose exactly who they want to support.
I agree with your goal, but I'm afraid that it's not possible.
Alexander Tyler said it best, I think...
A Human Right
Peloesi is recycling an Al Gore idea from 1999 that went no where. He wanted to solve the "digital divide" "problem". The last time they wanted to charge $50/month for modem lines. Gore wanted it included so it looked like the phone company was charging it. The phone company was going to make it a line on the bill showing it was Gore, not them for the huge increase in their bill.
This confirms what I have thought for a long time. The Democrats have no idea what to do. Except being against anything Dubya is for it seems. Will a real leader in the Democratic party please stand up! Sit down Kerry, Liberman, Kennedy, Peleosi, Dean, Edwards. You had your chance. Let a new guy try.
I attempt, but I sure as hell am not succeeding.
Our system keeps the crazies out.
ROFLMAO bwahahahah hahahah
Damn, Dude, that has got to be the single funniest thing I have ever read on this site.
You should throw in something about tipping the waitress or trying the veal though.
Some people might have actually believed that you were serious.
Absent, of course, are any details as to how they will accomplish it when they are the party out of power in Congress.
Oh, well then by all means, the Democrats should refrain from coming up with ideas.// This is not a sig.
And either way it's unamerican.
we have a federal republic.
Fly Fish? Participate in our forum
Absent, of course, are any details as to how they will accomplish it when they are the party out of power in Congress."
Beware such nonsense as desperate conservative demagoguery. Conservatives, like the annoying smart-assed jocks in high school, are good at saying things that sound derogatory but are really baseless and meaningless.
The question to be put to such wags is this: How would *you* get something accomplished as a party that has zero power in the government? There really isn't much you can do, is there?
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Errrr...
PR is for multi-seat bodies, like a legislature. The Electoral College is used for the Presidency, a single-seat office. I don't think you've thought through voting and representation issues as well as you'd like to think you have.
There are very good reasons why there are three different types of representation used for the House, Senate (pre-17th Amendment), and EC. Try reading the Federalist Papers sometime and educate yourself.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing PR used in one house of state legislatures. Congress has two houses, composed (again, pre-17th, a very very bad amendment) in two different ways, to serve as a balance and check against competing needs of the people being represented. This is a good idea. Yet most state legislatures use the same districted allocation for both houses. That makes no sense. There may be a relatively strong (~10%) political undercurrent across a state that is geographically distributed, and thus will never be able to carry a single district, so those people will never be truly represented. PR could help change that. I don't think it PR should be used to the exclusion of all other representation methods though.
Constitutionally Correct
I believe there are quite a few people who would instantly change their voting habits if they felt they weren't "throwing their vote away". The voting system itself is to blame for this. Just because you primarily supported Badnarik doesn't mean that you don't have a preference between Bush and Kerry...and since it seemed that they were the front-runners, it would be nice to have a say in the outcome of that race, yet without having to give up your support of the person you think is truly the best for the position! It's a quandary.
The solution (as I've posted several other places in this thread) is a Condorcet system. This restores freedom of conscience to the process - no longer would one have to forfeit his principles and values on the altar of pragmatism. No longer would you have to vote "for" the lesser of two evils, or "against" the greater of the two - you could vote for who you really want, and still influence the decision between the Evil Twins of the Duopoly.
Constitutionally Correct
"It's a crazy idea. Electricity is the toy of the upper class, not the bread of the lower classes. So they can use lightbulbs, big whoop. The market will eventually provide all the electricity to all those who *need* it anyways. Just another crazy 'Big Government' idea at work."
What this ignores is the tendency of the power companies to wire up only the highly profitable areas alone, and charge extra. Left to themselves, there were whole areas of the country that would *never* have gotten electricity.
But is this so bad? Wouldn't that have made more sense, since the market would have alllocated resources to the areas where electricity was needed, and thus we wouldn't have funded such a boondoggle?
But this ignores something crucial to the argument. Rural Electricity didn't just mean lightbulbs for men who worked outside anyways, it meant Laundry Machines so Ma could help out a whole day more, Pasteurization and Refridgeration equipment for the milk, etc. The infrastructure created the demand, in essence.
If you think the Internet is going to be important to 21st century businesses, then Rural Broadbandification is going to mean *something*. For God's sake, the Gov't is in the classic position to *do* something again! I.e., they'll run a business project at cost for a few years, figuring on American Ingenuity to pay them back with a better economy later. Leave this to Big Business and only the low-hanging fruit will get picked, and we'll have to continue to deal with broadband costs way bigger than that of the rest of the world and the inefficiencies *that* causes.
"But rolling out universal broadband access really isn't as hard as, say, transforming the middle east into a haven for democracy."
Is that what we're doing there? Transforming it into a haven?
They told me it was because Saddam had WMDs. Guess I didn't get the new memo.
The Dems promise "...that every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years." I guess my question is: what do they think is affordable? $5? $10? $15? $20? A follow-up question is: how do they define "broadband"? What kind of speed are we talking about here? Lastly: now that I have government-provided broadband, I need something to access it with. Mac, PC, Linux or something else? PS: where do I get more cheese?
It's not my fault you can't be bothered. The only one forcing you to vote Democrat is you, since you can't be bothered to get off your lazy ass and spread the good news. The only reason your vote would be wasted is because of you. Shame on you.
Who do you think would get the most votes, the guy giving out more empty promises on his 5 million dollar TV ad, supported by lying PACs, or the person who comes to your door, introduces himself personally, and asks to have a short chat with you about the issues that concern you, and what is his candidate's position on each of them. Sure, you won't convince 100% of the people in your neighborhood to vote your way, but if people would just get off their fat ass and act like they care what happens to the country, it would make a difference, even if your personal vote didn't.
I've been reading about the New Deal recently, and it's perhaps interesting to draw parallels between the electrification of America and the current limits on broadband expansion. In both cases it is/was basically rural folks and small towns that are/were doing without. In the 1930s, the electric companies didn't see any reason to build miles and miles of wires for just a few farmers, even though they would be grateful and profitable customers -- they were making great money milking the urban areas. We've got a very similar situation now where our very few broadband providers (what happened to competition... oh well) can just ignore an area, and when a town decides to step up and provide broadband as a municipal utility, they go to the state government to get them to ban towns from doing it!
There's a role for government here, as there was in the '30s -- those farmers deserved to have electricity for their farm machinery, lights, washing machines, etc, and small town and rural folks today deserve the chance to not be left behind as we race into the 21st century.
Considering the role it served in the 19th and 20th centuries, this initative should be considered as the new purpose for the post office. It doesn't hurt that they also have a distributed infrastructure to just about every US business and residence.
Information wants to be Free. Useful Information will cost you.
... this means that some Americans will be forced to pay for broadband access by other Americans. Gee, nothing new there - both the Republicans and the Democrats have been milking the taxpayer for election bribes for decades.
f
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/BushToo-X.gi
The bottom line is, it's very easy not to be poor in this country. All you need to do is make some basic good decisions:
/choice/ to do these things, then odds are very good that you will not be poor for long.
/do/ the above but also /excel/ at them, the world can be your oyster.
/not/ to do these things, well, I'm afraid I don't feel much sympathy for how your life turns out.
- Stay in school and graduate from high school.
- Don't do drugs.
- Dont' get pregnant.
- Get a job - any job - and stick with it.
If you make the
If you have talent and ambition and can not just
If you make the choice
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Damn, of all the days to not have a mod point for you. That's some well-stated thinkification.
This new "Democrat Party" is just asking to be sued for trademark infringement from the Democratic Party.
I'm just waiting for someone to start the "Republicratic Party" now,
they'll make a killing selling their name when the Democratic and Republican Party finalize their merger.
Why do people think that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away? It may not make a difference, but in a country of 270 million (or whatever it's up to), the only way you can possibly make a difference at all at election time is to set fire to a polling station or something. Not that I'm suggesting arson or vandalism. Wait, I take that back. Next election, vote Arson!
a unified stance on the war.
Seriously - whether you are for or against it, the war in Iraq is the political issue in the United States. Democrats have blasted Bush over the war in various ways, but when push comes to shove, the Democratic Party is more able to rally around buying everyone broadband than it is about whether or not we ought to be fighting this war in Iraq.
Republicans should celebrate the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Kerry and Kennedy. If the Democrats had real leaders and real party, Republicans would be screwed in November. As it is, rolling out with "well, we're not sure about the war, but you should free internet", is just not going to pass any reasonable sanity test.
This is my sig.
This whole concept that one of the parties in our political system would be able to muster enough influence, smarts, financing, and material resources necessary to guarantee broadband access to all would be laughable if it were not taken so seriously by otherwise rational adults.
This is nothing but pandering to buy votes with taxpayer money. Again.
And even if our national will became so unified that we thought universal broadband access would be a good thing, I certainly would not agree that it were so. After all, if we swelled government to the enormous sluggoth that it would have to be to create such an infrastructure, and assuming that it could actually be built in that time (or even in ten years!) who OWNS that infrastructure? You and me? NOPE. It becomes federal property, with all the controls, spying, red tape, taxes, and ineffective management that all government projects of this ilk exhibit.
No thank you.
You are exactly right!
Aside from the fact that few people are bargain hunting when their life is on the line, the main reason health care is expensive is because the bulk of the people who are paying for it (the insured) have no idea how much they are paying!
My wife and I just had a baby via C-section. Do you know how much it cost me? The whole shebang - hospital visit, surgeon, everything? $120.
How much did it really cost? About $14,000.
There is no incentive to shop around. If insurance companies said, "Look, we will give you $14,000 to have a baby. What you don't spend, you can keep!" people would be shopping around like crazy.
So long as the true costs of health care are hidden, costs will be sky-high.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
"Or it could simply be made less expensive overall."
So, which scenario do you think is more likely to come to pass under the Democratic Party:
A) Legislation that reduces the cost of health care so that more people can afford it.
B) Legislation that simply taxes those of us already paying for our own health care to pay for everyone else?
I highly suspect that as usual the plan will be to enact taxes that I will have to pay for to create a subsidy program that I won't be able to partake in.
I'd probably vote Democratic in an instant if there was reassurance that the social programs created would be equally available to everyone, like a library. Unfortunately, it never works out that way. I'm expected to pay for it, but not allowed to use it.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Why can't they let those of who want broadband get it and pay for it? My grandparents don't want broadband and certainly don't want to pay for it via taxes. I have a T1 in my house and have no desire to pay for a broadband connection I'll never use via my taxes. The internet is a great tool, but its not required to live.
The government should stick to being a government of the people - not of providing services for every conceivable desire.
This is a terrible idea. We don't want to give the govornment any more control than they already have over the Internet. When they're paying the bill, they say what goes. Keep it private. We don't want any more censorship.
I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
Very interesting. I went and looked up the Condorcet system, if anyone else was unfamiliar with it, here's a page with a good (IMO, anyway) example:
http://condorcet.org/rp/intro.shtml
I think you would get a lot more "compromise" candidates that way, although I wonder whether that's really not what we have right now -- candidates that are almost identical to each other and struggling to be inoffensive rather than supportable, because voters tend to cast their ballots 'against the person they dislike more.'
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You know ... there was a society once which tried its best to live by the rules you describe: free market and private charity. You can read all about it in the works of Charles Dickens.
You want to live in THAT society? You're crazy.
When the party has no core values, and no core beliefs, the only thing left is to bribe the voter with handouts. Not that the Republicans have too many core values and beliefs, but at least they have some. The Democrats don't have any anymore. The only common ground they can offer to their base is a seething visceral hatred of Bush. But that's not enough to win elections, and so they resort to outright bribery.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
In fact, a head tax was originally the one of the only kinds of direct taxes the federal government could levy on its citizens. Direct taxes had to be apportioned among the states by population - ergo, a head tax.
Constitutionally Correct
Conservatives on the other hand seem to be thinking 50-100 years into the future.
Sorry, I find this amusing. I'm no fan of the Dems, but I think they are more forward thinking than the Repubs. A few years ago George W. was saying that we shouldn't conserve because it is against the American way (even though energy will become more scarce and most money spent on energy goes to foreign countries, increasing our trade deficit). Also, Republicans are out of control in their government spending, through pork projects and military budgets. I don't think the Democrats would spend any less, but at least they would raise taxes so we wouldn't be mortgaging our future generations.
Also, with your two word, mutually exclusive descriptions, I don't exist. I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative (unfortunately, something both parties seem to be moving away from). I think we should have small government and not impede people's personal lives. I think there are a lot more libertarians out there than people believe, but since we only have two viable parties (for a number of reasons), most libertarians choose the lesser of two evils. This country desperately needs a 3rd and 4th party, but the institution is keeping them out.
We cannot pretend the middle east doesnt exist. That statement is just ignorant. We had to take Iraq to have leverage against Iran. I admit the war did not make sense to me at first, but in the long term, it does make sense. In order to strategically be in a position to deal with Iran we had to take Iraq. It's just basic geography that Iran and Iraq are near each other. Iran has stated that Isreal does not have a right to exist. We MUST defend Isreal, because of the economics of the matter. Isreal is very important to the world economy and economic system, far more important than Iran, and if we have to make decisions purely based on economics, it makes perfect sense to choose Isreal over Iran at this time. Isreal is a trusted ally of the United States. Iran is a new kid on the block. Why should we trust Iran?
I do not think we can allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. Iran's current President said Isreal does not have the right to exist, with language this strong how can we allow that particular President to gain access to nuclear weapons? In this situation we simply have to support Isreal.
If you have a better plan to deal with Iran, let me know, but I don't think the option exists to simply forget about the middle east. I think we have to deal with the middle east now that we are there.
I don't think impeaching the President is good for the country. Who exactly are we going to replace him with, and why exactly do we want to look this way to the international community? There are a lot of reasons why impeachment is not a good idea.
The Democrats have no party platform and worst of all, the Democrats arent strong enough. It's not that the Democrats don't know how to govern, the problem with the Democrats is that they don't know how to do foreign policy and international security. Democrats need to focus on security and the global war on terrorism. The main problem with the Democrats is that they don't have plans on how to make America more secure and how to deal with global terrorism. The Democrats had the chance to step up and announce that we need more and better surveillance but they blew it. They had the chance to step up and explain how we have to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons at all costs and they blew it. They had the chance to discuss how we will protect the ports, and secure the homeland, and they blew it. Democrats are getting chances and are basically using these chances to bash Bush, and people don't want to hear constant Bush bashing as if these are ideas. If their best idea is impeaching Bush then I'm sorry but they are actually living up to their reputation as the party of no, and the party of Bush bashers. I'm not going to support a party that only knows how to bash the President.
Democrats need to be discussing security right now, they need to be discussing how we can win the global war on terrorism, and they need to present their strategy or at least a list of things they will accomplish. If Democrats plan to use the law, then they need to discuss what tough new laws they plan to pass or at least let us know that they will do something besides raise taxes. Democrats need to talk about how they will increase our security. A lot of voters will simply vote for whichever party is stronger. Right now Republicans are the strong party.
These faith based initiatives are better than charity. NASA is a waste of money in its current form, and while I do think we need NASA for space research, we need to classify this research and privatize it. The space industry should be either classified or privitized for national security reasons.
What proven trusted NGO are you talking about? How can any NGO be more trusted than the church? Why do you believe church and state should be seperate? Maybe that was the problem, maybe we do need to combine church and state. Why do we need huge burocracies? and who are these professionals you speak of? On the issue of the enironment, pollution does not benefit anyone, but once again you have to prove that it is profitable to clean it up, you have to offer a plan.
The only point you made in your rant was on pollution, yes pollution is bad, and yes the conservative thing to do would be to protect the environment, but it has to be profitable to protect the environment. You cannot convince people to do something just be saying it needs to be done, you have to build the industry first, and prove that it's profitable. If cleaning up the environment were as profitable as messing it up, then you'd be getting somewhere. If these alternative energy companies were as profitable as oil and coal, then perhaps oil and coal companies would buy these companies up. You have to discuss apply economics to every arguement and policy decision you make, because every decision is based on the economics. If it's profitable enough its good, if its expensive then its bad. Destroying the environment is very expensive in the long term, but in the short term its very profitable.
What is their plan? Do they plan to revamp national intelligence? do they plan better surviellance? Do they plan to invest our tax dollars in security? If the Democrats were to for example, run on increasing the defense budget, or doubling the defense budget, or increasing the budget for national security in exchange for higher taxes then maybe they'd win. But if the Democrats run on raising taxes and giving the money to social programs and universal healthcare, they will DEFINATELY lose. The Democrats have no chance in hell of winning with a weak platform. You know this, I know this.
The Democrats fail to understand that we need a diversity of wealth. We need income diversity. Capitalism provides income diversity, and the greater the income diversity, the stronger the economy is in the long term. Sure in the short term socialism sounds good because in the short term it might make sense, but in the long term, if we are going to organize society, we need income diversity. Capitalism and society only works because of income diversity, not in spite of it. If everyone had the exact same income, then our entire society would be completely different, we'd have less carrots to offer people.
There are some aspects of Marxism which make sense, full employement if it were possible makes sense, but communism just will not work in reality.
The Republicans reward the wealthy because that makes sense logically. It makes sense to reward success and punish failure. This is basically how it works in the office, if you do a bad job you usually get less pay, or a lower title, or transfered to some lower job. Under the Democrat's, they'd fire the person and give them a reward for being fired.
On the surface, it seems the Republican way of dealing with people is cold, but in reality this is simply what works in practice. If you are training a dog to do tricks, and the dog succeeds at doing these tricks, and you give the dog a treat, the dog learns to do tricks for treats. The Democrat would give the dog the treat either way, and this makes training the dog less time efficient.
As far as race, race is a cultural issue mainly. The racial issues which are the issue today won't be the issue in 20 years. The genetic technology we are discovering now may allow for people who have enough money to select the race of their baby, so eventually we will all be the same race anyway. The difference will be the difference in income. Let me make this clear, we have never lived in a world of equality, we have always lived in a world of inequality. The goal of capitalism itself is to create fiscal inequality. The goal of capitalism is diversity of wealth, diversity of income. After the problems of race are solved, by technology, all that will be left are income issues.
Democrats are in the wrong century because they ignore the fact that 100 years from now these debates on race won't exist. We all will be the same race either through technology making everyone the same race or through breeding, either way the racial issue is very temporary on the century scale. The income inequality is an ancient problem, if you want to consider it a problem, and it is neccessary. You look at Rome, in Rome we had the barbarian masses of poor, and the rich in Rome. You look in Egypt, you had the workers building the Pyramids and you had the rulers. Look at Europe, you had the kings, the princes, the nobility, then you had the slaves. Society has ALWAYS been set up like this. It always WILL be like this, so instead of trying to change what is unchangeable, focus on solving problems which people actually want solved.
You want to work on the environment? Go ahead. You want to work on educating the poor? go ahead. And if you want people to have the oppurtunity to get rich, go ahead and create that, but you arent going to get far if you want to change the entire social order of society when it has been this way for thousands and thousands of years. It was this way in Africa before racial slavery and the concept of races was invented. Egypt had classes. Rome had classes. Europe had classes, and America has classes. Race as it exists now will not be the same thing 100 years from now.
There are places in this country that are still on Party Lines (telephony def.) and some that don't even have phone service at all. How the hell do they expect to get "broadband" out to those areas? Or are they planning massive subsidies or redfining the definition of broadband?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
The same fools who couldn't pass the simplest motion, namely the one that said, "We think wiretapping people without a warrant is wrong, please don't do it again." are the same people who are going to bring broadband to everyone?
Does anyone believe this?
[o]_O
You think there were social programs in the ancient world? No.
If you want to go to college, the community or the church will pool its money to start a college fund for you to go. If you want to build a road, pay the toll or let the local governments handle it. The federal government should not handle these projects.
The poor are not going to rise up. Africa is poor, and they arent going to rise up, because Africans want to be rich too. China is not going to rise up, because they want to be rich. Don't you want to be rich?
No, we are not a socialist society. We are a capitalist society. If America was about socialism, we wouldnt have a third world in poverty because we'd be donating all our wealth to help them. We are a capitalist society, accept it and move on. We have the worlds richest people, richest companies, and strongest economy, and this is not because we redistribute the wealth, its because we protect wealth. When you protect wealth, it keeps the economy strong.
"Democrat Party" is the disparaging term which Republicans use for the "Democratic Party". It's sort of like calling Mormons "Morons", another disparaging term which rightwingers throw around.
Not appropriate for a Slashdot story.
did it become the government's job to provide subsidized broadband access to all?
If you can't afford it, don't get it.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
to a bridge to no where in some other state than yours
/sarcasm
Whoa whoa whoa. Back up there. It wasn't to "no where". That $250M bridge was going to connect a village of 50 people to their nearest road. Which is obviously the viable option since we can't have the government just giving those 50 people H2's and snowmobiles.
Or maybe we should just leave Alaska (and its oil) to the polar bears and karibu?
Clearly the cheap way to do it would be public wireless at least in large metropolitan areas. As some one with anarchist tendencies I'm genuinely ambivalent as to whether the government is the best social institution to do this, not just in terms of bureaucracy, but censorship. If the govt. controls your broadband connection how long before little Johnny shouldn't be able to see breasts, violent video games, and ideas from "terrorist" supporting countries like "old Europe." All internet connections being filtered like some libraries are now would just frankly suck.
On the other hand if money is to be spent by the goverment at all I'd rather see it spent on public infrastructure like trains, health care, and wi-fi than war.
Also I have question is there a technical reason why wi-fi couldn't be done with longer wavelength lower frequency transmitters? The idea of blanketing the country with microwaves does make me a little leary as at least some studies seem to indicate that prolonged exposure to microwaves COULD cause cancer. I'm not on the luddite ban cell phones and wi-fi bandwagon by any means but lets just say it makes me a little nervous despite enjoying my ibook with wi-fi.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
JKerryyy shouts, "Pls sign my guild charter, it's called the democratic front for the liberation of Azeroth. Also send me your real email address and get a free crate of ketchup"
Nypartygurl says, "How do I make my sword glow?"
Abbbyhoffmann says, "Why do I keep getting disconnected?"
And let's face it, the people who were upset about Clinton getting it on wtih the intern wouldn't be voting democrat anyway.
I've never understood this logic. Which party is it that's against sexual discrimination in the work place? Who is it that objects to workplace flirtation between managers and subordinates on the grounds that the disparity in power between them might create a "hostile work environment"? And come on, an intern and the leader of the free world (at least back then)--if that isn't a disparity in power I don't know what is.
Meanwhile, the party of fiscal responsibility and small government is building a police state on credit.
Go figure.
--MarkusQ
You just described the libertarian principles in a nutshell:
-limited government
-free markets
-personal freedom
-individual responsibility
According to your post you are a libertarian (lower case "L").
Don't believe me?
Take this test and find out:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
Libertas in infinitum
Dumbo + Jackass = DumbAss
Tired of DumbAss government? Vote for a third party!
Libertas in infinitum
In any case, the Republican Party says the Democrats' real agenda involves the censure and possible impeachment of President George W. Bush.
Apparently the Republican rally cry will be...
Don't vote for the Democrats because they want to be mean to the guy that most of you don't like anyway!
Anyway, it's curious that all the wingers are posting as anonymous, apparently afraid to admit they support a failed ideology in public.
Didn't the Democrats promise "health care for all" back in 1992 ?
(I'm not a Republican -- I'm completely in agreement with "Darth Nancy's" characterization of the Republicants.)
Who cares if its insulting. It's what the world both wants and needs. Do you think anyone WANTS to be a racial minority? People do not choose their race. Do you think anyone WANTS to be gay? People didnt choose that. In the future you WILL be able to choose, and just as people dont want to choose autism, or down syndrome, or asthma, they arent going to choose racial minority. Fat people arent going to choose to have a fat baby. Midgets arent going to choose to have a midget baby. Dumb people arent going to choose to have a dumb baby.
You can say how insulting it is all you want, People want their babies to have a better life, we all know that racial equality will never exist until theres only one race left. We all know that as long as there are many other races, there will be wars. We all know that racism will exist as long as race exists. You are the naive person who thinks that you can end racism in any other way. People are racists because they don't like difference. They don't like how the people of other races look. So in the future, we all will be the dominant race, because thats the logical conclusion. I think this is the only viable conclusion.
I don't think we will have gays, retards, fat people, or retarded people either. Everyone will be aryan, assuming that is the dominant race, everyone will be thin, everyone will be straight, most babies will be male. Most babies will be intelligent.
No appologies.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution explains all the things which Congress has the right to do with your tax money. Here is a transcript of the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Now, where in Article I, Section 8 is Congress given the power to establish near-universal broadband? Is the government a corporation?
It's just more socialism coming from one of the anti-American parties. Don't expect any better from the Republicans though; they're just as socialistic.
I presume you modded my post "flamebait" because you support one or the other major party and yet couldn't think of a cogent way to justify the disparity between their words and their actions. While I appreciate your dilemma (I can't justify it either) you might consider that the problem is with the parties and the people who support them, not with people who point out their hypocrisy.
In other words, in this case I'll take your "flamebait" mod to mean "Insightful but emotionally uncomfortable for me." If I'm mistaken, and you can offer a cogent defense of either party in the contexts mentioned, I'd be glad to hear it.
--MarkusQ
And he pulled that pretty turn of phrase straight out of his ass. None of those phases is relevant in the context of Britain, France, Spain, Russia, or any particular Chinese dynasty. If you squint hard enough, you might be able to apply it to Rome, but then any vague historical handwaving can be applied to Rome if you squint hard enough.
My other body is also not wearing any.
Define "rich" and "poor" first; then I will tell you the choice I've already made.
Where do people get this totally insane idea that the wealthy cannot protect themselves and therefore need the protection of government? How do you think they got wealthy? (hint: it wasn't by being pushovers.)
Your comments about "giving away wealth to the third world" show you haven't a clue what socialism actually is (hint: you are talking about pure communism on a global scale, not socialism on a national scale).
You need to read more history! Start with the Spartans and the Helots, compare and contrast with Athenian democracy. Figure out why slavery is perfectly OK under capitalism, and why elimination of slavery is a socialist ideal. Eventually you might find out the differences between socialism, pure communism, politburo communism, and dictatorship. Then you might be sufficently prepared to consider market socialism, or social democracy. Once you get those under your belt you can move on to trying to understand the Democratic Republic (which is what the United States still is, for the moment at least) and how government-regulated capitalism can accomplish socialist goals (like social mobility, elimination of racism and slavery, public education, public fire departments, etc. etc. etc.) and create wealth at the same time.