While I do not have direct citations back this up, it has been the recent trend that the sellers of Supply Side Tax cuts to the Republican party have had to claw back the extreme claims. I think Bruce Bartlett has spent recent history setting the record straight. You can also find more information among Krugman's public articles.
And we know for a fact that Krugman, an FDR Democrat, would NEVER produced a biased article....
(Not yelling at you. Yelling at a Republican fantasy that spending fiat money that doesn't exist has no repercussions.)
A "Republican fantasy"? Interesting, then, that we're projected to have a deficit or $1.2 trillion next year.
With a budget proposed by a Democratic President, written by a Democratic House, passed by a Democratic House and Senate, and signed by a Democratic President.
I think the evidence is pretty clear that the fantasy is a deeply held belief of both Parties.
a) no government issues cars or free houses to anyone, and so you can stop with the straw-men,
Actually, when I was in Kuwait some years back, I discovered that the government of Kuwait does, in fact, issue free houses to citizens when they marry.
Successfully releasing the innards of even a small reactor would release millions of Curies.
A 70 MW reactor with a lifespan of 12 years without refueling doesn't have millions of Curies of Uranium. Ten thousand or so, perhaps, depending on the design.
"The 70-megawatt plants, each of which would consist of two reactors on board giant steel platforms, would provide power to Gazprom, the oil firm which is also Russia's biggest company. It would allow Gazprom to power drills needed to exploit some of the remotest oil and gas fields in the world in the Barents and Kara seas. The self-propelled vessels would store their own waste and fuel and would need to be serviced only once every 12 to 14 years."
This probably sounds like a serious potential problem to some of the nuclearphobes, but the basic description sounds like they're using nuclear submarine power plants with electrical generators attached to the turbines instead of a screw.
In other words, this sort of thing has been operating safely for about 50 years now.
citing ethnic reactions to 'swine,' for example among middle-eastern cultures who feel that swine are unclean.
So, it's offending people who think swine are unclean to use the word swine (remember, it's unclean) to refer to an unpleasant disease?? How bizarre! I'd think referring to an unpleasant disease with an unpleasant term would be perfectly okay.
Perhaps if we called it the "fluffy bunny flu", noone would be offended?
So, I'm not a military historian, but I'd argue that attacking the civilian population is counterproductive. Generally, it will enrage your enemy and make them more determined to fight on.
Actually, no. I should note as a counterexample that the bombing by Germany of Rotterdam pretty much caused the Dutch to surrender to the Germans. As well as causing panic in France that materially aided the German advance (French refugees blocked roads that would have been necessary for any serious French counterattack (yes, I know, "serious French counterattack" is an oxymoron)).
The bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan did not have the intended effects (destruction of industry), but certainly had an effect on both countries' ability to wage war. If nothing else, people screw up a lot more when they're awake half the night every night listening to the bombs fall....
Of course, this still means that either the country has done better on increasing GDP, or better in managing debt, or some combination of the two, under democrats rather than republicans. At least according to the debt & GDP figures Wikipedia is using, and assuming that they aren't lying in the chart. I haven't checked any of their figures myself.
Mostly, what the wiki chart shows is that the lads who wrote it favour the Dems. They picked an interpretation of the raw data that made the Dems look good, rather than providing the raw numbers, plus interpretation as needed.
Note, by the way, that even saying the data as presented favours the Dems is misleading. It favours Democratic Presidents. While the President has some input into the budget process, he doesn't have nearly so much control as most people like to give them credit for. Remember the days of "the President's budget is DOA" during the Reagan years?
Fact of the matter is that the Congress has pretty much absolute control of the budget. All the President can do is veto something he doesn't like. He can't make them write something he DOES like. And while a Republican Congress spent money like drunken sailors for six of the last eight years, a Republican Congress was relatively restrained the six years before that.
Unfortunately for those of us who like to pay attention to the nuts and bolts, Congress doesn't have the advantage of being a single person. Or even two people. So the budget process is a lot messier than most people are ready to believe, and people on both sides of the aisle deserve a heaping share of the blame for the national debt that our grandchildren will be paying for.
Note, for reference, that I'm not going to be blaming Obama for the debt in four or eight years. I'm going to be blaming Congress. Whichever Party is controlling it....
Of course, Obama does get blame whenever he calls for new spending. We can't afford the spending we have now - finding new things to spend public money on is insane unless your revenues are higher than your spending. And that hasn't been true since 1957 or so.
As to the deficit not dropping, the dems ONLY got control about 100 days ago.
No, the Dems got complete control of both houses of Congress two years ago. They've been writing the budgets they wanted since then.
What is funny is that pubs had TOTAL control of congress for 12 years, had total control of our gov for 6 and even had a split congress for the last 2 years and what did they accomplish in terms of balanced budget, controlling deficits via amendments or controlling term limits?
Not a damn thing.
And the Dems had total control of Congress for, let's see...40 years before the Republicans got it in 1994. And two years since. And they did how much? "Not a damn thing" fits quite well.
Note that the first two years of Clinton's terms, the Dems had House, Senate, and Whitehouse.
Carter's term included complete control of House, Senate, and Whitehouse by the Dems.
And in none of those periods did fiscal restraint seem to be a goal. Note that during Carter's term, the debt increased by about 30%, which is a larger increase than Clinton managed in two terms.
The big problem with focusing on the period of the Republican control of the Congress is that the Democratic control existed for a much longer period (40 years of either Democratic control or divided control before the Republicans got control of the House in 1994).
So it's pretty clear that both Parties spend like drunken sailors when they have the chance.
Will they push towards a balanced budget like Clinton did?
Clinton didn't balance the budget. National Debt increased each year he was in office. The highest rate of increase in National Debt during Clinton's terms occurred when he had a Democratic House and Senate to back him up.
Clinton gets the credit for 1993-2000. Note that every one of those years had a higher number than the year before. Note that the last time the Debt actually decreased was a two year period when Eisenhower was President (1956-1957).
Note, of course, that inflation isn't factored in to the numbers from the Treasury.
clinton had the budget balanced and in a yearly surplus by the end of his two terms
Oddly enough, the National Debt increased every year of Clinton's terms of office.
Strange that he could manage a "balanced budget" while the National Debt increased, isn't it?
Note, for the record, that the National Debt increased by over 28% during Clinton's terms. And by about $150 billion during the two years he supposedly had a "balanced budget".
Note further that Obama's planned 2010 budget has a deficit larger than the increase in national debt during Clinton's two terms. And that this doesn't include the stimulus spending, which is a whole 'nuther pile of money.
I'm for this if they can keep administration costs below 1 billion.
Not a chance in hell. He's talking about 360 BILLION dollars here. They're not going to keep admin costs down to 0.3%
Personally, I'm in favour of it. But I'm wondering where he's going to get the money to make this something other than a nice speech. We don't take in enough in taxes to pay the bills now, adding another $360 billion to expenditures just means raising the deficit by another $360 billion per year.
Is it mere coincidence that the U.S. government tended towards fewer civil liberties in the second term of G.W. Bush and we are now in a recession?
Yes. It is mere coincidence.
Note that Clinton didn't especially erode civil liberties in his second term, yet we had a recession at the end of his Presidency (and the beginning of Bush's).
So, would it be better to get this flu now to develop immunity rather than waiting until fall for it to come back with a vengeance?
If, and that's still a big "if", it's like 1918, won't much matter. The 1918-19 pandemic included three rounds of the flu, the latter two mutant strains of the first, apparently. So getting it now likely just means you'll get to do it twice.
If so, W and the neo-cons have bankrupted us while the dems stood by allowed them.
The Dems stood back and ALLOWED it?
Do you remember when Bush pushed through a prescription drug plan for Medicare? The Dems opposed it vigorously, because it didn't cost enough to suit them.
Did you notice that when the Dems got control of Congress back the deficit didn't go down at all?
Have you noticed that Obama's budget for 2010 (which does NOT include the various stimulus packages) will have a deficit three times as big as Bush's biggest deficit?
The problem isn't that the Democrats "stood by and allowed them", the problem is that the Democrats actively encouraged them, and are actively pursuing policies that will make GWB look fiscally restrained.
Only hope I have out of all the spending planned for the next decade or so is that a chunk of it goes to NASA....
You can't spill national security secrets, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't deliberately make false accusations against someone else. It's entirely reasonable that someone who wishes to keep guns and other weapons for self-defense should have to demonstrate to a degree proportionate to the lethality of the weapon that they can use, maintain, and secure the weapon.
Actually, you CAN spill national security secrets. Sorry.
And no, we should not be in the position of requiring government permission to exercise our "rights". If we have to have government permission, they're not rights any more, they're privileges.
And privileges can be revoked at the drop of a hat.
Again, if you don't like the Second Amendment, work to get it repealed.
There was a MASSIVE infusion of technology and expertise from German Scientists that had been working on the "Rocket Problem" since the '30's. Also, there was significant military research in the U.S. before, during, and after WWII as well.
From scratch. They didn't even START the design work on Saturn V till the year after Kennedy called for the moon landing. At the time they started, "state of the art" was the Atlas, for god's sake!
The Saturn V was designed specifically for the moon missions, and pretty much everything in it was so bleeding edge it should have been painted red.
Note, further, that the US military did almost no rocket research before or during WW2. And didn't do much of it afterwards. Not until von Braun and Korolev managed to convince the politicos on both sides that the other side was trying to get into space did either get budget to do much more than fire off leftover V2's.
That sounds pretty good to me. A competency test would adequately complete that list of requirements.
Great idea!
Let's extend it to the entire Bill of Rights, though.
We can have a government administered competency test in order to be allowed to speak in public.
And another to allow us to have a lawyer defend us in case of arrest.
And yet another to prevent illegal searches and seizures of our property by the police.
And we should definitely have one to allow us to vote, eh?
Seriously, people. It's a Right enshrined in the Constitution. You don't have to pass tests to make use of your Rights. If you dislike the idea of private gun ownership, get the Constitution amended so it's not a Right. But until then, stop with the notion that you can restrict it arbitrarily.
# that the resident is peaceful and not prone to turn the gun against the family in a moment of passion;
About 17,000 murders per year, about 250,000,000 firearms in private hands. So that condition seems to be met.
# that the gun is well-secured in a gun safe at all times, but yet instantaneously available when needed;
Unnecessary, and untrue in most of the country. I don't know anyone with a gun safe, but I know a lot of people with guns. And not a single one of the guns I know about has ever been used in a crime of any kind, or even been involved in a firearms accident.
# that the burglary will happen while the gun-owner is at home;
I won't need to defend myself or my wife and child if we're not home, so irrelevant.
# that the gun-owner will correctly assess the developing situation quicker than the burglar (unlikely!);
Probably true. The burglar will likely see the shotgun in my hands and correctly decide that he picked the wrong house.
# that the gun-owner has enough training and practice to use the gun effectively;
Doesn't take nearly so much training as you might think to use a shotgun. Especially since the other fellow doesn't want to risk getting shot either. It's a myth that the average criminal is ready to respond with violence at the first sign that the victim is willing to fight back.
# that the gun-owner is truly determined to shoot another human being;
Or that he knows perfectly well that the other fellow isn't going to risk his life for the few hundred dollars he can steal.
# that the gun-owner will correctly judge, in the heat of the moment, which uses of lethal force would not be justified in the situation;
In most of the USA, if he's in your house, lethal force is justified.
# that the gun-owner will not, by attempting to use the gun in that situation, put himself at a higher risk than in the equivalent, gun-less situation;
He won't, unless he's a complete idiot. Remember, if you get shot, you can go to the hospital. The criminal isn't so lucky - if he goes to the hospital, he'll have to explain how he got shot while robbing someone, and goes directly to jail.
# etc
It's always possible to rationalize letting unpleasant people do unpleasant things to you. It's also relatively easy to minimize the danger of such an occurrence. Hint: statistics suggest that the best way to NOT GET HURT in a crime is to fight back. The more effective your means of fighting back, the more likely you are to not get hurt. A gun is the most effective means of fighting back, since it doesn't depend on your size or strength to do the deed - a.45 shot by my 84 year old mother is just as lethal as a.45 shot by me.
Now, as a counterpoint. It's an interesting statistic that breaking and entering into an occupied house is quite rare in the parts of the USA where firearms are common. And much more common in parts of the USA where firearms are forbidden/heavily restricted.
So it's actually unlikely that anyone who keeps a firearm for home defense will ever need it. But if pretty much noone keeps firearms for home defense, the need for home defense seems to go up....
If you are unarmed, I rob you. If you are armed, I murder you, then rob you. Proven fact. Why do you think the US has such a high murder rate?
Actually, every study I've seen shows that if you're armed, I rob someone else.
A decade or two back, Florida passed a Shall Issue law (concealed carry licenses would be issued upon request to any law-abiding citizen). Interestingly enough, the murder rate went down in Florida. And the armed robbery rate went down.
Oddly enough, one demographic in Florida showed an INCREASE in armed robbery after the Shall Issue law was passed - tourists. It seems that Florida's criminals figured out really quickly that tourists were the only group GUARANTEED to not be armed. So they robbed them, instead of the natives.
Also, it should be pointed out that murder/robbery is a very tiny part of the murder rate in the USA. The overwhelming majority of it is the criminal on criminal violence sparked by the criminalization of recreational drugs.
Not allowing subscription fees to pay for other city projects - this on the other hand is not necessarily fair.
This is insanely stupid from TWC's point of view. If I can't charge a little bit extra for my muni broadband to pay for extra police (or a new SUV for myself, or whatever), then I'll just lower my rates to breakeven.
Which will just make it harder for TWC to compete, since they have to make a profit, and I'm forbidden to make a profit.
I will remind you that it was a Republican congress that wrote and voted for the DMCA bill.
I will remind you that 99 Senators voted in favour of the DMCA. One didn't vote. So it was unanimous in the Senate. With the exception of the one Republican who didn't vote, for whatever reason.
The Commerce Committee in the House also approved this unanimously (both the Republicans and Democrats on the committee). It was passed by voice vote in the House, so no vote tally was made there, and it's not clear just how bipartisan it was.
Slashdot Mirror
And we know for a fact that Krugman, an FDR Democrat, would NEVER produced a biased article....
A "Republican fantasy"? Interesting, then, that we're projected to have a deficit or $1.2 trillion next year.
With a budget proposed by a Democratic President, written by a Democratic House, passed by a Democratic House and Senate, and signed by a Democratic President.
I think the evidence is pretty clear that the fantasy is a deeply held belief of both Parties.
Theoretically allowing you to hide how much you're taxing individuals better, you mean?
Or do you really think that if you increase costs to a business they're not going to pass the costs along to their customers?
Actually, when I was in Kuwait some years back, I discovered that the government of Kuwait does, in fact, issue free houses to citizens when they marry.
A 70 MW reactor with a lifespan of 12 years without refueling doesn't have millions of Curies of Uranium. Ten thousand or so, perhaps, depending on the design.
This probably sounds like a serious potential problem to some of the nuclearphobes, but the basic description sounds like they're using nuclear submarine power plants with electrical generators attached to the turbines instead of a screw.
In other words, this sort of thing has been operating safely for about 50 years now.
So, it's offending people who think swine are unclean to use the word swine (remember, it's unclean) to refer to an unpleasant disease?? How bizarre! I'd think referring to an unpleasant disease with an unpleasant term would be perfectly okay.
Perhaps if we called it the "fluffy bunny flu", noone would be offended?
Actually, no. I should note as a counterexample that the bombing by Germany of Rotterdam pretty much caused the Dutch to surrender to the Germans. As well as causing panic in France that materially aided the German advance (French refugees blocked roads that would have been necessary for any serious French counterattack (yes, I know, "serious French counterattack" is an oxymoron)).
The bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan did not have the intended effects (destruction of industry), but certainly had an effect on both countries' ability to wage war. If nothing else, people screw up a lot more when they're awake half the night every night listening to the bombs fall....
Mostly, what the wiki chart shows is that the lads who wrote it favour the Dems. They picked an interpretation of the raw data that made the Dems look good, rather than providing the raw numbers, plus interpretation as needed.
Note, by the way, that even saying the data as presented favours the Dems is misleading. It favours Democratic Presidents. While the President has some input into the budget process, he doesn't have nearly so much control as most people like to give them credit for. Remember the days of "the President's budget is DOA" during the Reagan years?
Fact of the matter is that the Congress has pretty much absolute control of the budget. All the President can do is veto something he doesn't like. He can't make them write something he DOES like. And while a Republican Congress spent money like drunken sailors for six of the last eight years, a Republican Congress was relatively restrained the six years before that.
Unfortunately for those of us who like to pay attention to the nuts and bolts, Congress doesn't have the advantage of being a single person. Or even two people. So the budget process is a lot messier than most people are ready to believe, and people on both sides of the aisle deserve a heaping share of the blame for the national debt that our grandchildren will be paying for.
Note, for reference, that I'm not going to be blaming Obama for the debt in four or eight years. I'm going to be blaming Congress. Whichever Party is controlling it....
Of course, Obama does get blame whenever he calls for new spending. We can't afford the spending we have now - finding new things to spend public money on is insane unless your revenues are higher than your spending. And that hasn't been true since 1957 or so.
No, the Dems got complete control of both houses of Congress two years ago. They've been writing the budgets they wanted since then.
And the Dems had total control of Congress for, let's see...40 years before the Republicans got it in 1994. And two years since. And they did how much? "Not a damn thing" fits quite well.
Note that the first two years of Clinton's terms, the Dems had House, Senate, and Whitehouse.
Carter's term included complete control of House, Senate, and Whitehouse by the Dems.
And in none of those periods did fiscal restraint seem to be a goal. Note that during Carter's term, the debt increased by about 30%, which is a larger increase than Clinton managed in two terms.
The big problem with focusing on the period of the Republican control of the Congress is that the Democratic control existed for a much longer period (40 years of either Democratic control or divided control before the Republicans got control of the House in 1994).
So it's pretty clear that both Parties spend like drunken sailors when they have the chance.
Clinton didn't balance the budget. National Debt increased each year he was in office. The highest rate of increase in National Debt during Clinton's terms occurred when he had a Democratic House and Senate to back him up.
Nice reference. Note that it lists debt as a fraction of GDP.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm shows the national debt (in dollars) for each year from 1950 to 1999.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm shows the national debt (in dollars) for each year since 1999.
Clinton gets the credit for 1993-2000. Note that every one of those years had a higher number than the year before. Note that the last time the Debt actually decreased was a two year period when Eisenhower was President (1956-1957).
Note, of course, that inflation isn't factored in to the numbers from the Treasury.
While I appreciate your point, fact is, there wasn't a 747 involved in 9/11.
Oddly enough, the National Debt increased every year of Clinton's terms of office.
Strange that he could manage a "balanced budget" while the National Debt increased, isn't it?
Note, for the record, that the National Debt increased by over 28% during Clinton's terms. And by about $150 billion during the two years he supposedly had a "balanced budget".
Note further that Obama's planned 2010 budget has a deficit larger than the increase in national debt during Clinton's two terms. And that this doesn't include the stimulus spending, which is a whole 'nuther pile of money.
Not a chance in hell. He's talking about 360 BILLION dollars here. They're not going to keep admin costs down to 0.3%
Personally, I'm in favour of it. But I'm wondering where he's going to get the money to make this something other than a nice speech. We don't take in enough in taxes to pay the bills now, adding another $360 billion to expenditures just means raising the deficit by another $360 billion per year.
Yes. It is mere coincidence.
Note that Clinton didn't especially erode civil liberties in his second term, yet we had a recession at the end of his Presidency (and the beginning of Bush's).
If, and that's still a big "if", it's like 1918, won't much matter. The 1918-19 pandemic included three rounds of the flu, the latter two mutant strains of the first, apparently. So getting it now likely just means you'll get to do it twice.
The Dems stood back and ALLOWED it?
Do you remember when Bush pushed through a prescription drug plan for Medicare? The Dems opposed it vigorously, because it didn't cost enough to suit them.
Did you notice that when the Dems got control of Congress back the deficit didn't go down at all?
Have you noticed that Obama's budget for 2010 (which does NOT include the various stimulus packages) will have a deficit three times as big as Bush's biggest deficit?
The problem isn't that the Democrats "stood by and allowed them", the problem is that the Democrats actively encouraged them, and are actively pursuing policies that will make GWB look fiscally restrained.
Only hope I have out of all the spending planned for the next decade or so is that a chunk of it goes to NASA....
Actually, you CAN spill national security secrets. Sorry.
And no, we should not be in the position of requiring government permission to exercise our "rights". If we have to have government permission, they're not rights any more, they're privileges.
And privileges can be revoked at the drop of a hat.
Again, if you don't like the Second Amendment, work to get it repealed.
From scratch. They didn't even START the design work on Saturn V till the year after Kennedy called for the moon landing. At the time they started, "state of the art" was the Atlas, for god's sake!
The Saturn V was designed specifically for the moon missions, and pretty much everything in it was so bleeding edge it should have been painted red.
Note, further, that the US military did almost no rocket research before or during WW2. And didn't do much of it afterwards. Not until von Braun and Korolev managed to convince the politicos on both sides that the other side was trying to get into space did either get budget to do much more than fire off leftover V2's.
Forty years ago we managed to do it in eight years from the time Kennedy called for it. Including designing the Saturn V pretty much from scratch.
Now, we won't be able to manage it in twelve-plus years, even using as many off-the-shelf components as possible.
Which is really kind of pathetic.
Great idea!
Let's extend it to the entire Bill of Rights, though.
We can have a government administered competency test in order to be allowed to speak in public.
And another to allow us to have a lawyer defend us in case of arrest.
And yet another to prevent illegal searches and seizures of our property by the police.
And we should definitely have one to allow us to vote, eh?
Seriously, people. It's a Right enshrined in the Constitution. You don't have to pass tests to make use of your Rights. If you dislike the idea of private gun ownership, get the Constitution amended so it's not a Right. But until then, stop with the notion that you can restrict it arbitrarily.
About 17,000 murders per year, about 250,000,000 firearms in private hands. So that condition seems to be met.
Unnecessary, and untrue in most of the country. I don't know anyone with a gun safe, but I know a lot of people with guns. And not a single one of the guns I know about has ever been used in a crime of any kind, or even been involved in a firearms accident.
I won't need to defend myself or my wife and child if we're not home, so irrelevant.
Probably true. The burglar will likely see the shotgun in my hands and correctly decide that he picked the wrong house.
Doesn't take nearly so much training as you might think to use a shotgun. Especially since the other fellow doesn't want to risk getting shot either. It's a myth that the average criminal is ready to respond with violence at the first sign that the victim is willing to fight back.
Or that he knows perfectly well that the other fellow isn't going to risk his life for the few hundred dollars he can steal.
In most of the USA, if he's in your house, lethal force is justified.
He won't, unless he's a complete idiot. Remember, if you get shot, you can go to the hospital. The criminal isn't so lucky - if he goes to the hospital, he'll have to explain how he got shot while robbing someone, and goes directly to jail.
It's always possible to rationalize letting unpleasant people do unpleasant things to you. It's also relatively easy to minimize the danger of such an occurrence. Hint: statistics suggest that the best way to NOT GET HURT in a crime is to fight back. The more effective your means of fighting back, the more likely you are to not get hurt. A gun is the most effective means of fighting back, since it doesn't depend on your size or strength to do the deed - a .45 shot by my 84 year old mother is just as lethal as a .45 shot by me.
Now, as a counterpoint. It's an interesting statistic that breaking and entering into an occupied house is quite rare in the parts of the USA where firearms are common. And much more common in parts of the USA where firearms are forbidden/heavily restricted.
So it's actually unlikely that anyone who keeps a firearm for home defense will ever need it. But if pretty much noone keeps firearms for home defense, the need for home defense seems to go up....
Actually, every study I've seen shows that if you're armed, I rob someone else.
A decade or two back, Florida passed a Shall Issue law (concealed carry licenses would be issued upon request to any law-abiding citizen). Interestingly enough, the murder rate went down in Florida. And the armed robbery rate went down.
Oddly enough, one demographic in Florida showed an INCREASE in armed robbery after the Shall Issue law was passed - tourists. It seems that Florida's criminals figured out really quickly that tourists were the only group GUARANTEED to not be armed. So they robbed them, instead of the natives.
Also, it should be pointed out that murder/robbery is a very tiny part of the murder rate in the USA. The overwhelming majority of it is the criminal on criminal violence sparked by the criminalization of recreational drugs.
This is insanely stupid from TWC's point of view. If I can't charge a little bit extra for my muni broadband to pay for extra police (or a new SUV for myself, or whatever), then I'll just lower my rates to breakeven.
Which will just make it harder for TWC to compete, since they have to make a profit, and I'm forbidden to make a profit.
I will remind you that 99 Senators voted in favour of the DMCA. One didn't vote. So it was unanimous in the Senate. With the exception of the one Republican who didn't vote, for whatever reason.
The Commerce Committee in the House also approved this unanimously (both the Republicans and Democrats on the committee). It was passed by voice vote in the House, so no vote tally was made there, and it's not clear just how bipartisan it was.