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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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]
... 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.
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..
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?
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.
5-year patents: That means the drug companies have to recoup their costs in 5 years. Since it costs >$1B to bring a drug to market in the US, this would make prescription drugs unaffordable to poor people, the opposite of your intended effect.
Business-based health care: This would increase offshoring and eliminate low-paid jobs since businesses tend to do things in the most economical way.
Single payer: eliminating insurance companies and paperwork is estimated to halve the cost of health care.
Also, give people an incentive to shop for less expensive and more effective health care by publishing costs and results. Make it more like auto repair.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Liberal or conservative? That's just not correct. Our republicans aren't conservatives and our democrats aren't liberals.
As a very simple example, let's look at where the budget has gone under the Bush administration, assisted by a republican congress: Straight up into the stratosphere. Is that conservative in *any* way? I thought not.
Frankly, this is a false dichotomy when presented as it is in American politics. 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. Socially, I tend to agree more with the liberal side of things as presented, and I'm a great believer in people having the freedom to do pretty much what they want as long as they don't cross a line to hurting others.
So I reject your assertion that I must choose from 'conservative/liberal', translate that into 'republican/democrat' and vote against my conscience a big chunk of the time.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
I don't think you have to agree with either party on every single issue, you just have to choose a party.
You're an idiot. You don't have to choose a party. There's nothing about parties in the constitution. Shit, in his farewell address George Washington warned us not to fall into the trap of party politics.
Both parties are full of shit. It's time america realized it and found a real choice to make.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
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
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
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)
Nice numbers, but I question the optimism here.
I'm single and make more money than the median or average household in my area, I don't remember which stat it is.
I own a home, but cannot afford it anymore. No, I have not lost my job or got a paycut.
No one in my area who makes an average household income owns a house that I know of.
Microwaves and VCRs are practically free. Microwaves are cheaper to operate than an oven.
Back in 1995 my parents bought a very nice home for $250,000 and they are far from poor. I have no idea how a poor person can own a $300k house, unless it is something that is very old and rundown and its the property that is now worth that much, but they probably can't afford the taxes on it.
You can get a car for $1000 or so. Public transportation is almost nonexistent in most of the US. I took a cab the other day and it was $24 for one way that was not that far from my house. At $12/day inclusive, that is $360/month, so a $1000 car seems like a better deal to me.
Now, the overweight thing is not a good thing. Its because they eat poor people's food like McDonalds and other fried crap, and its not nutritious, nor are they healthy. In fact, these types of overweight people will be likely to have a number of health issues.
Later in the article is says, "The Census Bureau counts as poor any household with cash income that is less than the official poverty threshold--which, in 1997, was $16,404 for a family of four."
I don't see how a family of four can get overweight and have a $300k home with a car and things.
But then again, I don't see how a family of four, I would assume that at least 2 could work, so thats $8k/yr, or $666/mo, or $166/week that each of the two has to make to get that. Unless your disabled, I don't see how someone can work fulltime and not make more than that. I know plenty of people that do not work fulltime, and are not "poor".
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
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
What is the liberal plan for dealing with Iran? What is the liberal plan for national security? What is the liberal plan for dealing with terrorism?
Liberals seem to want bigger government, thats fine, but whats the plan? Liberals want big government to give out handouts or tax cuts? Liberals want bigger federal government to fight terrorism or to fund social programs?
These social programs arent the governments business. The Democrats are wanting to socialize everything, socialized medicine, socialized education, public this, socialized that. The problem with socialized life is it's often lower quality, and at the same time the government gains more control over your life. Suddenly the government picks and chooses who wins and loses, suddenly the government decides who gets what healthcare and who controls what. Why do we want to increase the power of the federal government? That's not conservative.
Democrats claim to have solutions but they never outline their goals. I'm not asking for the ideas, but just show us what the goals are. They want to bring down the national debt? Ok, first explain why we should bring down the national debt, then explain how. They want to support the UN? Okay, first explain why we should rely on the UN, and how. Democrats need to just create a concrete plan, I don't mean just a list of issues, but an actual plan on how they plan to get from A to B, complete with tactics and strategy. The Republicans have the PNAC, what do Democrats have? What is the Democrats PNAC?
Fuck no. That's no poverty. That's living rich. If you can afford fast food, you can afford rice and beans. Yes, you leftist cunt, I grew up on rice and beans. We sure as hell couldn't afford fast food. Most people in the world would be thrilled if they could afford rice and beans instead of just rice.
When I was in a similar situation as described above (without the fast food, the fatness, the TV or the air conditioner) I was pretty happy with where I was. However, I haven't been taught to whine about being poor and vote democrat. I was tought to to side with whomever had more guns. When you have notthing, then you understand poverty.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Well, if broadband internet becomes a "Right", I'm sure as hell glad that I don't sell computers or internet access...
Because failure to provide these things would become "denying someone their Rights", right?
of course, the bathroom typically has a soft floor and no sewage or hot water, at least two of the bedrooms are less than fifty square feet, there's a whole in a corner of one and a leak in another, no insulation in most or all rooms... you get the idea. of course, all these places have a porch, three bedrooms, whatever, so they must not be "truly" poor, right? bite me.
i've done plenty of inner-city missions work, too, although not nearly as extensive. you want me to give you a tour of west philadelphia some time? oakland? brooklyn, around where my father grew up? DC? let me take you for a walk around some of the neighborhoods where even the sort of poverty you don't think is "true" poverty is a pipe dream.
i've heard the argument that there's no "true" poverty in this country before. it continues to just make me angry, and demonstrate the profound, saddening ignorance of the speaker. poverty in America is not hard to find; hell, if you live in the right places, it's hard to avoid. are there interesting questions about how we define and deal with poverty? are there problems with our classifications and definitions? is our understanding of the situation less-than-perfect? of course. but you conclusion that there's "almost no true poverty in the US" is ludicrous, stupid, offensive, ignorant, blind, and downright incorrect.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
No, that is not poverty. A few years ago, my sister moved to Mexico City with her Mexican husband. His family is very poor. He, my sister, and his whole family lived in a small three bedroom house (it became three bedrooms, because he built a make-shift structure on the roof for my sister's room). They had hardly any money, and job that paid very little. They had no TV or air conditioner, and they considered themselves fortunate to have an oven. When talking about lifestyles and cutting back on spending (in my American view), she talked about how they made it (they are doing much better now in Puerto Vallarta). Breakfast, lunch, and dinner consisted of tortillas with eggs... until the end of the week when they could not afford eggs so they just ate tortillas.
The example you raise is very American-centric. There are many people who would be happy to have a job -- any job -- in this world. They would be thrilled to have even one square meal every day -- let alone McDonald's hamburgers with a soda pop. Most Americans do not have to worry about whether their water is sanitary, and even this is related more to environment pollution in specific areas rather than lack of money. The poor here in America also have far more options for employment than most people in the world. You can almost always get a job at McDonald's, if nothing else, and it has options for advancement that can even lead eventually to owning your own store. Compare this to the future offered to the street kids of Bangladesh.
I do not want to be calloused to America's "poor". Even with their relative wealth compared to the rest of the world, it would take sacrifices that I am not sure I could make at this point to live at their standard of living. There is no doubt that their lives can be far more difficult than my own. We should reach out and help the poor in our country when we can. But let us keep it in perspective here. There is a reason why Mexicans are pooring illegally into our country. The poor here are far better off than they are in Mexico, and Mexico is even better off than many other third-world countries.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
From the GP:
Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.
Note that of 36.5 million "poor", these are 2% and 0.5% respectively. They don't use percentages (like in the other factoids) because it doesn't sound as impressive, and this is a nice example of how what numbers you choose to display can convey a misleading impression without actually lying. These are exceptional cases, probably people who just weren't working the year of the survey, and thus met the income criterion, but really aren't that "poor" (yet). In any case that still leaves 98% who aren't in these categories.
What burns me about people saying the government should provide this, the government should provide that ... is what you don't realize is that what the government provides has to come FROM someone. So you're basically saying that someone who made bad choices is entitled to the labor of someone who didn't. That pisses me off.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
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.
Well, not to be heartless here but "true" poverty in my mind is very different from what I see on the streets of the USA. Yes, we have poor people and yes, they struggle. And I am certain you saw some of that in your mission work and house-building work.
But struggling to get your car working or to pay your bills or to patch your house is very very different from struggling to:
a) Evade the rebel army that lurks all over your country (see Sudan)
b) Eat - most "truly" poor people have a very hard time finding food for themselves and their family. See many parts of Africa.
c) Shelter yourself. I am quite certain that ANYONE who is hanging in one of the refugee camps would gladly trade their tent for the 3BR shack you describe in your post.
I am not saying there aren't some of those folks here in the US. I am sure there are. In fact, I've spent some time down in the Valley -- near the TX/Mexico border and even there, the standard of living for the "poor" is WAY above the standard of living of the "poor" in the rest of the world.
I think that is the point the GP was making. That being "poor" here in America is arguably better than being "poor" somewhere else in the world.
(sidenote: this discussion reminds me of a Sam Kinison comedy routine -- "the rest of the world dreams of being homeless in America. The homeless here eat better than 1/3 of the worlds population - and that's just from the dumpsters")
I think it is more like the phone and electric power companies that are forced to provide service to everyone, even if they lived in a rural area. I'm sure stringing those power and phone lines out to my grandmother's mouse a few miles outside Antlers, Oklahoma didn't make the phone company any money. They still have to provide service if she wants it and they can't gouge her.
Under this proposal, she could get broadband if she wanted it. She probably doesn't want it, but she is selling her house and if a family with kids buys it, then maybe they would want broadband.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I don't want any parties! I strongly support many ideas from all major parties. It has come down to a pissing contest to see who can gain control. It has nothing to do with running the country. When a candidate starts getting serious about running for pres. he/she tends to lean in to the middle from his/her true left or right position.
I would prefer to see a cleaner representative form of government. For instance: a local community get together and appoints a board to handle local issues. These people should be their neighbors, known and trusted to be wise individuals. This local board would appoint two from among themselves to represent at the city level... This pattern would continue all the way up to the national level. In this way, the pool of political "talent" would be known and trusted by their neighbors.
The national body would appoint a president and vice president from among themselves for an 8 year term. Each year, there would be a confidence vote. If the pres. or vice pres. did not retain a simple majority, a new election would be held. After the new election, the new pres. would move up beside the old one for a clean hand-off of power where the old one would trade off any necessary national secrets, etc. The old pres. would simply step back down, without dishonor, and be a part of the congress again until his term is up (unless impeached for crimes).
A method like this would completely rid us of the power hungry party system, all the posturing, and the "throwing the baby out with the bath water" that happens now when the power shifts from one party to the next.
There would, of course, have to be some sort of safeguards put in place for the public to rise up and throw the whole bunch out if there were problems. (that would be fun!)
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
If there was no poverty what would be the incentive to work?
Whaaa? I don't think that the GP was talking about taking lazy poor people and puting them up in mansions; i think he was talking more about making sure that people dont sleep on the streets at night
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.
Most people actually argue in favor of taking better care of the children of the poor, rather than the poor themselves. That's why federal and state aid is usually tied to the number of children. The hope is that by giving those children a better start than their parents had (for example, keeping them in school, and with enough money for lunch) that they get an education that helps them not be poor in the next generation. What bad choices do you think children living in poverty made, exactly? Didn't cry loudly enough when they were taken home from the hospital?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I agree with your sentiment, halfway. What pisses me off about your type of argument, however, is that it commits the reverse error of assuming that everything that a person experiences in life is something they can make a choice about. Not everything in your life is under your direct control.
Proper social policy needs to meet these two aspects of reality in the middle, balancing choice with a safety net for the things we can't make choices over. National healthcare has been demonstrated to work beautifully, we just need to implement it. It doesn't mean you're suddenly going to be paying to keep drug addicts and bacon-eaters alive. Education and prevention would have to be a major component.
A great many people would benefit immediately from the simple preventative measure of access to annual checkups. If you can't get that, and many can't, the first time a professional sees your problems is when they're full-blown problems and you go to the emergency room. That's a huge cost which has to be absorbed somewhere (either by themselves (in which case they get even poorer and become a bigger drag on the economy), or by government or insurance, in which case you pay for it (taxes, premiums)). The cost would be less to us all if these people could see a regular doctor.
If any decision you made in life would be compensated for by the government, and thus lead to a comfortable living ... why would anyone work at all? What would be the incentive to do your best let alone anything at all?
You're making an incorrect, implicit assumption. That is, that working hard and making good choices leads to success and rewards. For the most part, this is just not true. The number one predictor as to how "successful" a person will be is how much money their parents have. The majority of the wealth and resources in this country are not allocated to those who work hard, those who are particularly smart, or those who come up with innovative ideas. The majority of the wealth is allocated to those who inherited wealth and contacts from their parents and "let their money work for them" to make more money. Basically regardless of how hard the average person works, they will gather relatively smaller and smaller shares of the total wealth in the country as it concentrates into fewer and fewer hands. 5% of the population already controls more than half of it and they are controlling more every year, not because they are hard workers, but because it takes money to make money and if you have money you can use the power it brings to insure that the laws favor you.
I'm all for a fair system where hard work is rewarded with a representative share of the country's resources, but socialist policies in the US are not preventing that, rather they are encouraging that. They are also maintaining a slightly more even balance that amounts to bread and circuses that keeps the population from revolting and overthrowing that 5% who just happens to make up most of the government officials.
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
Yes, but only for jobs that payed more than the government subsidies.
Suppose the government provided everyone in the United States with all the vitamin fortified rice and beans they wanted and a free ten foot by ten foot apartment with a shared bathroom and kitchen at the end of the hall. Would someone working 14 hour days at WalMart for minimum wage just to have enough to eat and a place live continue to work? Maybe not. Would a CEO making 20 million dollars continue to work? Absolutely. Would a technical professional making 60 thousand a year continue to work? Probably.
Goverment subsidies don't make everyone give up their jobs - just the people with the very low paying jobs.
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.
The Republicans platform is a mix of classical liberalism (that's right) and religious fundamentalism.
This is only remotely true if by "platform" you mean "the lies they tell idiots who are apparently incapable of telling the difference between what people say and what they do to convince them to keep voting against their own best interests.
The actual Republican platform meaning what they actually do stand for is pure Fascism, extreme authoratarianism and utter blind rabid hatred of "Liberals" by which they mean "anything we want you to hate". Of course, there is religious fundamentalism but that's just to keep the rubes voting for their platform of hyper "capitalism" which is the primary driving force behind the "moral decay of our society" which is, of course, what these asshats claim to be against.
The current administration has concentrated much more and latter part of that, which is why there are soaring deficits and a lot of dissension among the ex-Reaganites that helped elect Bush.
Bush's administration is the direct legacy of Reagan's including promoting torture, support of terrorism in the name of fighting it, spending money they don't have like drunked sailors driving us into debt
*and* extremist religious zealots. Christ, the fundamental overriding legacy of the Reagan administration was 9/11 which W and crew ran with in a spree of constitutional ass wiping.
Hate to break it to you but this *is* the Republican platform and has been for pushing 30 years now.
The fact that there are still people spouting nonsense about how the Republican's actually stand for any of that nonsense that they've fought tooth and nail against for 30 years is sad, pathetic and utterly disgusting.
But we do throw the bums out periodically. Every 4-8 years for the President, and 2 or 6 years for legislators. It's how the system was designed.
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