Slashdot Mirror
Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality
99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes
"Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) submitted a rider yesterday to a bill on military and veterans' construction projects. The rider would, 'prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards.' It is co-signed by six other Republican senators. We all knew this was coming after the last election removed most of the vocal supporters of net neutrality and supplanted them with pro-corporate Republicans."
Well I say Knight Rider was an awesome show Michael!!
Think again.
They just want more freedom to screw you over, lie to you about jobs, and bring back the days of Compuserve.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Without net neutrality, the idea of open source governance may never even get a chance to work. Your very freedom is in serious jeopardy, since we are on the brink: do we go ahead and adopt totalitarianism-through-Facebook(etc) or try to move to freedom-through-distributed-governance?
To call those against Net Neutrality as "pro-corperate" is a terrible mistake, because a lot of large companies back net neutrality - including Google and Amazon.
The reality is that companies want regulation passed that benefits that company - that is the point of lobbying after all. So that is why the only position you can possibly support if you are "anti-corperate" is no regulation at all.
Seeing as that is the position the Republicans are taking, those who claim Republicans are acting on behalf of corporations need to think about who THEY are actually supporting through these accusations, and what we lose when the truly open internet becomes beholden to the whims of the FCC.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Tought it was "Republicans create cider to stop net neutrality"
I'm thirsty now, made me want to get a bottle of Rekorderlig
Nobody outside the US gets a vote on this stuff, yet we all get affected by the Republican nationalist, conservative stances. Liberalism isn't the answer to all humanity's woes, but neither is what the Republicans and other similar right-wing parties in the world are constantly doing.
Come on, Republicans, turn the Internet into mess for everyone else, too.
Can bypass congress and there is a way to try to get this as a public effort to be an amendment to the constitution.
Meaning, to amend constitution to say that net neutrality is free speech. Making it impossible for any election swing to regulate the internet for the ISPs or anyone else.
Let's start a movement...
Well how about we create a bill banning all private internet service providers and transferring that service to a socialist government organization, per clause in the US Constitution establishing a government-run mail (communications) service?
The best government is a socialist government that fights the libertarian ideals of established corporations.
The whole point of competition is to eliminate competitors to gain monopoly status.
So contact your representatives and voice your opinion. If you don't have their contact info it's easy enough to look up online or if you happen to have an android phone download the "Congres" app. It will give you the contact info of your local congressional representatives. Part of the reason that lobbyists have so much power is that ordinary people don't inundate their reps with opinions and facts the way that special interests do. So contact them and express your opinion. They won't completely ignore it if enough of their constituency speaks up. So you can either bitch online or call the people who can have an impact. I've already contacted my reps concerning net neutrality, here's hoping anyone with an intelligent opinion here does the same. It's your government folks participate or don't bitch when you don't get what you want.
Who are the scoundrels responsible for this?
Let's get their names and contact information and let them know that we DO NOT support their perversion of democracy.
Disgusting!
This is Kay Bailey Hutchinson proving her conservative bona fides after the shellacking she got from the 2010 Texas Republican Gubernatorial primary. Too bad she's decided to take sides against consumers to prove that she's a good party member.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
I seem to recall hearing quite a bit about how much the Texas conservatives hated her and were working to unseat her in the 2010 election cycle. Of course, losing your reelection (even to someone from your own party) doesn't mean you can't do anything in your last two months of your term, but if she lost she doesn't really represent much at this point.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Who on earth thought GOP/TP represented regular people?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
And the Democrats also want to screw you over, so I'm not seeing a really great shift in my level of screwed here.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
The Republicans want absolutely no regulation of anything. Net neutrality is regulation. Without net neutrality regulations, the 'truly open Internet' becomes beholden to certain corporate interests. I would rather the Internet be beholden to the FCC, which is at theoretically accountable to US citizens, than to a few large media companies.
Regulations are like guns. They are tools. They can be used to protect or to harm. They are neither evil nor good, in and of themselves. We should never seek to get rid of all regulations, only the bad ones. Without 'regulations' the little guy is at the mercy of the rich and powerful. I support the right of the little guys of the world to band together and enact laws to protect themselves from exploitation.
You basically bring up the FCC as a sort of scary specter, "Ooga booga booga! FCC gonna getcha!" without saying what, exactly, you fear the FCC might do.
Net neutrality regulations are necessary to keep the Internet open. It will either be regulated by the FCC, or it will be controlled by a handful of huge media conglomerates. It will not stay the unregulated, anything goes wild west it is today. Either the landlords will move in and Enclose the open Internet, or we, the citizens, decide that we do not want to let them wall off the Internet, and we pass laws to stop them.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The baggers. Nobody else is that stupid.
Nonsense. With Democrats you're just screwed. With Republicans, you're super-deluxe holy fuck screwed.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Fox "News". Or at least it's in the narrative they like to perpetuate.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
It isn't like Democrats had control of Congress and the White House for the last two years to do anything. Just like Don't ask Don't tell - they could have done something, but it is better to do nothing and create a campaign issue.
Compuserve? They're trying to bring back Dickensian England!
KENT BROCKMAN: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
SPEAKER: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--
CONGRESSMAN: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
FLOOR: Boo!
SPEAKER: Bill defeated.
Can't believe you guys haven't fixed this yet. How can a completely unrelated thing be tacked on like that? is it really just a congressmans whim? Everytime i hear the word "rider" in american politics, i think of that simpsons skit.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
google and amazon are just two major corps among the few corps supporting net neutrality.
Read radical news here
Rebublicans are the kind of guys that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.
just like how law bans any private judiciary, any private legislative body, any private army and any private police.
the stuff that are the means to basics of life, communication should never be private.
Read radical news here
Compuserve? Try Ham Radio.
"So don't get programmed by anybody but yourself" --Bill S. Preston, Esquire
Here's the problem with today's free market advocacy. Yes, a free market is the most efficient mechanism for distributing goods, all else being equal, specifically demand.
Unfortunately, free market advocacy today amounts to being forced to accept different goods and services than what the public would want. You're only "free", if there is no standard for supply or quality. The free market is one where you're free to be sold contaminated water, and not permitted to set public standards for better. You're free to have the word processor defined by Microsoft, and not allowed to set up a reasonable free standard for what a word processor is. You're free to buy quasi-internet, because actually defining today's standards for it in law would be "socialist". Somehow it stops being a free market when you define even a minimum standard for what you'd like supplied.
In short, it is possible to have a free market and public standards; or one; or neither. It's best to have both. Unfortunately, today's supposed advocacy for the former is actually an attack on the latter.
Riders are an appalling and ant-democratic in practice. All this talk about ear marks that people are up in arms over should really be focused on riders. They serve only one purpose and that is to confuse an issue with unrelated issues. They take advantage of the all or nothing system so that a minority of legislators can force through an issue that would not pass on its own merit.
The biggest problem in government we have to day is this practice of riders and omnibus bills. Legislation should not be thousands of pages! Legislative acts should be as atomic as possible.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Aye. Jeez, they openly joked and boasted about the wealthy being "their base".
One guy a few days ago on a conservative talk show host said he was about to lose his unemployment benefits and with that, his house, car, probably family. Conversion story, right?
Nope-- he felt he did the right thing on principle to slit his own throat, even tho the wealthy will be walking away with $100,000 in tax savings alone.
It is going to take hard poverty to break these folks from the fox news and radio talk show host brainwashing. They literally identify with billionaires while they are losing everything and being tossed out to starve. When do they wake up and start voting in their own self interest?
Or will they just bypass that step entirely and go straight to violence in a couple years.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
We should call them Corpricans. The people who vote for them could then be called corpropheliacs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia).
Ham radio? Try semaphore.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
I never quite understood the whole net neutrality bandwagon. It seems that whenever this issue appears, there are always hoards of people screaming about the end of the internet and how bad corporations are and how if we don't get the government to regulate something right away, then the world is going to explode. But then again, this is Slashdot after all.
David Farber gives a good response on why we should be cautious of NN: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200606/msg00014.html
Particularly one idea that lawmakers should focus on is the monopolies that are essentially granted to the cable companies for their service. It's hardly a free market system as most people seem to think.
Oh, that's right, we can't. People will just add riders to the bill to eliminate riders.
God it amuses me how internet people think they're so fucking important.
Net neutrality is a bunch of chicken little bullshit. I remember when we were trying to keep the government's hands off the Internet, now you idiots want to hand it to them on a silver platter because of paranoid delusions about Corporate Fat Cats being out to get you.
I would say it's the opposite since, although they both like to spend, the Democrats spend far, far more.
Back to topic: The FCC's idea of "net neutrality" is not our idea of net neutrality. The FCC would impose all kinds of restrictions such as forbidding bittorrent, forbidding downloads of sex vids, pulling websites w/o due process of law (i.e. as just happened last month), require a license to post a personal website, tax ebay sales, and on and on. At least that's what I've heard - I'm still researching the FCC's exact plan.
I'm also wondering how the FCC can claim authority over the net?
- These are private cables owned by private companies. The FCC was
empowered by Congress to regulate the PUBLIC airwaves and that's it.
It's why HBO and other channels can show nudity/sex - because the FCC has no authority to stop them.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
In theory, you can live without cable/internet/cell/phone, just as you can live without roads. But unless you already have a lot of farmable land (think Amish), you cannot realistically survive. If you wish to have most jobs, or start a business, you need to be able to communicate. Internet is no longer a luxury for many.
In most cases realistically useful Internet access is only provided by monopolies or duopolies. Regulation should be limited, but in the case of monopolies, they are often necessary. In this case, it's necessary.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Without net neutrality, would corporations be able to stop the underground p2p separate internet called Freenet? Would they be able to do anything about encrypted p2p communications? If so, they're just ruining legitimate and innovative business ventures like Hulu.com, which would ironically drive many people to use p2p to watch those shows. Unless they can kill p2p too. Maybe we should operate under the assumption that freedom of speech on the internet is doomed and focus on decentralized tools like Freenet that are hard if not impossible to stymie.
I'm in an odd spot on this one. I'm against any net neutrality legislation or regulation by the FCC, but I don't want to see congress acting on net neutrality either (even to prevent future regulation). I'd rather the government just stop and wait and see if any big problems arise. Don't legislate to prevent a future problem. I have trouble believing players like Comcast have dramatically more power than players like Netflix and Google. People won't be happy if their Netflix streaming doesn't work right on Comcast/FiOS/whatever.
Without 'regulations' the little guy is at the mercy of the rich and powerful.
Since the "little guy" cannot lobby and the rich and powerful can, I'd wager your statement is wrong 100% of the time.
I'm not for forgoing all regulation. But because there has been no demonstrated need for network neutrality regulation (as in: Not one thing has happened to date that network neutrality regulation would have prevented) then why even have it?
You stated regulation is like a tool. That is correct. But it's also correct to say people build tools for a purpose, not just for the sake of making a tool. If you want regulation then fine - point to a problem and tell us how this tool is built to address that problem.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Clearly YOU are the brainwashed one. Tell me, how did it taste, regurgitating those inane Beck/Limbaugh/FOXNews talking points, hrm?
Rest assured that they have near zero basis in reality.
Democrats are really far from perfect. But dear god, they're better than Republicans in almost every single way.
Net Neutrality being one of them.
Now put down your koolaid, please. Turn off FOX News (yet another study has shown that the more FOX News you watch, the stupider and more misinformed you are). And recognize that Limbaugh, Beck, FOX News, Palin, and all the rest do not make any attempt to inform... they are paid lots of money by vested interests to distract, distort, divide, and inflame. Stop poisoning your mind with that toxic blather.
Seriously, who wants the Internet to be regulated?
Libertas in infinitum
And the Democrats also want to screw you over, so I'm not seeing a really great shift in my level of screwed here.
Well, in the summary there was this "We all knew this was coming after the last election removed most of the vocal supporters of net neutrality and supplanted them with pro-corporate Republicans." At least some of those vocal supporters were democrats, specifically Rick Boucher, "Chair of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, widely recognized as one of the most tech-savvy and intelligent members of Congress, and long an advocate for consumers on a wide variety of communications and intellectual property issues"
I mean, sure, no one ever got modded down on slashdot for cynicism on slashdot, and rather than feeling dumb for not paying attention, you get that nice warm and fuzzy feeling of elitism when you just assume there's absolutely no difference between the two parties and no reason to care one way or the other, but in this particular case I'm really not seeing it. There was a corporate sponsored rage this election cycle which several republicans rode into power, and it will have real consequences. It hasn't even started yet and we're already seeing it.
Some democrats might want to screw you over, but their real danger is that even those that DO want to support the little guy, they're utterly and totally incapable of doing anything about it.
They don't believe it either. They want you to believe it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Pounding a guy in the ass is just getting your rocks off. A reach-around? That would be kindof gay, wouldn't it?
But ... but ... you see, I might be rich one day! Right? I mean, ain't that what the whole capitalist carrot dangling is about, promising everyone that they could be rich, somehow?
And then those pesky democrats would make sure that I couldn't keep any of those riches!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You make it seem like the Democrats have something better
Better than negative infinity? I think so.
You may not like the idea of the FCC being able to enforce net neutrality but at least putting the FCC in charge gives the people someone to complain to
About what exactly? What would I be able to call up the FCC and complain about? What problems in the market now do you perceive the regulation as solving - are you sure you are not simply projecting a cure for all ills onto some magical regulation to be run by the FCC?
But I'm sure you liked warrantless wiretapping. The TSA pat downs are God's gift to man. Only corporations and Republican government can keep us safe.
I don't like any of those thing but thanks for demonstrating your lack of statistical understanding by over-generalizing based on a perceived political slant based on one data point. I guess it's fruitless to argue with someone who hasn't egt even a grasp of basic statistics...
And it's pretty ironic that you would claim *I* am behind totalitarian measures like TSA pat downs when clearly someone proposing to support the FCC must ALSO have enjoyed things like huge fines based on swear words everyone uses and arbitrary controls over what can be broadcast, period. Unlike your baseless extrapolation I can show clearly negative things the FCC has been directly behind, by stating you think it's a win to have the FCC control the internet you are demonstrating a far more clear link to support of that behavior...
By showing such clear support for the FCC it's equally clear you are far more behind a totalitarian state than myself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The good news: that's exactly what they're going to get.
You are welcome on my lawn.
On what planet do Democrats like to spend "far far more"?
You realize over 80% of the National Debt was run up by Republicans, right? That the Bush Tax Cuts combined with massive military spending (two wars) and massive unpaid-for entitlement expansion (Medicare Part D) are the reason we've got such a huge deficit, and national debt, right? Reagan TRIPLED the debt. Bush I doubled it. Bush II doubled it again. After Clinton, we were looking at surplusses as far as the eye could see, allowing us headroom to pay down the debt, and to prepare for rainy days. Bush utterly squandered it all, and now it's mountains of debt as far as the eye can see. And that often-cited meme that Obama "trippled the deficit"? Bullshit. That was Bushes. The first 1.x Trillion dollar annual deficit would have been identical regardless of who was in power (it consisted of both TARP -- passed by Republicans -- and the huge revenue drop caused by the finacial crisis -- another Republican failure).
The biggest lie ever told (and bought by too many people) is that Republicans are in any way financially conservative or fiscally responsible. Republicans spend FAR more, and far more IRRESPONSIBILY. And their latest robin-hood crap, asking those with the least to sacrifice so that those with the most can have more, is just downright immoral and disgusting.
At least when Democrats spend money, Americans benefit (through social safety nets, cleaner air and water, forward thinking investment, necessary regulation to protect consumers with safer food, and safer finances, etc). When Republicans spend money, they throw it down the huge gaping maw of tax cuts for the already super-wealthy, and the military industrial complex to kill foreigners half a world away.
And as for "At least that's what I've heard"... if you heard it from the Tea Party, from Rush Limbaugh, or from Glenn Beck, you can rest assured you heard wrong. Because they're pretty much wrong about everything. And paid to be so, by those that wish to distract, distort, divide, and inflame... in order to either protect their status quo, or to usurp power for themselves.
It's a matter of magnitude, you see. With the Democrats, you're standing knee deep in shit. The Reps just give you way, way more.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, and I don't agree with this myself, the reason Hutchison is putting forward this legislation is because these senators feel that the government is over-doing regulation, they want to see the Gov. take a step back and focus on the budget, not make more regulation (which would require more spending); its a move born of ignorance, not a power grab. Never the less, its a bone head move made by a small group of republican senators who don't really know the issues.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
"Who on earth thought GOP/TP represented regular people?"
I'm guessing the same pack of idiots who think the Democrats represent regular people.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
"They have promised to repeal regulations such as open-Internet rules that they say would harm the communications industry's growth and ability to create jobs."
Translation: "They are making good on promises to corporate campaign donors to foster legislation which allows wresting every farthing from an increasingly disenfranchised populace, continue outsourcing of any jobs to better the quarterly profit statement, while pay lip service that this benefits the public."
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
I grew up in Flint. I assure you we will go to violence before we turn to education.
Yeah, but Conservatism is about conserving the status quo. Keep the rich people rich and the poor people poor.
> not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.
I'm sure I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure since Republicans do it holy, God only damns the Democrats. Courteous or not.
These are private cables owned by private companies. The FCC was
empowered by Congress to regulate the PUBLIC airwaves and that's it.
Incorrect. The FCC was empowered to regulate internet service providers and cable companies by the the Telecommunications Act of 1996. They're just not allowed to ban obscene programming on them because title V of that act (aka the communications decency act) was struck down on 1st amendment grounds. All the other powers in the act remain available, as do the ones granted in the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act of 1992.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Net Neutrality gives power to the people who create and consume content, and prevents the people who provide the connections from tampering with it.
I know that's what you would like it to do. I know that's what many others think it would do. But that's not actually the effect that it has.
The effect that it has is in reducing spending on advanced cable networks:
http://internetinnovation.org/library/title-II/whatsaying
Regulation never "gives" power to anyone. It can only take away some power from those that already have it. If you take away the power to price some service according to use, then that service will go away or suffer loss of quality.
I am against network neutrality exactly because I want to see network access reach the largest number of people in the most open manner possible. Not a locked-down internet with the regulators eventually able to control blacklists that give the ISP's sites they cannot allow you to see. After all, the government already went after the DNS servers of some companies they deemed to be breaking the law. If the FCC had sway over ISP's why would the ISP's not also be told ti disallow access to those sites by IP as well?
Once you give the FCC power over ISP you open a lot of scenarios for what could happen.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
FOX blocks Cablevision Internet subscribers from their shows on Hulu.
Hi. You must be new here. Maxo-Texas is not a democrat, m'kay? He never said word one about democrats. Just because he doesn't like what the folks who CALL themselves republicans are doing these days does not make him a democrat. You are a fool, shutting your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALA I Can't HEAR you!" will not save you from the wolves.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Don't Americans notice the Republicans keep throwing wrenches into all the worthwhile legislation and promoting issues that are not in the interests of the majority of Americans? It goes beyond pulling the wool over peoples eyes, you have to be out right stupid not to see that they are not acting in the interests of the vast majority of the American people.
I'm also wondering how the FCC can claim authority over the net? - These are private cables owned by private companies. The FCC was empowered by Congress to regulate the PUBLIC airwaves and that's it. It's why HBO and other channels can show nudity/sex - because the FCC has no authority to stop them.
Interstate Commerce. Yes, the FCC isn't usually involved in that - but it really makes no difference. If you somehow magically prevented the FCC from regulating the Internet, then the FTC would jump in.
Besides, light waves (fiber optic) are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. They can go through the 'air' and are hence an 'airwave'.
There you go. Problem solved.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I would say "Fuck No", but my ISP access would be revoked sometime after the FCC took over the reigns.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Who else read that as "T-Rex"? Because raptors in Congress would be awesome - but Randall Munroe would piss himself.
Why do you insist on presenting wild speculation as fact? Your bullshit slippery slope fallacy is pure imagination. You have no clue what the FCC would or would not do. You aren't researching shit, because the FCC does not HAVE an exact plan, and they don't get to MAKE the plan. They enforce the laws Congress tells them to. Go back to civics class, please.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
On planet Republican: Tax cuts for the rich and military spending don't count towards the deficit/debt; The military never wastes money and definitely does not count as part of the "big government".
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
because of a mischaracterization--which may be the result of simple ignorance--of the FCC's actions as condoning government control of content-as-in-opinions, rather than content-as-in-format.
I'd say it's far more ignorant to think that simply because they start with content-as-in-format they will not then proceed to eventually move to also work with content-as-in-opinions.
What part of history has shown that government, once given one set of reigns, does not move to eventual control of the whole wagon train?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How in the fuck would net neutrality mean more gov't spending of any appreciable amount?
It's a matter of attitude, really. With the Democrats, you're standing knee-deep in shit. The Republicans have you in shit just as deep, but they kindly insist you lie down and rest your weary mind.
Ok, I'll be waiting for 30% of your income then, please send a check every week.
Historically, they have.
Look at the post-war period. The period of greatest economic growth at all levels of society occurred during a time when the Democrats controlled the Presidency and at least one house of congress. And the successful Republican presidents were ones that today would be thrown out of the party for being too liberal.
And you can point to the presidency of Ronald Reagan as the point where the "American Dream" for middle and working class Americans was blown the fuck up in favor of a "supply-side" economy where each generation could expect a little less than the previous, unless you were a member of the lucky 2% who did fantastically well.
And now we expect your mom and dad to work until they're 70 just so that top 2% won't have to pay the same amount of taxes that they did during the 90's (which was a great decade for the rich.
Ronald Reagan declared class warfare against every member of the middle and working class, and now the right wing cries "class warfare" because that middle and working class is starting to figure it out. Recent polls that showed some 67% of Americans believe that the top 2% should pay at least the same taxes that they did in the 90's also show that nearly 70% do not want cuts in government spending just to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and an even higher percentage do not want to see a rise in the retirement age or cuts in Social Security or Medicare. And a growing number, well more than 50% now say they want a public option for health care, such as a buy-in option for Medicare for everyone.
People are so angry that they want to vote everyone out of office. Don't make the mistake of thinking that Americans are suddenly turning conservative. If anything, long-term trends would seem to indicate the opposite. They'd gladly take a little "European-style Socialism" as long as you don't call it that.
The 0.3% of Americans who watch Fox News are in no way indicative of the American mood.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You made very bit of that up.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Does COX have a lien on your property? Where I live in NYC I know a number of people complain that they can't get cable because their neighbors won't allow CableVision run a line through their backyard. I know most cities have franchise agreements with a local cable monopoly that allows them to dig up the streets and lay their cable there, but I've never heard of a city using eminent domain run Cable TV lines across private property. I know it happens for power and gas lines, but those have long provided an essential service like police and roads.
Don't Americans notice the Republicans keep throwing wrenches into all the worthwhile legislation and promoting issues that are not in the interests of the majority of Americans?
Are any politicians, of either strip? Really?
Seems like they're all Republicrats or Democans to me.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
This news post has been approved by the bipartisan Society for Partisan Neutrality in News, or SPiNN. No hint of bias for or against any political view has been detected in any of the story's contents. Please carry on your great work of treating all viewpoints with Dignity and Respect (C).
/me throws up
The democrats like to tax and spend. The republicans like to borrow and spend, and hope that when the money-well runs dry there is a democrat in the white house to take the blame.
So, what you're saying is he should be greedy and vote for whichever politician will give him the most benefits as opposed to who he believes will do the best job running the country and handle issues in a fair and constitutional manner (as much as can be expected from a politician, anyway)? Voters like you scare me. What do you plan to do when you run out of other peoples' money?
Rebublicans are the kind of guys that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.
Republicans are the kind of guys that would fuck a guy in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to admit to being gay.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I'd rather start a movement that outlaws that despicable practice of paperclipping controversial bills to bills you can't sensibly vote against without trashing your political career.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Does it ever occur to Americans that a fundamental flaw in their system of governance is this practice of passing bills with riders completely unrelated to the original bill? It ties together issues that have nothing to do with each other, it provides cover for politicians to vote against one thing by pretending they're voting against the other, and with distressing frequency it seems to sink worthwhile bills under the machinations of procedural maneuvering.
How about a new constitutional amendment: Every bill will have exactly one subject of legislation; any riders or amendments must directly address the subject to be considered for addition to the bill; no bill with more than a single subject will be deemed constitutional.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Don't Americans notice the Republicans keep throwing wrenches into all the worthwhile legislation and promoting issues that are not in the interests of the majority of Americans?
They place the wrenches inside of dug-out hollow spaces inside of religious books, then they throw the books. Nobody notices the wrenches.
Once net neutrality is dead, there is no telling how far it can be taken. If Comcast can dictate that their video gets more precedence than another company's, then why can't they also have "accidental" outages of "inconvenient" sites at specific (crucial) times?
Because it's poor business practice and they would suffer as a result. They would also probably face lawsuits. And in the end, isn't it just easier to deliver traffic? After all, if they start pulling tricks like that then anyone can claim they are not a common carrier and it's game over - lawsuits from every media company on earth for every perceived carrying of torrent traffic would ensue.
Meanwhile, as for the other way - we can already tell "how far it will be taken" because THERE IS NO NETWORK NEUTRALITY TODAY. See the network today? That's how it would look if network neutrality dies. It would look like my being able to get to any internet site I want, it would look like broadband adoption being continued because the companies building it out know they can get a return on the investment.
Please describe a problem with the network we see TODAY (an actual problem, not a hypothetical one) and exactly how the regulation in question fixes that problem. You may be surprised to find that anything you consider a problem network neutrally does not address or makes worse.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
True, but Republicans aren't pushing for conservatism in this- and many other cases:
Republicans are trying to dismantle unions which are/were the status quo.
Republicans are helping companies off-shore jobs, which is not a traditional phenomenon.
Republicans are actively trying to insert religious dogma into science class, which is a radical idea.
Republicans are trying to replace the institution of public education with the unproven system of charter schools.
Not that it's easy to be a Republican these days when it's not enough to claim conservatism, but also be electable and a buffoon at the same time. Being expected make good excuses about why you shouldn't be expected to read a few hundred pages must surely be what the founders were thinking when they penned the phrase "cruel and unusual."
I am 100% against Network Neutrality but am also 100% opposed to using a rider to try and stop it... Riders and earmarks both need to be ended, or severely curtailed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In other words: you're screwed with whipped cream and a cherry on top.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
AC was quoting "Full Metal Jacket."
You have the time to write whatever that gibberish you did was, but can't handle copy&paste into Google?
No, it's an almost completely different pack, because the pack that thinks the Democrats represent regular people simply won't listen to anything the Republicans say as a matter of principle, and the reverse is also true.
I like Ike.
I would say it's the opposite since, although they both like to spend, the Democrats spend far, far more.
Factually untrue on a national level. If you care to spend 5 minutes doing actual research, you will find tons of well-vetted graphs and charts comparing national spending under Republicans and under Democrats. There's no comparison: Republicans talk a good game on spending, but simply haven't delivered since, oh, maybe McKinley.
Back to topic: The FCC's idea of "net neutrality" is not our idea of net neutrality. The FCC would impose all kinds of restrictions such as forbidding bittorrent, forbidding downloads of sex vids, pulling websites w/o due process of law (i.e. as just happened last month), require a license to post a personal website, tax ebay sales, and on and on. At least that's what I've heard - I'm still researching the FCC's exact plan.
Just like when they imposed common carrier rules for phone lines the FCC banned sex lines, pulled people's phone lines without due process of law, required a license to use a phone for personal purposes, and taxed all products ordered over the phone. At least, that's what I heard they did...wait? They didn't do that? Seriously, that makes about as much sense as what you're trying to tell us. Are you at the stage now where you literally just make shit up?
I'm also wondering how the FCC can claim authority over the net? - These are private cables owned by private companies. The FCC was empowered by Congress to regulate the PUBLIC airwaves and that's it. It's why HBO and other channels can show nudity/sex - because the FCC has no authority to stop them.
The FCC regulates telephone lines. Look it up. Presumably these are also private lines owned by private companies, at least as much so as are internet lines.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
People won't be happy if their Netflix streaming doesn't work right on Comcast/FiOS/whatever.
Yeah, and if they haven't done any research they'll blame Netflix. Which is exactly what Comcast wants to happen. Comcast doesn't NEED to be more powerful; they just want to shave off a couple percent of Netflix's market share, while the rest of us suffer a slow, crappy internet.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
If Republicans don't want net neutrality, ISPs should start de-prioritizing traffic to their websites unless they pay up. Better yet, start charging candidates extra money to allow access to their sites - it's not censorship, it's just good business. After all, if it's OK for ISPs to limit traffic to specific sites, why not target those who have the greatest need to be available?
Many on Slashdot apparently crave a little temporary security against an imaginary network plight in exchange for a seemingly small loss of liberty. Who'd have thunk it?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What's wrong with them? Nothing's wrong with *them*.
It's like that riddle about why a dog licks his balls. Why do congressional Republicans support policies like this? Because we let them.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
As you properly explained, it requires a train of though where putting something on a credit card isn't considered "spending", but paying off the card is.
"On what kind of a planet?"
A planet where children run free using a card daddy only pays off when Democrats get elected.
Sadly, the children got into the sugar jar again.
No. We're too busy worried about Obama's birth certificate to pay attention to things like corporate control over access to information.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The Ferengi don't seek to end exploitation, they seek to become the exploiters.
50c
"our idea"?? You have a mouse in your pocket?
Here's where you're wrong. The FCC didn't yank the plug on websites last month. Different agency. The current posture says nothing about bittorrent or other peer services, nor licensing, etc. Where do you get your facts?
And as pointed down this thread, the Dems don't outspend the other side.
There are eleven acts as amended to the FCC Act of 1935 going thru the TCA that directly and without a doubt, give the FCC domain over the Internet. Another presidential agency, the NTIA was essentially dismantled by Geo Bush et al.
You don't know what you're talking about. Censorship over the public airwaves, not private cable, has been a fact for decades. The FCC has the authority endowed by Congress to do this, like it or not. You're entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The capitalist ideal is that everyone has the opportunity to make money for themselves. It's true, too. If you work hard and pay attention, you certainly can. No one ever promised you'd be a millionaire, that's just opposition rhetoric.
I know there's some sort of progressive talk about how rich people sit around all day doing nothing and collecting money from the people they keep poor. I'm not sure how that's believed, aside from the fact that most poor people are ignorant and you can get ignorant people to believe any old stupid shit. The hardest working people I know make the most money. It's pretty simple, really. Some of them have made enough that they get to enjoy it for a while without working hard, which seems fair to me but apparently is evil? Not sure how. I guess the only way you're allowed to sit around enjoying yourself is if you live on money taxed from the rich. I don't get how that is fair, exactly.
The people who voted for them.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
The usual joke is a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged.
On the contrary, what I like about the republicans is that they are after X, accomplish X, leave you the fuck alone.
Dems want to "keep on screwing you forever" and tell you how wonderful they are while they are doing it.
Sock it to 'em, Bobby.
Aren't phone companies regulated by similar neutrality requirements, in order to be Common Carriers?
No, there is no relation to FCC control over wireline communications and the whole Common Carrier thing.
I'm not aware of any FCC regulations for wireline that approximate what they are trying to do with networking.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So...he should have abandoned his principles when following them would have cost him something?
Firstly is the old-guard content producers who want to use a non-neutral internet to shut down all the newfangled content distribution methods (both piracy and alternatives to old-guard content)
Secondly is the ISPs who want to use a non-neutral internet so they can extract far more money than
they would if they simply charged customers more for the bandwidth they use (i.e. charging google for preferential treatment) as well as locking out alternatives to things ISPs sell that they charge more for (e.g. cable companies trying to lock out web video and phone companies trying to lock out VoIP)
And thirdly are politicians and government types who want to use a non-neutral internet to shut down things that are embarrassing them or threatening their power like WikiLeaks and The Pirate Party.
Bummer, I really wanted to believe they weren't idiots.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
turn off the idiot box all together. you might even stop sounding like an idiot.
I dunno... didn't seem to work for you...
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
NPR? Really? It's the closest thing we have to an unbiased news source.
Citation needed. Oh wait...this was just a typical hyperbole troll.
I would quite happily live in a world where 40% of my personal income was taxed and in return my children received healthcare (including preventative care), a good education (including a college education), and that money went to making sure that everyone in my community had access to infrastructure and basic services to be able to make a life for themselves (not necessarily everyone succeeding, but very few failing). Of course, I would not give that 40% to the US Government as it stands today, but I would like to see more people working towards that.
I was going to contact those 7 GOP senators and complain. But their web sites all appear to have disappeared.
Have gnu, will travel.
> Look at the post-war period. The period of greatest economic growth at all levels of society occurred during a time when the Democrats controlled the Presidency and at least one house of congress.
Look at the rest of history. The period of greatest economic growth at all levels of society occurred during a time when we were on a real hard currency, and neither republican nor democrat congresscritters could give away money that wasn't theirs by asking the Fed to print it. During those times, prices went down while wages went up.
The Net is "neutral" now. True "neutrality" comes from competition. Once the FCC steps in and says we want one size fits all pipes for everyone one the Internet and they can host x, y, and z, all pretense of neutrality is lost. Now you have the government (and those that control the government) dictating to you the consumer. Right now I have a choice of DSL (Verizon), FIOS (Verizon), Road Runner Cable (Time Warner), and I suppose Satellite. If I don't like the way my ISP is treating me I can switch providers. If I want to pay for the $190 a month for 150 Mbps/35 Mbps I can, and screw that the neighbor down the street is stuck on DSL. Enter "net neutrality" and you can forget ISP's making the substantial infrastructure investments required to get speeds like I am talking here (I have 35/35 Mbps right now) because part of the goal of net neutrality is to bring "everyone up" to a certain level of broadband. So now rather than a company like Verizon continuing to invest in speeding up installed infrastructure where it's profitable to do so they will have to act to make sure all of their customers have a certain "minimum" level of service, even if it's unprofitable to do so. It's a crock, totally unworkable in country the size of ours with many rural areas, and will just result in one size fits all pipes and plans. But what about the "blocking" of peer to peer for example you say? Again competition is the cure not regulation. Verizon doesn't block or slow peer to peer on their FIOS. In fact if anything they (wink) (wink) encourage downloading by reminding you that it only takes X amount of time to download an entire DVD on FIOS (from where again?) I'm sorry if a crappy cable ISP is you have available in your particular area, but further regulating the Internet (The FCC is already pining for the power to shut down websites without due process) is not the answer. I suggest changing providers or moving to a location with more competition, not regulating the rest of us that are happy with our broadband or slowing innovation. Companies only innovate to compete and this net neutrality rule does nothing to spur competition.
Net neutrality is a bunch of chicken little bullshit. I remember when we were trying to keep the government's hands off the Internet, now you idiots want to hand it to them on a silver platter because of paranoid delusions about Corporate Fat Cats being out to get you.
Right, because it's not like the scumbags at Comcast have already started pulling the EXACT SAME scummy stunts that you're calling "chicken little bullshit"...
Need examples? Look at the FCC's history with regards to every other industry that it regulates, where it imposes restrictions on speech and expression in all of them. Yes. ALL OF THEM
"His name was James Damore."
If his principles are based on false assumptions, and he gets new information that proves his old principles wrong, then yes... Despite the media's outrage at people "flip-flopping", when you find out you were wrong about something, it's not just acceptable, but actually a good idea to change your mind.
I'm not wealthy, but I'm already "richer" in terms of material goods than my parents were. Chances are, you were, too. Democratic policies did not help you achieve this. Tax rates of 90% did not help you achieve this.
Nonsense. With Democrats you're just screwed. With Republicans, you're super-deluxe holy fuck screwed.
In defense of the democrats, they've been too busy bending over for the republicans to screw anybody lately.
~X~
Semaphore? Try smoke signals.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
As long as the balls don't touch, it's not gay...
Voters like you scare me, because you think it's better to let the nation plunge into unemployment and poverty and let things sort themselves out through the private sector and free market.
You know how things are going to sort themselves out if it comes down to that? That dude that lost his job, house, and family might just take that gun that the conservative base convinced him that he needed to buy and use it to rob you at gunpoint. At best you'll get the police (apparently the only thing that *should* be publicly funded) to show up in time and hopefully not lose your shit or your life.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
The entire united states is on anti-depressants and simply don't give a damn!
To quote Sin Ciy's Senator Roark:
Power don't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big, and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got 'em by the balls.
This is what Fox News, swill spigots like Palin and Beck, and most of the Republicans have done. And to their credit, they've done it well. They've taken full advantage of our apathetic 5 minute attention spans and drilled the lies so long and so hard that people just don't question anymore. On top of that they lay 1 mile layer of sweet tasty Jesus-Hypocrisy frosting, and not one god-ferrin' 'merican will ever question them.
Amazing, but in a sad way.
~X~
It's probably too late.
The rich are so rich, and the rest of us are so not, that they can pretty much close down democracy and start up the feudalism now. Set a cutoff for net worth. Everyone in a family above the line is an earl, baron, prince, or king. Everyone below...not so much.
Constitution? No.
Got a beef? You're fired from any job involving words and handed a shovel.
Maybe after a while they'll set up a parliament to deal with the world outcry at the irony. They'll put themselves permanently in the upper house and let elected commoners float through the lower house. And don't think "upper" and "lower" are just names. The upper house will get what it wants without the lower house's permission, but not so the other way around.
Took the English nearly a thousand years to put that genie back in the bottle. They're still not quite done. And after this has happened here, they could be next for a reversal of the world's march towards democracy.
Oops. Sorry. Left out "Duke."
And no, not that dog in the baked beans commercial.
What are the "false assumptions" the guy in the anecdote had, and how were they proven wrong?
All of which makes me wonder why Obama didn't try to get this passed before the election, when it would have made a great wedge issue. Remind me: what side is he on?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Democrats have to oppose corporations while simultaneously not upsetting too many of them because that is how they stay in office. The system produces the problem - the issues involving fixing the system are unresolved in the SAME way because again they don't want to be caught biting their corporate masters or be seen failing to completely eliminate the masters' influence in one massive stroke (which is the only way many would even have the courage.) They are the people party but must bow to corporate dominance at the same time (as well as corporate influence on the pop culture.)
Republicans practically brag about selling out; it has become almost a religion (mammon) to their side and they preach it as justification on idealistic grounds. They do this more than they exploit religion. Blasphemy and hypocrisy mean nothing except when used by the opposition then somehow they can recognize it again. Rove's strategy which isn't new but he formalized and popularized it is just what he said early on - create alternative realities and disregard the concept of an actual reality; I remember him saying it. Its based heavily around COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (read a book on it; wikipedia/google just barely grasp it) and plays on the fact people believing in something only increase the strength of their beliefs when contradicted by FACTs. The Democrats haven't learned about this stuff yet, they still try to counter with reason and facts; they are not playing in the same league (not intentionally, I think that HOPE thing did tread into this realm but I don't think they even know why it worked.)
The difference couldn't be more stark; however, if one was to play good cop vs bad cop this would be the approach we would have. Well, ok, we could have 1 party be honest... that would be more stark until they all got booted from office. The 'cops' don't need to be part of such a conspiracy in order to do this. One reason the election system and press 'system' are bent towards a simplistic 2 party left/right false dialemma is that it provides a consistent predictable method of control. Only the two parties need to be manipulated and played against each other using similar tactics decade after decade like some blockbuster movie formula they keep recycling (along with 2 sequels.) This is one reason you won't see the USA move to a fair election process and the GOP will heavily oppose it and not enough lawyers on the other side will dare support it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Don't Americans notice the Republicans keep throwing wrenches into all the worthwhile legislation ...
The Democrats place their wrenches gently, but the effect is the same.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Please, find out for me who exactly has been unable to access anything because of these "stunts".
I won't hold my breath, of course, as nobody has been affected by it.
This is just cynical manipulation of the Internet rabble by one set of companies to help them fight another set of companies.
I live in rural southwest, and the amount of coworkers who watch/listen to Fox news is about 90%.... for the simple fact it's about all we get. I've had countless conversations/arguments with coworkers about "libtards" and teabaggers and contend with the crap they regurgitate after hearing it from the Almighty Rush.
Well, smoke signaling would pollute but it might counter CO2-induced global warming!
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
:%s/Republican/Republicantard/g
It goes beyond pulling the wool over peoples eyes, you have to be out right stupid not to see that they are not acting in the interests of the vast majority of the American people.
Have you *met* the vast majority of American people? Most of them spend their free time dreaming about how they'll be rich one day, in between trips to WalMart, McDonalds and church.
I'd love to see the source of those poll numbers. I'm a Canadian living in the United States, and I think the current Republican generated political climate is atrocious and harmful to everyone (including the rich, in a falling tide lowers all boats sense). But I was under the impression that the public option was not particularly popular.
They just want more freedom to screw you over
Ah! So that's the so called freedom they keep trying to defend with body scanners, and all that stuff.
Now he can talk about it for the next two years. Not such a bad thing.
You know I can never read a post like this without wondering if this guy is a plant. I mean if I make a statement like these people spend more than these people I would at least have a link to something that might be able to back up what I say. This post is just a crazy off the wall statement of either what this poster thinks or some paid internet troll trying to spread propaganda.
So who does spend more, Democrats or Republicans?
I don't know but it might just be the same people increasing the national debt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
once more into the breach
Smoke signals? Try shouts.
It doesn't matter if you are for or against net neutrality. The FCC creating the power to regulate the internet out of thin air is lose/lose. There are not 4 branches of government there are 3. Everyone should be against the FCC taking power away from the legitiment branches of government.
The last thing we need right now is the government getting it's hands all over the internet via some trojan called Net Neutrality.
lmao ...do yourself a favor and go live your life. it's your one chance you might be proven right.
I disagree. CNN did a poll that showed over 60% of Americans support the tax cuts for rich thinking they would provide jobs.
In the old days of 1987 the stock market would go down for something like a reactionary like Alen Greenspan being appointed to the Federal Reserve. He supported tax cuts to create jobs?! This guy is nuts!
Today the stock market goes down if the upper 2% tax break *might* not past. Wall Street considers Greenspan a liberal today and is a complete 180. If you are an economist who dare says anything against supply side economics you are laughed at as a radical socialist.
In teh 1980's economists today were called classic economists pre-Keynesian. Today they are economists and the Keynesians are called socialists and discredited for being left wing. Fox News is very popular and has altered American views of politics far to the right.
America is shifting far to the right. No republican will ever vote for anything that increases spending or does not include some kind of tax cut. Obama is powerless within his own party who is also buying this crap. Hannity himself admitted Reagan would not be electable among republicans because he was too liberal. Reagan's policies are considered left just not far left. It is crazy!
Check your stats on fox again? Try almost 40% watch it. Many are turning republican as a result. The fact that Obama is considered radical left by most mainstream Americans is outstanding and you can't deny America is not going further to the right as a result.
http://saveie6.com/
Some people are actually gullible enough to think that "net neutrality" is the intention of the bill to begin with. The intention is to slowly but surely allow the government to sensor the internet. Just look at what the UN is proposing today.
Just because you oppose the government getting it's hands on freedom of the internet, doesn't make you a corporate love child. Wake the hell up people. The government is the root of almost all the problems we have today. If you don't like Comcast...stop paying them money. Go elsewhere. duh. There are always alternatives to suckballs corporations, but when the government get's it's hands on you...you are a slave to it.
Strange, the votes in your country say otherwise...
Check reality for your citation.
That joke comes in two parts, actually. The other part is "a conservative is a liberal who hasn't been laid off".
Reality has a pronounced liberal bias.
The BBC isn't too bad (re: American news), though it is pretty sad that some of the best news sources about our country come from other continents.
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
According to Republicans, big government isn't when your government requires public schools to teach certain religious doctrines, or when your government regulates the sex of marriage partners. Oh no, that's smaller, more responsive government.Just ask any of them.
Politicians and Bankers are enough.
Is this the kind of democracy America wants to teach the world? Veteran's construction and net neutrality? They have nothing in common.
This is mockery of popular mandate.
I am seeing so many instances of politicians and bankers shamelessly pursuing and implementing WHATEVER they want in their favor, that it is nauseating.
And we wonder why America is loosing it edge in world.
The Republicans noticed two facts:
1. The USA is a democracy and you hold power by getting most of the voters to vote for you.
2. McDonald's is the largest and most successful restaurant chain in the USA, yet the food is utter crap and kills the customers.
After they put these two facts together, they figured out that if they use mass advertising campaigns and catchy slogans to appeal to emotion with a pack of lies, they can hold power while simultaneously raping and pillage The Middle Class and The Middle Class would thank them and ask for some more. Ya gotta hand it to them, since Reagan started it, they've been remarkably effective while the Democrats have better, more honorable ideas, they are completely ineffective mass communicators.
What do you plan to do when you run out of other peoples' money?
Become a democrat.
Nothing in reality indicates that your 30% figure is anywhere near accurate. Maybe you are mistaking the voices in your head for reality.
regulation requires enforcement.
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
No republican will ever vote for anything that increases spending
That's a good point. Well, except that "Gross debt in nominal dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992. The Public debt quintupled in nominal terms. ... During the administration of President George W. Bush, the gross debt increased from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
this is just what our businesses need to remain competitive in the 21st century
bravo to our brave senators who stand up for America
And you can point to the presidency of Ronald Reagan as the point where the "American Dream" for middle and working class Americans was blown the fuck up in favor of a "supply-side" economy where each generation could expect a little less than the previous, unless you were a member of the lucky 2% who did fantastically well.
So what is the alternative? Follow the Democrats where the whole of each generation can expect a little less?
I have to be the voice of reason here. There is no possible way for every person to have a better life than their parents. The vast majority of people are going to do basically the same as their parents. A lucky few are going to do better. Some are going to do worse. While Republican policies are many times too much in favor of corporations, at least they give people the opportunity to reach that top two percent.
A simple way to sum up the policies of the two major political parties in America is this: Republicans give everyone an equal chance to rise to the top, but if you fail, you are left to your own devices. Democrats are willing to make everyone equal economically, but aren't willing to let those who work harder than others reap rewards.
Practically speaking, both have their pluses and minuses. Each policy exists to some degree in countries that are surviving today, and both have their places. To determine which one belongs in America, though, we must look to the Constitution. Given the the constitution is written with the idea of people being equally free (and therefore responsible for themselves), it seems the original intent leans more Republican today than Democratic. While the Republicans do go too far in robbing the individual of his rights in favor of a corporation, the Democrats rob both individuals and corporations. So its mostly a matter of Republicans being less wrong than the Democrats.
However, do not take away that the answer I am promoting is to vote Republican. After all, being less wrong still means you are wrong. Or to put it another way, a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. That is why I vote libertarian/constitutional.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
They're too busy watching re-re-reruns of Friends and thanks to the dismal education system and absurd value system wouldn't even comprehend what's wrong if they weren't.
The idiots are out in force tonight...
If that's all you have to say, go back to your Playstation and leave politics to the adults.
It balances things out if every man votes for what *he* wants. Reason doesn't need to enter into it. If the system is fair (and admittedly it isn't in America, but that doesn't take away from the concept), then just like free market economics, rational self-interest is great.
I should have phrased it as no republican will vote for any bill that increases spending when a democrat is in the white house. They do this game all the time
http://saveie6.com/
No, the periods of economic growth were normal-tax periods - periods where the federal government seized less than 18 percent of GDP. (Source)
Cutting taxes is not an act of aggression. The only people declaring "class war" are people who "think" they are entitled to other people's money, try to vote themselves rich, and use the power of the State to seize and redistribute other people's wealth.
You gotta love the typical /. groupthink of "all corporations are always evil."
1. Corporations are made up of individuals. That's right! When /. readers talk about "evil corporations" you are really talking about your grandparents, who own shares in said "evil corporation" through their pension. Way to undermine your own grandparents, wise and ignorant /. reader!
2. Corporations invest millions of dollars developing quality products that have improved the lives of every /. reader. All they ask in return for the risk and effort they put forth is to be compensated monetarily. But all they get from the wise /. readers is to be accused of eating babies and destroying humanity.
3. Do the ignorant /. readers have any clue that those magical things called "computers" would never exist without corporations? Of course not! Did you idiots know that /. is OWNED by a *gasp* corporation?? Look at the bottom of this page. You'll see a disclaimer that says "Geeknet, Inc." I'll bet you dipshits don't know what the "Inc" stands for, do you? Get ready to be horrified...it stands for "incorporated"! LOL
4. How many /. readers have jobs? Do you value your job? Well, you'd better thank the "evil corporation" that is nice enough to give you a job! But no, you people aren't grateful at all for the jobs, products, pension investments provided by "evil corporations." All you people do is bite the hand that feeds you!
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that
unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of
my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and
an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the
money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its
reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until
all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic
is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw
(Macmillan, 1950, NY)
Current unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are somewhere around $60 to $100 trillion dollars, depending on who you ask. Which Republicans pushed through those programs again?
hey now that's not entirely fair, republicans also hate black people and mexicans. and my preacher says to vote for them to save zygotes.
While I completely advocate for net neutrality, a reading of the amendment will show that the limiting of funds only applies to those funds appropriated in HR3082. Since HR3082 relates to Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, this amendment realistically has little impact on the issue of net neutrality. When congress proposes a bill preventing the FCC from using its own funds to force net neutrality, that will be the time to create an uproar.
"it consisted of both TARP -- passed by Republicans" -- Democrats had a majority in Congress since 2006, when they were elected to end the war(s) -- and didn't. The democrat senator Obama took time to away from his presidential campaign to support TARP, and voted for it.
Yeah, Nixon would probably be thrown out of the GOP. He got the US off the gold standard, instituted wage and price controls, and ended the Vietnam war.
He tried. You aren't paying attention. Democratic congressman decided NOT to do it. So don't put this on Obama. Obama inherited a crappy pile of shit and a party who are scared of their own shadow. cain
Please, folks. Break your left-right paradigm programming:
Is Net Neutrality a FCC Trojan Horse?
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise
Net Neutrality: FCC Trojan Horse Redux
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux
Thanks! Apparently, you've read my posts.
Wow. 1352! Did you help Cowboy Neal start the site?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Actually, they'll just move their jobs somewhere else. Capitalism requires stability. If there is no stability then it is hard to make money isn't it? So they'll just pick up and move somewhere else. We pay taxes and the taxes go towards moving towards a just society. If society is not just then we have instability. sri
Obama could have stopped this. He chose not to.
The cuts would have expired without positive action by Obama.
First he rolled over for the health insurance companies*
and then he did this.
Not very happy.
----
* Starting to get weird vibes off the health care thing tho. While they basically wrote the bill and pwned him, the "must accept regardless of previous illness" appears like it will lead to massive unintended consequences which could bankrupt the health insurance companies unless revoked (so that is what I expect).
The play goes like this...
I'm healthy... so I pay $625 to ~$2000 a year in fines (tho it may be capped at $1100 for some) and pay for my own health care.
Now.. I get hideously ill (cancer + mad cow disease) and I immediately join health insurance *which must accept me* and *must pay an uncapped amount to cure me*.
I can't see how that is going to be sustainable. Massive adverse selection- no one paying premiums until they need the benefits.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
During the Iraq war, the military was literally giving *suitcases* of money to Iraqi politicians. We apparently cannot afford education for our kids, but we are willing to give millions of dollars in cash in a suitcase to an Iraqi politican. Fuck what a sinkhole of money that war was. What did we get out of it? What? DId we get oil? IF this was a company the president would have been fired for wasting shareholder money. sri
If he holds his principles until he starves to death, I salute him.
However, in this case, I think he held his principles because benefits were postponing the pain.
Once the pain hits, his principles will typically (about 80% of the people) fold in less than a month (for most it's actually less than a day if anyone around you is talking negatively about it-- most people rationalize massively once the slightest stress begins).
But if he says, "I voted that way, I lost everything, I'm living on the streets, covered in filth, unable to find even a minimum wage job despite years of experience, and now I'm going to vote that way again... because I sincerely believe the wealthy actually help create jobs rather than just take money out of the mass market and destroy jobs." then cool. He may be right- he may be crazy- but I'm down with his principled position.
But if he starts going apeshit and threatens violence, I hope he gets what's coming to him for being an idiot and slitting his own throat.
Raising taxes by 10% and providing extended unemployment benefits would not hurt the wealthy (just return them to the 1990s) and would reduce the pain to about 12 million americans (they are rolling off at about 1 million a month now- so about 12 million of them next year when it peaks 3 years after the 2008 crash.).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Dear PopRatzo,
I suggest you do have a distorted view of facts, history and economics and a socially fatal set of values.
Depending on your parents age, "full retirement", assuming the worse case and your parents were very much of the "I want it now generation", is 67. That assumes they were born in 1960. I don't recall anything in my reading of the Constition that suggested that people could not retire before or after, but I also don't recall an reference that the US Government (or the Social Contract.. look it up), that the rest of society was responsible for making sure that everyone should have a income that they desired at retirement (ie. stop being productive) by making others giving to them. Where do you get off suggesting that 1% or 2% or 5% or even 10% should pay for the retirement of the rest because they want it when they want it regardless of what they have done to live that dream.
And yes.. EVERYONE should expect to work until 70.. Give me a good reason why they should NOT if they are able.. and don't tell me that Society owes them. Stop living in the 1930's (which was far bigger financial crisis than now) when 5% of the population was 65; in 2005 it is 12.4% and in 2035 20% will be over 65. Do you really think/believe that 2% of the population can/will support 20%.
I don't recall any Natural Law that suggests that anyone is entitled to retirement... I don't recall any good reason that people should expect that others should take care of them because they feel that 65 is a good reason to stop working. Sixtyfive was a magic number 80 years ago.. wake up.
The suggestion that the US governament should put a gun at the head of people of productive citizens (ie. they pay taxes) for inhabitants that can't, won't or otherwise would rather have Nike Shoes, Cable, etc instead of save, is a world that I will gladly leave in the next 20 years.
With China, India, etc coming on as they controlling economic and strategic players with pratically no limitations, there has been nothing like this since the US and the 1800's, in terms of a complete change of balance of economic power.
I don't think you know/understand what a massive offshore asset migration that will happen if Federal goverment (and the pigs at the trough) try to implement such a policy. When the US Population consists of a bunch of hamburger flippers @340M and Indian/China have 2000M, the US market will become round off error to anyone keeping the books in Peking. Why would anyone want to hold US assets that will be rapidly depreciate in value. As the US government believes that the only "National Security" asset of the US is copyright and they try to make IP issues the same across the world, there is nothing to stop the IP to be "developed" and owned in any country a Corporation decides they want. I can contribute IP to a company based in Togo. .... what does the US think it is going to do. What the DFs in Washington don't understand, that is once the dominate US government gets all governments to observe the same IP value-system as the US, then it will be far easier to move that IP to any country (tax haven) that makes the most sense to that corporation. (Personally I'm voting for St Marteen.) It only took 50 years to move US manufacturing offshore... IP ownership.. 5 minutes. If US society continues to decline, what is the advantage for anyone to work/live/invest in the US. Hundred years ago, a bunch of people said the same thing about Germany, UK, Ireland, etc.
I think you are very naive regarding Economic cycles and when a President / Congress set of policies materialize. I assume that you understand that when a World War completely destroys the industry of 4 out 5 of the major economic powers that the last one standing will get all the short term benefit ('50s) . (Japan, UK, Germany, France, throw in Italy,USSR, etc). I assume that you can show that Vietnam war (Kennendy/Johnson) had a net positive long term economic return. I assume that you can show t
I have sad news for you: you are not the voice of reason.
Hints: economics is not a zero sum game. In the presence of resources, including capital, wealth and prosperity can be created over time.
And getting to the top 2% isn't going to be because you saved an extra 3% on taxes.
>> other people's money
What kind of fantasy world do you live in? As if a billionaire had by the sweat of his own brow and the pulsing light of his bulging brain somehow created, *from scratch*, the entire mechanism and culture that produced his billion dollars. No, that is ludicrous. Some people happen to have the right skill set and happen be in the right position to gather a monstrously disproportionate share of the profits of some business and they become billionaires. The idea that they somehow "earned" all that money is nonsense. By your logic, a man who is laid off and can not find another job in time should resign himself to starvation and demise. I can't wait to hear your denial.
Does this mean that I support the taxation/welfare state as is practiced now? No, hell fucking no! It is demeaning, stupid, sadistic, and rewards zero-sum gamesmanship more than entrepreneurial innovation that you and I both hold dear. Read about Social Credit. Read your Heinlein. Almost all economists are fools or liars. Read my sig.
Social Credit would solve everything...
Gah! More economic fairy dust. WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ON "HARD CURRENCY". I know you think so because you have been fed some nonsense about the "gold standard" but it is utter bullshit. Throughout the entire history of the United States fractional reserve banking has been perfectly legal. All your boogeyman Fed did is systematize the practice. Now, repeat after me: "There can be no such thing as hard currency as long as fractional reserve banking is legal." Read your Heinlein. Read your Douglas. Read my sig. The truth is out there.
Social Credit would solve everything...
1) Tax cuts are not spending. 2) Go back and run the numbers based on who controlled congress. 3) Oh fuck it. You won't listen anyway.
Here is what else that person losing his unemployment benefits may be losing as well.
His 47+ inch LCD TV, his Xbox360 live membership, his $150 cell phone plan, premium level cable and or Dish service, maybe his NFL ticket on Dish, his 1.5 year old $32k car, might have to turn his heat down to 67 in the winter. I may not be describing everyone but I know we all know many people that have that buy that exact stuff at the same time they pay nothing in federal taxes and rely on public assistance to maintain that standard of living.
I am sick of everyone bashing the "rich" while over 40% of americans pay absolutely NO federal income tax at all and a vast majority of them have the exact same luxuries that I mentioned above. Sorry, you should not be getting a free ride AND expect to have some of that stuff. I know many people that use their EIC credits to buy a new big screen TV and why wouldn't they. The government will supply them with everything they need from the pockets of the "rich". Notice that everyone and every newspaper that talks about the rich getting tax cuts never really touches on the amount those rich people actually pay in taxes and how little the people making under $40K/year actually pay and how many "poor" people actually make money when they file a federal return?
On planet Republican: Tax cuts for the rich and military spending don't count towards the deficit/debt; The military never wastes money and definitely does not count as part of the "big government".
Tax cuts for anyone do not count towards the deficit, damn straight. No matter how much the rich were taxed historically, federal intake has never averaged over 18% of GDP. And the higher marginal rates go, the lower percentage of the total tax burden is actually paid by the rich.
Moral: We cannot tax our way out of these deficits or this debt, and the money does more for the economy under private direction than it would under federal control to boot.
Haha, I love when these neckbeard SlashDweebs mod down anyone who says something reasonable.
OMG, he's not a EuroSocialist Johnny Trustbuster, quick mod him down!
the military is practically the only constitutionally authorized thing the federal government spends money on. so sure, let's have a national tax rate of 10% for everyone, and eliminate all non-military spending until we're in annual budget surplus territory.
"big government" is the central government exercising authority over citizens beyond what the constitution and tenth amendment allow them to. so it is correct that the military would not be included in this umbrella.
It's not my fault the government wastes billions of dollars. Why should I have to pay for it in the form of higher taxes? If the government can't pay its bills maybe it shouldn't have so many obligations. That means spending cuts. They can start by cutting the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Labor. Why is that such a hard thing for people to wrap their minds around? The money I make isn't the government's. It's MINE. I busted my butt for it, so hands off.
Enforcement would probably mean that when people figure out that the networks are fucking them, they sue and win. As opposed to the current situation, where we *and* the content providers are getting fucked. It probably does mean additional load on the legal system, but our legal system would really be much less overburdened if we stopped treating marijuana possession as a crime. Shame about the private prison industry though.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
What about the deal between Obama and the Republicans regarding Bush-era tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits? The unemployment benefits should certainly be counted as an increase in spending. It seems to me that the Republicans are perfectly happy to vote for just about anything at all, as long as there's a tax cut attached to it.
Voters like you scare me. What do you plan to do when you run out of other peoples' money?
I believe the tradition (at least in the 20th century) calls for death camps of some sort...
TARP - passed by Republicans...
all spending bills originate in the house.
the house was controlled by democrats.
the senate was controlled by democrats.
congress passes a bill.
a president signs it.
yes, bush signed the first bailouts.
bailouts passed with bipartisan support by a democrat controlled house and senate.
Tax cuts were for everyone. if tax cuts were not extended, poor's tax would go up 50%, rich tax would go up 3%
Military is one of the few things the constitution specifically authorizes "Big Government" to spend on.
Correlation and causation...
Rebublicans are the kind of guys that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.
Republicans are the kind of guys that would fuck a guy in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to admit to being gay.
Republicans are the kind of guys that would take a cock up their ass and then go on a crusade against gays. No courtesy there.
In which year?
You are welcome on my lawn.
He went to talk to the Chinese commies! Are you kidding? If Nixon were a US Senator in 2010, he'd have gotten beaten by a teabagger in primaries. But of course, he would have run as an independent and won.
It's funny, as crazy and dangerous as Nixon was, he represents one of the last of the sane Republicans.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Reagan did not cut taxes, friend. He presided over the largest tax increase in US history.
Take some time and read a half dozen books about Reagan not published by Regnery. He was a monster who did more harm to the US than any 20th century president.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Tax increase on working people that is. He did that by increasing SocSec taxes, which only impacted the middle class and working class.
Yes, he declared class war in the US.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I wouldn't mind getting screwed over or lied to about jobs; but please, DON"T BRING BACK COMPUSERVE.
I was listening to that show when that story was told. The host was Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh's argument was not that the man who lost his job deserved to lose everything. Limbaugh's argument was that what the man needs is not unemployment payments; he needs a job. Of course, Limbaugh blames the job situation on Obama. The caller says that his job was cut in anticipating of higher health care costs resulting from the new health care law.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
What I would like to understand is why this is attached to a military/veteran's bill?
We all know--it's so that it will pass. But why do we accept these tactics as commonplace?
My guess is that if light is shined on this--why Senator, do you support this? She'll have some dubious explanation of how this is necessary for the survival of corporations, and that the survival of corporations is necessary for the employment of US citizens (they still cling to that whole trickle-down theory because frankly it supports them (the rich) and their key financial supporters (the richer)).
It's disgusting and it happens every day... but the average citizen is either not informed, uninterested or powerless to do anything about it.
I'm a conservative Republican and I have difficulty explaining to other conservatives why network neutrality is important.
Somehow, a rumor got started that's extremely difficult to debunk. There are a lot of conservatives out there who think that Net Neutrality is like a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet. They think that it means that whenever you access a political site, you'll get pop-up windows of other sites that present a contrary viewpoint.
We need to start making people understand what we're talking about and why we need it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Republican Politicians and Type A Constituents: "I've got mine"
Republican Type B Constituents: "Don't take away my right to get mine"
Democrat Politicians: "I'll get you yours"
Democrat Type A Constituents: "Where's mine?
Democrat Type B Constituents: "I feel guilty you don't have yours"
The problem here is that the Republican's are more organized and on message :)
No, no, you've got it all wrong...
A true liberal can never be mugged... he makes a last minute donation to a local charity.
...the reason Hutchison is putting forward this legislation is because these senators feel that the government is over-doing regulation, they want to see the Gov. take a step back and focus on the budget, not make more regulation...
There are a few things wrong---
1) They don't know their recent US history... take a peek at a book regarding how the population of our country was doing back when major individuals or companies had cart blanche to make decisions and were mainly free of government regulation and interference... yep, it sucked to be one of the masses...
2) They believe that companies are run by people, and people will make the right decision... see #1
3) They think that our laws today protect people too much, so they actively work to dismantle protections for citizens... again, see #1
"History is doomed to repeat itself" is not a saying that someone made up from fiction... it's a truism... people forget even the recent past and soon end up back making the same mistakes. Unfortunately this ultimately means the end of the current western society... I guess we'll just hope it's a soft landing in favor of something that maybe isn't so bad.
"Look at the rest of history."
Looking.
"The period of greatest economic growth at all levels of society occurred during a time when we were on a real hard currency, and neither republican nor democrat congresscritters could give away money that wasn't theirs by asking the Fed to print it. During those times, prices went down while wages went up."
That was before 30-s. Ended with the Depression when currency supply became inadequate.
This is exactly why we need a constitutional amendment banning unrelated riders and amendments on legislation. That would effectively ban earmarks as well as these insane riders that force the few decent legislators we have to vote against things that are desperately needed.
At least when Democrats spend money, Americans benefit (through social safety nets, cleaner air and water, forward thinking investment, necessary regulation to protect consumers with safer food, and safer finances, etc). When Republicans spend money, they throw it down the huge gaping maw of tax cuts for the already super-wealthy, and the military industrial complex to kill foreigners half a world away.
How fucking stupid are you to think a tax cut spends money!!!! The money people work for in this country is not first the governments and they graciously spend some of it so we can have something. WE EARN OUR MONEY and our GOVERNMENT TAKES IT FROM US.
Once again we earn our money, our government does not earn it when we work. Our government in the form of taxes takes our money. Our government needs to cut the taxes of everyone even more than they already have. And then when they are stealing less I mean taking less of our money, they will need to stop spending on things that they don't need to be doing. Our government is not intended to support us because we are to stupid. Our government needs to get out of our way and let us live our lives. How many businesses or families in this country when they make say 4000 a month would go out and spend 8000 a month? That is right unless they are insane none of them. We all need to realize the only way to get our country out of debt is to cut spending that is not necessary. Now what is necessary? How about roads? Yes. National defense? Yes. Welfare? Not as a give me program but if changed to require work for the money yes. A federal department of education? NO, each state has a department of education and are able to determine what needs to be done for their school to succeed. Our federal government should only be responsible for what is laid out in the Constitution and not insert itself in every aspect of our lives. Their are countless other programs need to be reformed or removed. The NSF I am sure wastes money and can accomplish the same things with less money.
Maybe once the government and providers succeed in destroying the internet, people will go back to actually talking to each other face-to-face and forming connections with one another. Then maybe they'll finally get mad. Mad, and guns.
Although I fully support net neutrality, I think allowing the FCC to give itself authority to regulate the internet would be a total disaster. This goes far above party politics and I don't believe either party can be trusted to protect our freedoms online. It is both parties currently trying to destroy Wikileaks. The only hope is to keep governments hands as far off things as possible and voting with our pocketbooks and loudly letting ISP's know we will leave if they block certain types of data. I say this with full understanding of the limited choices most people have for providers. I don't think market forces would work perfectly, just much better than politicians (scum) and bureaucrats (sub-scam).
The Republicans noticed two facts:
1. The USA is a democracy and you hold power by getting most of the voters to vote for you. 2. McDonald's is the largest and most successful restaurant chain in the USA, yet the food is utter crap and kills the customers.
After they put these two facts together, they figured out that if they use mass advertising campaigns and catchy slogans to appeal to emotion with a pack of lies, they can hold power while simultaneously raping and pillage The Middle Class and The Middle Class would thank them and ask for some more. Ya gotta hand it to them, since Reagan started it, they've been remarkably effective while the Democrats have better, more honorable ideas, they are completely ineffective mass communicators.
You do know that President Hopechange isn't a Republican, right?
Clinton was forced to pass balanced budgets because of the Republicans in Congress. The CBO in 1995 predicted more then $200 billion in deficits. These were the budgets passed under Clinton and a Democrat controlled Congress in 1993 and 1994. Newt Gingrich refused to pass a non-balanced budget, which is what the White House was giving to Congress at the time. President Clinton, in fact, said that a balanced budget was not an top priority for him. White House and its supporters went to far as to fight it, saying it was going to harm people's Medicare. Once the budget bill was passed, Clinton was more them willing to claim credit for it, despite fighting a balanced budget tooth and nail.
The other thing that was helped created the Clinton surplus was massive job growth that occurred around that time with he start of the dot-com boom. More jobs means more tax payers. It was a lot easier to have a balanced budget when you have more tax revenue.
Well, yes, but then it turns out that defense is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
There's a reason intelligent people are more "liberal".
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
ANYTIME the Fed does ANYTHING, it costs US money, lots of it. How the FUCK do you not know that? When was the last time the Fed did anything cheaply and efficiently? Where do you live, South Pole??
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Considering the distribution of wealth in this country, benefits to non-wealthy would benefit the vast majority of the people in this country. Of course their other important issues, but is not strange that so many people vote against their own economic interests in a society who bases their ideas of economics on self-interest?
And you say the Democrats are better? So far, in the the past two years I have gotten a healthcare bill that says that mandates that I engage in an economic activity whether I want/need to or not, my money has continued to go to companies who put themselves in financial trouble (I knew this started under Bush, I was unhappy when he did it and I am unhappy Obama continued it), and the economy is still in the tank. Democrats, Republicans...meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
From what I read here, everyone seems to be forgetting a fundamental item, jurisdiction. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC does not have unlimited jurisdiction to rule over internet regulations. Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is where the court got the law to form it ruling, says that "...Commission shall forbear from applying any regulation or any provision of this Act to a telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service..." (Section 10, Telecommunications Act of 1996).
The USA is a democratic republic, a type of republic.
You mean, like the colonial period? The period of greatest economic expansion of the US was between the 1940's and the 1970's.
The rules have no concept of a rider only of an amendment and as far as the rules go of course amendments are permitted if the majority agrees with the amendment. So it isn't really just a congressman's whim. In real life that Simpson's skit would look more like:
CONGRESSMAN: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER: All in favor of the pervert amendment?
FLOOR: Boo!
SPEAKER: Amendment defeated. All in favor of the Springfield bill?
FLOOR: Yea!
SPEAKER: BIll passed.
If the rider is part of the introduced bill as introduced then the introducing congressman (or committee) can put whatever he wants in the bill. In theory, once it is introduced the majority can then amend the rider out of the bill.
The problem is that riders are often in the interests of the majority or almost majority. They are a good way to garner a few extra votes as well as to pass unpopular legislation. I agree this is a problem since it defeats the purpose of legislative debate but how would you fix it? Every fix I can think of eventually trusts someone to be incorruptible enough to fairly decide what is or isn't a rider and I don't think anyone like that exists in Washington. If you know of a way I'm seriously interested in hearing it.
So, what you're saying is he should be greedy and vote for whichever politician will give him the most benefits as opposed to who he believes will do the best job running the country and handle issues in a fair and constitutional manner (as much as can be expected from a politician, anyway)? Voters like you scare me. What do you plan to do when you run out of other peoples' money?
When did you stop beating your wife?
Ok, I am not defending Fox news here, but for the top rated cable news network to only have .3% of the viewership means one of 2 things. Either you are outright lying, or nobody watches cable news. Since the cable news networks are still in business, they must be making some money, hence people are watching them, so logically speaking you are just a liar.
We agree about the problem; there's too little competition. But regulations, price controls and the like have a long and consistent history of creating shortages and *reducing* competition. Even the most benign and well-intentioned regulations raise entry barriers to the regulated industry and increase costs to consumers.
When you saddle an industry with a new obligation -- something they wouldn't have done absent the regulation -- it almost certainly reduces their margins. But no company in its right mind just absorbs that; you have to do better and better quarter over quarter or all the 401Ks and mutual funds that hold your stock will start fleeing. So you reduce value to the consumer somehow, by raising prices, cutting support, withholding bandwidth increases that you used to give for free, etc. All the while the industry has a bunch of new compliance costs, making it less attractive to speculators and harder for entrepreneurs to break into, thereby also making it even *less* likely that consumers will be able to respond to your increasing suckiness by going to a competitor.
Meanwhile, you've set a new precedent, giving a federal agency the authority to make the internet conform to its preferences. That's all well and good when the agency's preferences match yours and they make you feel like you've forced a company to give you something. (You haven't and they never do, incidentally.) But many others are just waiting for a chance to change the internet in very different ways. Obscenity guidelines will surely be close behind. Anonymous connections aren't good for anyone with lobbyists, so those will have to go. Official monitoring for terrorists and copyright infringers is no less likely than ATF agents breaking down doors at warehouses full of counterfeit DVDs. And since the DHS is already usurping domain names on behalf of the entertainment industry, imagine what they'd like do with all that new authority. And you know, all those cable channels have been operating like the wild west, not at all like the orderly and well behaved over-the-air broadcasters who are regulated. Maybe we could stretch that authority just a little teeny bit and bring some much needed reform to cable programming.
We will get neutral access from the marketplace. It may come at a premium at first, but consumers hate limits. No regulation gave us Amazon non-DRMd MP3s. Or AMOLED screens. Or 4G. Or Wi-Fi tethering (now at a premium price, but *actually* unlimited, and will surely be part of the basic package within a decade). No regulation gave us home internet service to begin with. Do we really need to use the nuclear option to get source-agnostic speeds?
Every expansion of authority begets another. Every one of them. Once people see government as a tool for righting wrongs, government acquires the ability to wrong rights as well. Our constitution placed extraordinary limits on federal authority to prevent that, and we'll piss those limits away to stop someone from throttling our Netflix or torrents.
Pi Ran Out
I'm sorry to have to point this out but whether the armed forces are "constitutionally authorized", or not, is irrelevant. If the problem is that the government is "too big", as many Republicans claim that it is, then one way to reduce the size of government would be to reduce the budget of the armed forces.
The armed forces, just like every other organization in human history, wastes some of its budget. Why then should the military be exempt from the same fiscal scrutiny applied to any other government department?
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Ah. So it's only admirable to hold to your principles in spite of the cost when the cost is your very life; nothing short of that will do.
Prove it, or admit that you are making baseless speculations about someone you know nothing about. Those are your only possible choices.
Reality has a pronounced liberal bias.
I'm a liberal (well, leftist libertarian) and I really hate hearing people say that. It's an easy thing to say, and an easy thing to believe, which is why everyone thinks the facts support their views. Please just don't say it, it's cheap. It walls off the possibility of being wrong and being able to change your opinion based on the facts, which is central to classical Liberalism. The correct way to put it is that "Liberalism has a pronounced reality bias."
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
Point taken, and I will attempt to avoid such subtle pop culture references in the future when they could indeed be misconstrued as brainwashed ignorance.
Oh, if only it were so easy to convince the Rush worshipers to do the same (or an approximation, namely to stop mindlessly mouthing his claims).
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
NPR is heavily left leaning. I'm not saying they are bad people. But c'mon admit it, they do have a tendency to say what people want to hear, which changes with the specific program and target audience.
On one show, they discussed the injustices of the post-Katrina rebuild in New Orleans. Local people couldn't get a job for "fair wages". I happen to be down there, and unfair wages turned out to be $12 to $15 an hour.
Then two days later, NPR talks about the injustices that the Mexican nationals were having to put up with. They came by the thousands to rebuild New Orleans. They were treated unfairly, etc.
NOT ONCE did they ever discuss the possibility that the two things were related. Gee. None of the locals can get work paying $20 to $25 an hour. Perhaps the thousands of Mexicans working for $10 an hour, mentioned on their own show the day before ..nahhhh. That has nothing to do with it.
This happens all the time on NPR.
If taken with a grain of salt, then NPR is a wonderful "woes me", we're all victims here, feel good, commiseration station. Down to the caring, sympathetic "quiet" voices, and background music.
I get it. It sells. It's likeable. Still, if you don't pick up on the propagandist elements, then you're just as bad as the righties sucking up Glenn Beck's fake tears.
Well, we can only worry about ourselves on that one and make sure that we're honest.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
Who on earth thought GOP/TP represented regular people?
The idiots who voted for them?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Or will they just bypass that step entirely and go straight to violence in a couple years.
Probably, at which point it'll be mighty risky to be working any kind of manual labor, even if it's mowing your own lawn, while looking even slightly Hispanic, or to be anywhere doing anything while looking vaguely middle eastern.
These are the kind of people who stop off at the castle to borrow some lit torches and then go burn down their own village.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I live in rural southwest, and the amount of coworkers who watch/listen to Fox news is about 90%.... for the simple fact it's about all we get. I've had countless conversations/arguments with coworkers about "libtards" and teabaggers and contend with the crap they regurgitate after hearing it from the Almighty Rush.
But at least you can get both kinds of music on the radio, country AND western!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
You believe the wealthiest are the hardest working? I must have missed all the stories about Wall Street traders dying trapped in their cubicles.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What does Fox News get on a great night, about 1.5 million viewers? There are 300 million people in this country. What is that, about .5 percent? And since Nielson records people who tune in during the morning and again at night as two separate viewers, How big do you think the cable news audience is?
Even the lowest-rated broadcast network news show has better ratings than Fox News, and nobody watches broadcast news. Figure it out for yourself.
You are welcome on my lawn.
...CNN did a poll that showed over 60% of Americans support the tax cuts for rich thinking they would provide jobs...
But in reality it just means the rest of us get trickled down on some more.
Consumer demand, i.e, demand side economics, not supply side, creates jobs as people try to make money fulfilling that demand. No demand, Mr. Rich Guy is just going to stick the extra money wherever it can draw the most interest. Only if he sees consumer demand is he going to plow some of it into a business to try to profit from selling into that demand. In order to have consumer demand, consumers have to have money to spend. Demand can spur the creation of more supply. Rarely can supply spur the creation of more demand, and then almost always because excess supply drove down prices.
The fact that Obama is considered radical left by most mainstream Americans is outstanding and you can't deny America is not going further to the right as a result.
Obama's considered radical left by those who don't really know what radical left is, but have been conditioned by Fox News to believe it's anybody who isn't to the right of Ghengis Khan.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I grew up in Flint. I assure you we will go to violence before we turn to education.
Michael Moore? Is that you?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
FCC regulates telephones, but another consenting adult and myself can get on the phone and talk dirty to each other all we want to, or make the most outlandish political statements, and they have no authority to stop us, so there are a few holes in your blanket statement.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Actually I think it's just because they enjoy being able to trickle down on us and get away with it.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
And rapidly becoming a banana republic.
and I don't mean the clothing outfit.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Anecdotally, crime is starting to go up. We've had multiple bank robbers lately. I hadn't heard about them for many years and suddenly about 30 locally.
likewise, several neighborhoods are seeing an increase in financially motivated crime (do not leave even a buck in visible in your car-- better to leave your car visibly and obviously empty).
I think people are getting desperate. Could be unrelated tho.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
No, this was Street Talk, a local houston financial program on AM700 (available by internet). It was a real guy and it was last week sometime (so may still be in the archives).
However, with a million people a month running out of benefits, and 55% of them republicans, this story is going to come up a lot.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Hey! I'm a socialist libertarian!
Heretic!
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Yes, I agree. NPR is fairly left wing.
The way I read it right now is
NPR- hard left
MSNPC - left
CNN - left to hard left
FOX - hard right
Drudge (web)- hard right.
Rush (talk) - hard right
Hannity (talk) - hard right
O'Reilley - Right to hard right (had a few principles left a couple years ago, not sure about lately, like letterman, he ran afoul of sex issues that would not have been an issue 20 years ago).
No centrist to "very mildly left" news sources available.
I also listen to BBC, BLOOMBERG, and CNBC.
I think the older caucasion CNBC anchor (Mark?) in the morning may actually be Centrist/Pragmatist/Realist.
Bloomberg comes across as very dry-- it is probably pro business but the bias would come in the pre-fact selection because the actual presentation seems fairly balanced but with a pro business bias.
Not biased either way socially- it doesn't give a damn about social issues.
BBC is maybe the closest to centrist with a british bias but I don't spend hours on it so it may be.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"No republican will ever vote for anything that increases spending"
Ah if only it were true. I'd hold my nose and vote republican.
They just voted to increase the deficit by 1.2 trillion. That included 400 million in new spending.
Republicans (and Democrats) will only vote to increase spending between the 1st and 31st of the months between january and december.
The only exceptions are ron paul and a few others (including one or two democrats whose names escape me at this late hour).
Both parties raise spending our grandkid's money as long as they get a pet project or they get lobby money to be reelected or (occasionally) if they are offered a solid job after leaving congress by a corporation or lobbying firm.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I feel the BBC puts a teenchy bit of conservative spin on news. IMO Reuters and Al-Jazeera are more spin-neutral. I like to check them all; I balance the extremes and juxtapose them for yucks. Okay, I think maybe I'm a bit liberal since mostly I laugh at the hillbilly hijinks on foxnews.com and presstv.ir, but I check out the conservative stuff at sites like the guardian.co.uk and nytimes.com to see what new horrors are coming down the pipes from our Fearless Leaders. I try to interpret each site from the mindset of their intended audience and imagine what my state of delusion will be. I have a wild-ass theory that the hard spin steers each group along in its (separate) path and prevents any useful dialog or progress, or thought. It's almost as if democracy was a vast conspiracy to transfer power to the Merchant Class.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
>> Really? Can you provide an example?
If you're looking for an example of how to work hard for your money, take a look at the (RI|MP)AA.
>> See, this is your problem right there. [...]
You are correct, the economy has not been a zero-sum game for a number of years. Indeed, "the rich" have magically produced some kind of hyperinflated value that has caused "the poor" to have less relative purchasing power.
FACT: The wealth gap in the United States has increased significantly. [1][2]
Meaning, "the rich" are getting richer and "the poor" are getting poorer.
Whether we care indicates somethign about our level of compassion for our neighbor, no matter how many shitty stories about "the poor" you are sold by the nightly news.
Anyways, your logic is incorrect:
"[...] We can create wealth,
[...] wealth magically trickles down my leg like the hunter-gatherers did with berries,
[...] therefore nobody steals."
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Gini_coefficient_of_income_distributions
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
I do think most of the media are pro corporate and I believe both political parties have been captured by the corporations. The republicans and democrats are both also captured by the wealthy (but different groups of wealthy).
The fact is, if the corporations and wealthy were just a teensy bit poorer, they would still be doing fine and the rest of society would be doing much better.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Post-war? You mean when the majority of the worlds industrial base had been wiped out and the US was the only nation left with any reasonable manufacturing base? If he had managed to fuck that up Truman wouldn’t have not have just been a war criminal but also a retard.
>>>On what planet do Democrats like to spend "far far more"?
The top 5 most expensive items on the budget:
- Social Security
- Medicare
- Medicaid
- Welfare
- Food Stamps
The top 5 were inventions of the Democrats, and that's why I call them "bigger spenders" than the Republicans.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I could have had a two or three digit ID, but I hesitated to register initially, because some of us back then thought "user accounts" were a tool of the MAN.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I assumed/hoped they were just the type who wanted the wealthy to be able to dominate the rest of us, hoping to join them one day. I guess I was hoping for a different delusion, e.g. hoping for a very small probability event, vs just not understanding at all the world they live in.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
By not understanding the world in which they live, they are able to maintain that self-delusion of joining them some day.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Firstly, economic growth shouldn't be the measure of a good government -- there's too many variables in play to correlate the two. For instance, the dotcom boom and bust was in no way a factor of government, yet politicians in office at the time benefited/suffered from the budget surpluses/deficits. Secondly, I think you're confusing "Democrat control" with "mixed congress". Government has historically had the most success under mixed governments, where no single party has full control. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove only the two-thirds Democrat case.
The Democrat controlled Congress just extended those exact same tax cuts you're complaining about. And the cost of the wars is dwarfed by entitlement expenses (but no one ever seems to take Mandatory Spending into account when talking about expenses).
Terrible comparisons that ignores all factors except "who controls the presidency." You ignore not only who is controlling the other branches of office, but also the general state of the economy (boom/bust/etc) that is generally unrelated to government. As you can see from this chart: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cGw2iu1drOQJ:uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a and this chart https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.png):
1950 -> 1980: Deficit decrease under 3 Republican presidents and 3 Democrat presidents. In all of these situations, we had a mixed congress (most of the time two-thirds Dem).
1981 -> 1987: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency + two-thirds congress
1987 -> 1993: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency. Dems control two-thirds congress
1993 -> 2001: Deficit decrease. Democrats controls presidency. Republicans control two-thirds congress
2001 -> 2005: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency + two-thirds congress
2007 -> 2009: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency. Dems control two-thirds congress
2009 -> current: Deficit increase. Democrat full control. This is also the largest deficit increase ever.
I don't know what the exact number is, but it's the largest ever: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/20/news/economy/total_stimulus_cost/index.htm
I might add that TARP, although proposed by Bush, was very heavily voted against by Republicans in Congress -- it only passed due to a substantial majority of Democrat voting. AND it has pretty much been 100% paid back and then some (unlike Obama's stimulus).
No, the biggest lie ever told is that either party is fiscally responsible when they control all branches of government. The second biggest lie is that the actions of literally a handful of presidents in office somehow define an entire party or its agenda, with full ignorance of any other aspect of the political or economic circumstances.
So Americans are benefitting from the 1+ Trillion we spend annually on Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid? From what I've head, no one has any retirement money and our healthcare here is pisspoor. AND we're damn near bankrupt because of it. And I dare you to show me how "war spending" in any way equals 1 Trillio
Who on earth thought GOP/TP represented regular people?
Judging by the massive number of "out-of-nowhere" populist candidates that usurped long-time GOP veterans last midterm, I'd have to say "nobody."
Pick one after 1789
The comment above is a perfect example of why the founding fathers made it clear that the United States was founded as a Republic, not a democracy. They knew the common-folk would only pay attention to politics that affected them.
The USA is NOT a democracy, it's a Republic, the founding fathers make that very clear.
Does "to the Republic for which it stands" sound familiar? Probably not, but look it up.
The biggest difference between a Democracy and republic is:
In a Democracy the people vote on issues, majority rules.
In a Republic the people vote to elect their representatives, who in turn determine what's best for the city/state/country.
As for Net Neutrality, it's no more than an attempt for government appointed officials to have more control over your life. This case recently was in the courts, the courts turned down the FCC, so the FCC (with the assistance of the The Obama Regime) decided that despite what the court says, they have the authority to push new laws/regulations on the American people.
I find it puzzling why Democrat supporters believe their reps stand for the common folk, the media outlets have democratic supporters so brain washed they'll buy anything, even if that means less freedom, higher taxes, and more government. If you want to think for yourself stop watching NBC/ABC and read history.
How's that Hope and Change working for you?
--Lower-Middle class citizen