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.
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)
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."
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.
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?
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.
Thank God we have unbiased sources like the Heritage Foundation to warn us of the looming threat from the army of bionic poor people!
Read my blog.
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.
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
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".
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.
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!
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")
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
"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
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.
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.