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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Well it's simple, in this country we have conservatives and liberals. When in a situation of protecting national security, conservativism begins to make sense. Liberals are going too far to the left, right into the arms of bin laden. There is only so far left you can go before it becomes a national security risk.
I don't think you have to agree with either party on every single issue, you just have to choose a party.
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.
If this is an attempt to roll out a vision, then I'm willing to listen. I'm quite tired of the platform on which most of the party has been running, which is essentially, "We're not Republicans." That's not a platform that I can consider useful.
I've been asking for some time for Dems to come up with something more coherent. I may not support it, but at least I can consider the ideas and debate the pros and cons. I don't buy into socialized medicine, but if they have ways of narrowing the insurance gap, I'm willing to listen. I'm not sure how they intend to come up with broadband for everyone, but I'm willing to listen.
What I'm not willing to listen to is, "George Bush is a big liar and he's destroyed the country and that's a bad thing!" My response to people who come up with these kinds of lines is usually, "OK, what specifically is wrong, and how would you fix it?" The usual response to this is that he's a liar and he's destroyed the country and he needs to be removed. That's not a platform. That's a statement of hatred for the man, and it does nothing to address the issues that need to be addressed. (Third parties are often not much better with their complaints about the big two parties locking them out.)
If someone has ideas, be they Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or even from the Peace and Freedom Party, bring them forward. Let's talk. I may not agree with all (or even any) of them, but it's better than the partisan bickering we've got.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
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!
...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.
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)
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)
If you want to change the process, the only change that would make any difference is to have true proportional representation rather then the 'winner takes all' government that we have now. Of course, this would be extremely messy - coalitions, 'no-confidents' votes, etc. And there is the slight changes to the Constitution that would have to occur first...
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.
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".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Niccolò Machiavelli -- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.
Peace at any price was the mantra of pre-war (WWII) europe, and it didn't exactly work out the way they wanted it. Keeping our nose out of other people's business was the pre-war (WWII) policy of the US government, and it didn't work so well, either. Thankfully, we have a president who learned the lessons of 50 years ago, who is willing to stop problems before they escalate to the point where they cause 62 millinon deaths before it's over.
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?
I really can't consider myself a libertarian, either, although if I get drunk enough they sound pretty good. However, I try not to get drunk like that anymore, not since that wedding a number of years back... I DO like some of the Libertarian ideas, but they take it way too far IMHO.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
What I'm not willing to listen to is, "George Bush is a big liar and he's destroyed the country and that's a bad thing!" My response to people who come up with these kinds of lines is usually, "OK, what specifically is wrong, and how would you fix it?" The usual response to this is that he's a liar and he's destroyed the country and he needs to be removed.
I think the problem that I have is that he is ruining our long term goals.
Don't get me wrong... I voted for Bush in 2000 and abstained in the 2004 election because I didn't like the other side. I actually changed my political party from Republican to independant.
I wouldn't call him a liar, but he either had his facts wrong which means he is incompetant or had an agenda to skew the facts for going to war in Iraq 2003.
Do you realize, that this goes against all of our previous doctrine of first strike of all our presedients.
Yeah, we invaded Panama and Iraq previously, but these were reactionary measures to provocation.
We aren't supposed to be the bad guys. We are supposed to be non-involved unless forced to play our hand.
This has been our policy for over 200 years! Now, we are faced with a possible civil war in which if we pull out we are damned and we don't we are damned as well with the population of Iraq turning on us. It's the Vietnam scenario all over again.
Secondly, we still haven't found Bin Laden nor helped Afghanistan rebuild.
If it was me in the Whitehouse... I'd would have given Pakistan an ultimatium to hand him over or else we invade. Without the war in Iraq we had a blank check and morality on our side to do whatever we needed to do to get him. Now we are seen as a bigger enemy and more as a nation with an agenda.
Some of you might disagree with this, but do you remember the Bush speech where any nation that harbors terrorists would be targeted? We'll we aren't doing that now... That was bothers me about the Bush administration. They are not even trying to do what they said they would do.
And as far as running this country into the ground... What about our almost 8 trillion national debt? I thought being a republican was about being conservative... And not spending our nation into the ground like a Democrat!
I think the only solution we have now is to stick it out until Iraq can keep itself from becoming a vassal of Iran.
Then we will have to distance ourselves from Israel and cut ties with them. After that find alternative fuel sources and pretend the Middle east doesn't exist. That is pretty much our only hope for the future now with dealing with the middle east.
Otherwise, I think homeland security is a waste of money...
We don't need to spend billions of dollars on security on a threat that may never happen and the only thing we needed to do was lock the doors of our airliners to prevent 9/11 from happening again.
And whatever happened to the land of the brave. I'm wiling to die for my freedom, but why are we being cowards about the whole terrorism issue. If we have to live in fear and pass laws like the Patriot Act. Then why bother at all?
I think Bush, Nixon, and Regan were the last real republicans. The guy in the whitehouse is a pretender. But that is my opinion...
Oh and I want to mention this... The whole Dubai Ports incident was to make it so the Republicans in congress can distance themselves from the President so they can have a chance to win the elections come fall. Whether this was a setup by the President or just something the congress critters did on their own... I don't know.
But we will see more of this towards election... But for gods sake. I can't believe how many other Republicans are blindly following Bush. No democrat has done what he has done on this scale... (in fact no Republican either)
I just hope Rudolph Giuliani runs in 2008.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
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.
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
True. On the other hand, we didn't go invading Sweden either. I mean, hey, those guys look like Germans, kinda. Don't they?
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.
"better attitudes toward the US abroad"? I quote this twice because I disagree. Now, granted we've had 2 Democratic administrations (Clinton and Carter) and 5 Republican Administrations (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush) since 1970. Carter, despite how much of a statesman he became after leaving office, was a disaster both at home and abroad. Clinton oversaw a great rebirth in the economy, but its kind of difficult to give him credit for it. In fact the greatest growth came while he was most distracted by impeachment hearings. Nixon had his ups (China) and downs (Vietnam) in foreign policy and was pretty much a disaster at home. Bush elder and Reagan, in many ways, were unmatched in our foreign policy. But they had their ups and downs on the home front as well.
I'm of the firm belief that the economy is wholly independent of who sits in the white house. The feeling that if we elect a Dem, we'll have more money in the future or that if we elect a Republican, we'll have more money in the future, I think that that feeling is not only simplistic, but just plain wrong. Our domestic future is determined by our domestic present, and not who we elect.
I think the question of whether democrats or republicans are "better" at foreign policy may be a myth related to Carter's problems. Clinton was no saint (either on a personal level or otherwise) but he wasn't a complete disaster on foreign policy (maybe I'll get flamed for that statement).
The issue of who makes the US more liked world-wide has nothing to do with our actual foreign policy. (at least I hope not). I, as an American citizen, have no interest in making the US popular to other countries. I don't want it to be necessarily feared, though that is effective in many cases. The US is the richest and most powerful country in the world. We have armed servicemen on all 7 continents and a strong naval presence in all 4 oceans and in most major seas (like the Mediteranean, Baltic, North Sea, etc...) Are we the worlds policemen? yes and no. We are when it is in our interest to be so. In other cases we are content to let well enough alone. When the UN sends in troops, a good portion of these troops are American soldiers with American hardware. The Korean war was a UN engagement. As was Somalia and Bosnia. The first Gulf War was as well.
In many parts of the world, the US will never be popular. With the government, that is. I noticed on my trips abroad that as an American citizen, I was always treated with friendship and smiles. Of course, that is fairly limited, as I've never been to Africa or the Middle East. I was particularly taken with the way that Chinese citizens were in awe of me as an American and were always quick to say how cool they thought the US was. I guess my point here is that most people in other countries like America, despite what the media wants us to think, just like most people in America support Bush, despite what the media wants us to think.
Gore may have "championed the internet" but even if he did, and was ridiculed for it, the US congress had very little to do with the success of the internet. In fact, I'd say that the reason that Gore was crucified for his self-aggrand
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
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.
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.
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
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