Slashdot Mirror
Obama Stimulus Pours Millions Into Cyber Security
nandemoari writes "As his administration continues to work on a stimulus plan that can save America's economy, Obama's latest course of action will see millions of dollars being allocated to heighten cyber security. The move will assist government officials in preventing future attacks on the United States.
The President recently addressed his 2010 budget, outlining funding plans that will grant the Department of Homeland Security $355 million to secure the nation's most essential computer systems.
The money will be spent on both government and private groups, with much of the funding going to the National Cyber Security Division and the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative programs."
"The money will be spent on both government and private groups, with much of the funding going to the National Cyber Security Division and the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative programs."
In other words, millions of your tax dollars will be spent paying glorified security guards to sit on P2p networks all day looking for copyright infringers and kiddy porn. As if the FBI needed any competition. What, did you think they were actually saving America from terrorists?
As an AC no one will ever see this comment, but I have to say it anyway.
The summary: "As his administration continues to work on an stimulus plan that can save America's economy.." makes it sound as if this is an accepted postulate, but nothing could be further from the truth. Many economists (and others) have serious doubts that such a stimulus package can "save" anything. And while economics is anything but intuitive, one does wonder how borrowing a trillion or so dollars -- at interest -- will work towards putting the economy "back on track."
The money will go to $5.00/hr bidders on RentACoder. There's no incentive in this bill to keep the money in the US
For example: "stimulus plan that can save America's economy"
"can"? That remains to be seen, and many say it will not. Try being less of a cheerleader and tell the truth. "may save" is a better selection, and much closer to the truth, given several hundred prominent economists (and the CBO) have said this "stimulus" may end up hurting the economy due to the wasteful "political repayment" spending and huge debt load it contains.
Per the CBO a recovery, albeit slow, is predicted for later this year even were no "stimulus" package passed.
Go read up on the Nixon-Ford-Carter economy that used similar big-government Keynesian methods to stimulate the economy, and ended up producing "stagflation", high interest rates, high unemployment and high inflation (the latter two both in double digits).
Then go read Hazlitt and Hayek for why this Keynesian stuff doesn't work as intended.
In engineering terms, most learned this lesson in statics and dynamics class: You cannot push a rope.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
That's not "cyber"security at all! Cybersecurity would be pushing for signed DNS architecture, IPv6, and a DDoS mitigation infrastructure. Sonar and radar systems are physical security, not cyber security.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Why DHS? Talk about throwing money into a trash disposal.
Why not NSA/CSS? They are already tasked with this and have budget. Plus they have produced viable useful solutions, SE-Linux for example. And they have competence, unlike the DHS, who seem more concerned with political correctness than securing the nation and the borders.
This smells of political back-scratching, not a solution to a problem.
Secondly how is this supposed to stimulate demand in the economy? Remember, that was the purpose of the huge debt load we just got saddled with.
Watch for crony-contracts, and the money to not produce anything other than rich politically connected friends.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
BO rocks!
Actually, America has a BO problem at the moment. Don't be fooled. Adding a lump of sugar to the poison doesn't make any less poisonous.
FYI, GW did this as well. Every president is going to do some things right, and a lot of them wrong.
Never forget, the goal of the presidents since the USA were founded has been to expand their own power. BHO will be no different in this respect.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Contrary to popular opinion, "creating Jobs" is not always good and is not always entirely different from "throwing money at the problem." "Creating Jobs" only helps when the jobs are useful and produce something else of value.
I don't know anything about how cost effective the Hoover Dam or various bridges and public works projects have been in the past, but assuming that they _were_ cost effective, these are examples where "Creating Jobs" is a good thing that stimulates the economy in a good way, because it not only gives people money to spend, but it adds overall value to the system. The Hoover Dam added irrigation, water supply, and power, while bridges add lower transportation costs.
On the other hand, paying someone to sit like a night watchmen on P2P Networks or paying someone to replace the White House Carpet or repaint the ceilings doesn't really help anyone because nothing of value is being created. You're just shuffling money around, and its really no different economy-wise than just _giving away_ the money. People are going to spend it either way.
This isn't to say I don't support re-carpeting or re-painting the White House if it needs it, I am merely saying that the catch-phrase "creating jobs" doesn't do the system any good unless the jobs are worth doing.
This is not a democracy. It is a republic. You should learn the difference before you end up with neither.
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
Anyone can repeat the definitions of a Republic and a Democracy. Remember, people advocated a republic instead of a democracy because they thought slaves, women, and non-land owners were too stupid and not invested enough to be allowed to vote.
I see you have been properly indoctrinated by one of the progressive schools. Your argument makes no sense with regards to the form of government, since they *still* could have formed a democracy, just set land-owning white men as the only voters. A Republic means that *every person* is sovereign. It means that the plurality, or the collective, or whatever you call it *cannot* impose its will on individuals, because individuals are sovereign, and their rights are *inherent*, not granted by the state, as you would like it to be.
Furthermore, I looked up the quote. Did you read the rest of that paragraph?
"The Americans, on the other hand, are fond of explaining almost all the actions of their lives by the principle of self-interest rightly understood; they show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the state." --Alex de Tocqueville
How did you end up believing the exact opposite of what that quote actually meant?
You have missed an important part of the quote: the "willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property" part. It's an important distinction. You seem to think that congress spending other people's money that they confiscate at gunpoint somehow as generosity or compassion. That, however, is corrupt self-interest rather than the "self-interest rightly understood" that motivates people to help their neighbor. Take a look at New Orleans today. Compare the federal programs involved in repair and renovation to the Habitat for Humanity (kudos to Carter for his involvement there, BTW) and other private programs. Which ones are working?
Just how did you get such a twisted viewpoint of reality?
I actually already know. Through propaganda,
Ah, of course. Your state-run education and the drooling-over-socialism mainstream media.
They have convinced low income midwesterners that cutting the taxes for the rich will somehow result in a better economy for them.
Sigh. You're like a parrot. It's really about what drives the economy. Is it government confiscating money from private citizens to spend it on a $40 billion program that benefits a few, or is it people deciding for themselves how to invest their money? History is pretty clear that government is wasteful, corrupting, fraught with inefficiency, and produces absolutely $0 in new wealth.
As far as your hatred of Carter, that's a pretty standard parroting. I'd be interested if you could name any specific policies that you believe led to the economic conditions of that era.
First, presidents don't really have a lot of impact on the economy. They can either interfere (FDR) or get out of the way (Reagan). This can have some impact, but none have had the kind of impact that FDR's ruinous policies did.
Still, Carter's policies were horrible:
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia