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."

Comments

Pandering to their financial base, which is . . .

[LazloToth]

. . . . the porn industry.

Re:You have it all wrong.

[samkass]

There is only so far left you can go before it becomes a national security risk.

I call shenanigans! Bush has the worst national security record since Pearl Harbor, and he's considered one of the most conservative presidents since Reagan. I think some liberal policies, which tend to lead to a stronger economy at home and better attitudes toward the US abroad, would dramatically increase our national security.

Back on-topic, the "broadband for all" promise only matters to geeks, really. It will be great for the country, but most people aren't going to change their vote over it. When Al Gore championed the internet in the mid-80's and created the funding necessary to create the WWW technology and services, it took over a decade for it to improve worker productivity and the economy, but still led to ridicule for Gore and the Democrats.

Re:A Chicken in Every Pot

[ClioCJS]

Yet somehow your vote magically increased in value when you voted Republican or Democrat?

Um...... No.

Your vote was always one vote. It's value does not change based on who the winner or loser is. It's still one vote.

In fact, by playing into a system you admit isn't working, you become a minor traitor in my book.

Re:You have it all wrong.

[Clockwork Apple]

"There is only so far left you can go before it becomes a national security risk."

And as it turns out Bush has proved that when you go too far to the right, you become a GLOBAL security risk.

C.

income tax vs head tax

[ChristTrekker]

A poll (head) tax is quite fair. If every person is equal before the law, and every person - seeing them as individuals, not as bank accounts - has equal dignity and worth, then simply assess every person $X a year. Obviously X has to be relatively low, because there are poor people, and you shouldn't throw ppl in jail for failure to pay taxes just because they are poor.

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.