backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 155 comment(s) - last by clovell.. on Jan 30 at 3:03 PM

Obama administration dealt a huge blow by House Republicans

It appears that House Republicans had the last word when it comes to the United States' stance on the February 17 Digital TV (DTV) switch. February 17 was the date that has been implanted into the minds of all Americans, but President Barack Obama and members of the Senate have been reluctant to adhere to the deadline.

A bill passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate earlier this week to delay the scheduled DTV switch until June 12. The bill was introduced by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller. The move was also backed by President Obama and his staff.

Supporters of the delay, however, were dealt a crippling blow thanks to House Republicans according to MSNBC. The bill failed to pass a two-thirds majority and end up with 258 yes votes and 168 no votes.

Now that the February 17 deadline appears to still be in place, mud is being slung by both Democrats and Republicans over the matter. "We could do nothing worse than to delay this transition date," said Joe Barton (R, Texas), a member of the House Commerce Committee. "The bill is a solution looking for a problem that exists mostly in the mind of the Obama administration."

Rockefeller (D, West Virginia) was clearly upset over the bill's failure to pass in the House. "The outgoing Bush administration grossly mismanaged the digital television transition and consumers are confused, households are not prepared, and the coupon program for converter boxes is broken."

As it stands, 6.5 million households will be without TV service on February 17 if the DTV switch goes through as planned. It was reported earlier this week that a delay of the DTV switch would cost PBS an estimated $22 million USD.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good News....
By theapparition on 1/28/2009 4:20:24 PM , Rating: 5
Finally, we have some smart politicians.

Okay, I'll back down from that statement, but at least they did the right thing.




RE: Good News....
By therealnickdanger on 1/28/2009 4:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
The whole concept of the government paying for this is ridiculous anyway. So many other things we NEED.

This is interesting - even if it is old:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Ext...


RE: Good News....
By Golgatha on 1/28/2009 4:27:49 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, since the government stands to make money on this deal; I fully support the coupon program. I think the government should have just contracted the boxes out though (I'm sure in such bulk they could get them for less than $40 each) and distributed them to the citizenship instead of having this ridiculous coupon program.


RE: Good News....
By Keeir on 1/28/2009 5:08:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Actually, since the government stands to make money on this deal


Governments do not make money. Governments only take money and spend money.

The best thing to have done was simply sell the spectrum, use the raised money to displace taxes or maybe a flat refund straight to the people, and let the free market cope with a solution. Government interference through coupon program (IE, 40 dollar + pricing for boxes) or contract the boxes (millions in oversight charges and probably a cost significantly more than 40 dollars a box when everything is said and done) has only resulted in the waste of money that could have been better spent.


RE: Good News....
By Oregonian2 on 1/29/2009 11:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
What they did isn't that far off from what you propose. The "flat refunds" were sent out in the form of the coupons (got my two coupons last spring I think it was). Pricing of the boxes is a purely free market thing as you also suggested. The rest of the profits from the spectrum (which they did sell) does displace taxes somewhere (government got it, and only a small portion went to pay for the coupons).

To summarize, they did do pretty much that which you propose.


RE: Good News....
By Keeir on 1/29/2009 2:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
#1.
"Flat" refunds were provided to a minority of people.

quote:
To assist consumers through the conversion, the Department of Commerce through its National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) division handled requests from households for up to two $40 coupons for digital-to-analog converter boxes[33] beginning January 1, 2008 via a toll free number or a website.[34][35] The program is paid-for with a small part of the 20 billion dollars taken-in from the DTV spectrum auction. However, these government coupons were limited to an initial sum of $890 million (22,250,000 coupons) with the option to grow to $1.34 billion (33,500,000 coupons),[36] which is far short of the estimated 112 million households (224 million redeemable coupons) in the United States.[37] Nevertheless, not every household will take advantage of the offer, as reports indicate half of all households already has at least one digital TV.[38]


Furthermore, if like me, you happen to own NO analoge televison, the converter box is worthless so even applying for the coupons seems like a waste of time.

In addition the money spent determining the rules of the coupon program and large amounts of time and money overseeing the program could have been better spent by a faster and easier solution.

#2. The flat coupon rate of 40 dollars should act as a Baseline pricing scheme for the boxes. Without detailed analysis, I can't confirm that, but logically that is the situation, there is a price floor for the device now.

http://techpolicyinstitute.org/files/the_dtv_coupo...

Gives on such view

#3. I highly doubt that the money will actually be used to displace existing taxes... far more likely the money will be used for specific purposes that are easier to vote in with the new "free" money. I mean, this is the US government we are talking about.


RE: Good News....
By Oregonian2 on 1/30/2009 3:12:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I highly doubt that the money will actually be used to displace existing taxes... far more likely the money will be used for specific purposes that are easier to vote in with the new "free" money. I mean, this is the US government we are talking about.


Not with the all-Democratic congress and presidency. If they wanted to spend money on something, they'd have no trouble with spending it anyway. The money from the spectrum sales still is an offset. I don't believe the money increases spending of those who have no spending limit whatsoever anyway.


RE: Good News....
By Hiawa23 on 1/28/2009 7:19:35 PM , Rating: 5
I am glad, we have had a couple of years to get the coupons, & if you did not get yours then too bad. As usual, seems like many want the government to come to the rescue.


RE: Good News....
By joemoedee on 1/29/2009 8:22:49 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I am glad, we have had a couple of years to get the coupons, & if you did not get yours then too bad. As usual, seems like many want the government to come to the rescue.


Well the problem is, they ran out of coupons. And the government is forcefully changing the rules, while profiting from it. (I forget the actual amount of money raised during the spectrum sale, but it was quite sizable)

On the other hand, I didn't know that TV viewing was a "right".


RE: Good News....
By mherlund on 1/29/2009 9:12:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
On the other hand, I didn't know that TV viewing was a "right".


Agreed, it is a privilege, just like a cell phone, or even the newspaper.


RE: Good News....
By dever on 1/29/2009 11:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
while profiting from it
How exactly does government "profit?"

Profits act as a mechanism in which private individuals receive incentive to create goods and services.

Government has no incentives to make "profits," if that's even possible, because, unlike private individuals, they can simple force you to give them the money.

There's got to be a better word to use here. Help me out.


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 2:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
Extortion.


RE: Good News....
By joemoedee on 1/29/2009 8:26:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the government should have just contracted the boxes out though (I'm sure in such bulk they could get them for less than $40 each)


Yeah, but that hurts all the other companies that could profit from selling boxes. Governmental intervention in free market isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The government can't get a TV switch done right, yet people want more government control of healthcare, banks, et al.

Reminds me of one of those demotivated posters. "Government: If you think the problems we cause are bad, wait until you see our solutions"


RE: Good News....
By segerstein on 1/28/2009 6:58:46 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed, and the smart ones are from GOP. The broadcasters will be able to better use the money than on maintaining and running their old analogue transmitters. Shopping new DTVs will also create some actually useful economic activity, unlike the projects in the "stimulus", which is largely a political payback to the unions and the green lobby.


RE: Good News....
By Golgatha on 1/28/2009 4:25:18 PM , Rating: 5
Well, over half of them voted for this bill...so smart politicians are still few and far between.


RE: Good News....
By rs1 on 1/28/2009 5:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm a little confused by that myself. Why did it need a two-thirds vote to pass?


RE: Good News....
By Brainonska511 on 1/28/2009 8:07:54 PM , Rating: 3
From what I read, there was a suspension of standing House rules to push legislation through faster, but when that suspension occurs, legislation needs 2/3 majority to pass.


RE: Good News....
By Hiawa23 on 1/29/2009 9:49:48 AM , Rating: 4
you have no right to watch TV. Either you scrape up the money to get the converter, get cable, satellite, or you don't. Feb 09 has been set for some time & I don't think they need to change it cause some did not get the coupons. I got the coupons early last year just in case but did not need em since I had cable. for those who keep saying they ran out of money the coupons, I think many of us know this, but if you can't scrape up $40 in 12 months or more than maybe you should be doing something else with your time instead of watching tv. Looks like the converters should have been Xmas presents for many.


RE: Good News....
By Staples on 1/29/2009 11:49:56 AM , Rating: 1
Why on earth did you apply for coupons knowing that you did not need them? People like you are part of the problem as I see it.

I have cable and all my TVs have ATSC tuners in them anyway so I sure as hell know I do not need a converter box.


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 3:21:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why on earth did you apply for coupons knowing that you did not need them? People like you are part of the problem as I see it.


This is what ALWAYS happens with government entitlement programs. What do you expect ?

Two states in America have tried socialized medicine. Both systems collapsed and ran out of money within a two year period. Why ? Because people who already had health plans, and didn't need it, canceled them and signed up for state healthcare.

The converter box plan has the same problem. If I were running things, there would be NO plan. Your ass would buy a box, or have no TV. Period.


RE: Good News....
By Samus on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Good News....
By Alexstarfire on 1/29/2009 8:33:41 AM , Rating: 3
I think you need to go take Political Systems class again. Almost all of the time it's just majority vote to pass, which is 50%, but 2/3rd vote to retract. If the government set the first date, which probably only needed majority to pass, then it makes sense that it'd have to be 2/3rd this time since they want to RETRACT the old date.

BTW, it's easier to pass something because it only needs majority vote, which is why this two party system is retarded. If both Senate and House are majority for the president's affiliation then he/she can essentially pass just about whatever he/she wants. In a 3 party, or more, system people's opinions would actually count for something since you'd have to convince at least one party. That'd mean some useful things might actually happen.... or nothing happens at all, had to say.


RE: Good News....
By callmeroy on 1/29/2009 9:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
Good post, but you made one error (that I'm sure you are aware of )..majority is 51% of the vote...not 50%.


RE: Good News....
By gstrickler on 1/29/2009 2:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...majority is 51% of the vote...not 50%
It's actually 50+% (e.g. 50.1%). With 435 representatives in the house, 218 is a majority and 218/435 = 50.11%


RE: Good News....
By TomZ on 1/28/2009 4:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Finally, we have some smart politicians.
No, it's just politics as usual. In other words, getting nothing done.

I swear - if our Legislative branch managed to get anything accomplished EVER - I would be amazed.


RE: Good News....
By MonkeyPaw on 1/28/2009 5:33:47 PM , Rating: 5
If you thought the problems that government created were bad, just wait until you hear their solutions.


RE: Good News....
By ImJustSaying on 1/28/2009 7:37:41 PM , Rating: 3
Did you get that quote from despair.com? Great quote.


RE: Good News....
By MonkeyPaw on 1/28/2009 8:55:39 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, and another one that might be appropriate is:
"None of us is as dumb as all of us." ;)

Another one of my favorite quotes related to this topic goes something like this:
"If you want to ensure that nothing gets done, form a committee."


RE: Good News....
By Curelom on 1/28/2009 7:14:59 PM , Rating: 5
Perhaps it's good that they never accomplish anything, because when they do, they always screw it up.

I think the Dems are afraid that if the people don't get their TV, they'll start listening to the radio and we can't have anybody listening to Rush Limbaugh ;)


RE: Good News....
By homerdog on 1/28/2009 7:40:36 PM , Rating: 4
Don't worry, Nancy has other plans to silence the nonbelievers.
http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/i...


RE: Good News....
By Tacoloft on 1/28/2009 11:14:04 PM , Rating: 5
The Fairness Doctrine is totally un-American and imo flat out evil. Hate this force everyone to be equal crap. The goverment needs to get out of business, get out of the media, and get out of private property.


RE: Good News....
By FITCamaro on 1/28/2009 11:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
I forget the name of it right now but there is another bill out there that the Democrats want to pass that would essentially do the same as the Fairness Doctrine. It claims that since the airwaves are public space, that the people have the right to be represented. So basically they want to have all radio controlled by people they appoint to ensure that the people are being fully represented. And that a certain percentage of stations are run by minorities to ensure this proper representation.

It is such a sick abuse of power that its downright frightening.


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 1:26:15 AM , Rating: 5
Liberals are nothing if not sore losers.

Air America failed. NPR is failing. Newspaper subscriptions to ultra lib papers are at an all time low. MSNBC ratings taking a nosedive.

Nobody wants to listen to liberal radio. I tried it and it's horrible. Honestly, who want's that message ? Imagine getting into your car and hearing hours of pro government anti business anti military whining condescending propagandist clap-trap. Whining about Bush, whining about Iraq. The constant underlying tone that you aren't smart or good enough to make something of yourself, and that everyone who HAS did it by robbing from the "poor". And, of course, Obama Obama Obama oh-my-god-I'm-gonna-cum Obama.

So instead of realizing the majority of Americans don't buy into, or at least don't want to listen to, their point of view on things enter the "fairness doctrine".


RE: Good News....
By callmeroy on 1/29/2009 9:05:41 AM , Rating: 2
I listen to talk radio only on the drive to work and sometimes on the drive home (normally I'm listening to the Sirius comedy stations on the drive home though). If you like talk radio in the morning that is actually varied -- a dash of politics, but not over bearing on just politics -- also news stories and some laid back conversation tossed in...keep an ear out for Michael Smerconish --- he's based here in Philly but he will be going National in Feb.


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 10:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks will do.

I like the new Phil Hendrie show. It's not as funny or entertaining as his old show, mind you, but he pokes everyone in the eye if they deserve it. Republican or Democrat. And his voice acting is still top notch :P


RE: Good News....
By Chaser on 1/29/2009 2:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Michael Medved FTW!


RE: Good News....
By gstrickler on 1/29/2009 3:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
Re: Fairness doctrine

"For they passed a nobel law.
And the trees are all kept equal
by hatchet, ax, and saw"
--"The Trees" by Rush
lyrics by Neil Peart


RE: Good News....
By dr4gon on 1/28/2009 4:44:22 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, thank goodness they have some sense in them! Make the transition now, but they can continue to give out vouchers as needed. No point in delaying any longer...


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 4:52:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Finally, we have some smart politicians.


Actually thank GOD for the House Republicans. They have been the only ones between us and every liberal bill passed from the Senate.

Who killed the SHAMnesty for Illegals ? House Republicans
Who killed the Big3 Bailout bill ? House Republicans

Let's be frank. During the coming Obama years, the House Republicans will be the only ones standing between the US citizens, and total socialism.


RE: Good News....
By TomZ on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 5:04:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Lord knows we can always count on HOUSE REPUBLICANS to help make sure that nothing gets done.


Since when was the government getting things "done" a good thing ?

quote:
It's funny how most people completely fail to ignore the fact the the federal government completely botched the DTV transition.


I agree. There should have been NO converter coupon plan. The announcement should have been made, and people should have been EXPECTED to deal with it. Honestly if you can't come up with 40 bucks, after having a THREE YEAR head start, then you never will. If you can't be bothered to actually take TWO MINUTES and understand the difference between digital and analog TV's.... well come on.

I remember when DVD's were released. I don't remember a coupon plan to help me replace all my VHS's with DVD disks. Give me a break. Technology changes and grows. Adapt or get out of the way.

People like you that think its the governments job to cater to the lowest common denominator are clueless.


RE: Good News....
By dragonbif on 1/28/2009 5:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
That and it should have been impossible not to know when there are and have been commercials for the coupons on PBS, CBS and other stations. RadioShack has been doing the "get your coupons and come pick up your converter" for months they even tell you how to get the coupons. I just do not see how people could not know.


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 5:29:45 PM , Rating: 4
Of course everyone knew. The entire premise behind Obama and the Democrat's argument is false at best, stupidly misleading at worst.


RE: Good News....
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Good News....
By dubldwn on 1/28/2009 6:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
Coming straight from the latest Nielsen report, Albuquerque-Santa Fe, Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston top the charts for digital unready markets, with African American and Hispanic households still lagging in percentages of unready homes.

Just a small piece of the total information. I was curious about the rhetorical question you asked and was looking for the answer.


RE: Good News....
By cmdrdredd on 1/28/2009 10:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The proposed delay was nothing more than catering to all of the golden oldies in this country.


No, my gransma 84 got a 50inch 1080p 480hz plasma because of this. Her neighbor boght a 42" LCD, and the guy upstairs in her building got a 46" plasma. All because they KNEW THE CHANGE WAS HAPPENING SOON! OMG...old ppl aren't dumb.

Get your head out of your ass and realize it's obama playing the race card again.


RE: Good News....
By tdawg on 1/28/2009 5:52:45 PM , Rating: 3
The government didn't stand to benefit from you moving to dvd and they weren't taking away your vhs on a given date.

Federal, State, and Local governments use tv to broadcast emergency information, innundate us with political retoric, and "educate" us on issues. They need people to have access to this information. The fact that pretty much every household has a television means they can reach almost all Americans when needed. This is especially beneficial to us in times of emergencies. So, since they need to get information to you and they are yanking access to something you had before and replacing it with something that requires a cost outlay for each household, they should subsidize this cost.

Now, giving two coupons per household is bs; as long as you have one television able to access government information, important or otherwise, that's all you need. The second tv is a luxury and the costs to "modernize" it should rest with the owner of the tv, not the government.


RE: Good News....
By ira176 on 1/28/2009 10:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
Is it possible that the outcome of the presidential election could have been different if the DTV transition took place sometime, in like August 2008?


RE: Good News....
By habibo on 1/28/2009 7:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I remember when DVD's were released. I don't remember a coupon plan to help me replace all my VHS's with DVD disks. Give me a break. Technology changes and grows. Adapt or get out of the way


This is obviously nothing like DVD vs VHS.

The only reason the government should be involved with broadcast television is because of the emergency broadcast system. In the interest of public safety, they need a means by which they can disseminate information in the event of catastrophe. Since they can't force people to have cable/satellite television or internet access, they use the broadcast radio and television spectrum.

So while it seems reasonable that the government would want to make the transition easier for people, I do agree that extending the deadline is ridiculous. Hasn't this been in the works for about a decade now? Sometimes people just have to be allowed to fail.


RE: Good News....
By Chaser on 1/28/2009 5:05:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Lord knows we can always count on HOUSE REPUBLICANS to help make sure that nothing gets done. Today's vote, and the examples you state, are perfect proof of that.


Common sense prevailed against symbolic "do something disease" there for the new vision of DEMOCRATS in Washington D.C.

Not all "change" just by virtue of it is something to "believe in".

Good job House!


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 5:14:38 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly.

I believe it was Reagan who said " beware of those who say 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help' "

Or something like that.

The government is like Chris Farley offering to help you build a model ship. Often the intentions are well placed, and while the process can be quite comical to watch, the outcome is rarely good.


RE: Good News....
By reader1 on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Good News....
By kfonda on 1/28/2009 5:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe we should try an absolute monarchy...

I'll volunteer to be king. I'm pretty sure I can fix all of the problems, but most people won't like it very much. :-)


RE: Good News....
By Chaser on 1/28/2009 5:51:00 PM , Rating: 3
Now now... Lets give socialism a try first. As it's been so successful everywhere else. How bad can shared misery be? It's only fair.


RE: Good News....
By othercents on 1/28/2009 6:55:50 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The economic collapse indicates that capitalism has failed.

Oh really?? So the collapse had nothing to do with the government stepping in and requiring lending companies to lend to low income families that had no way to pay it back? Or maybe the fact that some lenders knew that the government would bail them out even if they made bad loans? We don't have a free economy. Anytime the economy shifts and it looks like people might have to sacrifice a little the government steps in to make sure people can still do life as usual.

Other


RE: Good News....
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 1:30:39 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
So the collapse had nothing to do with the government stepping in and requiring lending companies to lend to low income families that had no way to pay it back?


Actually, the government didn't do this- this shows a frightening lack of knowledge (or a frightening tendency to believe in propaganda) regarding the CRA:

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blo...

quote:
The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA.


quote:
loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans


It was the free market subprime lenders that hurt the economy. Loans made under the CRA had more regulatory barriers surrounding them.


RE: Good News....
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 1:34:18 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Good News....
By masher2 (blog) on 1/28/2009 9:01:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The economic collapse indicates that capitalism has failed.
What nonsense is this? The crisis is a clear reminder that socialism fails, not capitalism.

What two sectors were the hardest hit in the US? The home lending and banking -- the most government-controlled and regulated markets in the entire nation. And what kicked off the entire process? The failure of Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored entity run by a government-appointed executive, and backed up by our own tax dollars.


RE: Good News....
By oxymojoe on 1/29/2009 12:12:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, and don't forget the mortgage backed securities. Bunch of fraudsters! Caveat Emptor. A lot took place over a period of time, and neither full on free market capitalism nor socialism would have stopped it.

Because it was pure, opportunistic greed by investment bankers and politicians on many levels. Add a few million borderline retarded home buyers, and that is a huge part of our current disaster.

To bad the people who end up suffering the most are the people that would surely have prevented this B.S.....middle class Americans that pay their bills.


RE: Good News....
By FITCamaro on 1/28/2009 11:39:14 PM , Rating: 3
Please shoot yourself in the head. One less mouth for the government to feed.


RE: Good News....
By MonkeyFarts on 1/28/2009 5:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, the government should have stayed out of this process, but they have to get their fingers in everything.

Also if you cannot afford to purchase your own converter box, without the use of a coupon, before the deadline with a three year window then maybe you should not be watching TV. Maybe these people should be getting a second job or studying so that they can better themselves. Maybe they should be worried about eating then what happens on PBS.


RE: Good News....
By DigitalFreak on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Good News....
By DigitalFreak on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Good News....
By FITCamaro on 1/28/2009 11:36:50 PM , Rating: 3
Every single House Republican voted against the "stimulus" bill today. And even 13 Democrats. It still made it through. We don't have the votes to stop anything anymore short of the Senate filibustering. And with idiots like Lindsey Graham and McCain out there wanting to "walk both sides of the aisle", its very doubtful they will be able to. Even if they did manage to filibuster, the media would do everything in its power to cast them as outlaws stopping progress and being against the will of the people. And the drones will eat it up.


RE: Good News....
By ChristopherO on 1/29/2009 1:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the drones will eat it up.

I was hoping the drones would forget to buy their converter boxes until 2026 or thereabouts.


RE: Good News....
By mherlund on 1/29/2009 9:19:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually thank GOD for the House Republicans. They have been the only ones between us and every liberal bill passed from the Senate.


And the Dems use this as a major argument against them. They claim that the house republicans don't work over party lines and the Dems are the only ones who work things out. They think the Repubs are the problem because they only do what they want.

While the Dems may be right, it can be necissary to act this way, I don't think "you do this for me and I'll do that for you" is the correct way to go about things, the best solution needs to be found.


RE: Good News....
By Curelom on 1/29/2009 11:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
The Dems are just as guilty as the Republicans about not reaching across the eisle. Remember last year when the Dems said that McCain need to choose a Dem as a VP to show that he is willing to "reach across the eisle". I never heard any calls of Obama to choose a Rep as a VP.

It cuts both ways.


RE: Good News....
By superflex on 1/29/2009 12:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
In America, we spell it aisle.


RE: Good News....
By Curelom on 1/29/2009 12:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
And if we were talking you'd make fun of my accent too.


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 2:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the Dems use this as a major argument against them. They claim that the house republicans don't work over party lines and the Dems are the only ones who work things out. They think the Repubs are the problem because they only do what they want.


You hear the word "by-partisan" being thrown around a lot lately. In Washington terms, by-partisan means Republicans have to cave in and sacrifice their beliefs and those of the people they represent. When is the last time the Democrats compromised on anything ?

It looks like House Republicans are understanding how this works. If you reach across the isle, the Liberals stab you in the arm. If you walk across it, they will stab you in the legs.

This is why Democrats make terrible leaders. Because every decision they make is a political one. They appear to lack common sense, a moral compass, and the guts to make hard decisions that aren't politically popular. They leave those for the Republicans and then use talking point buzzwords like "cruel" and "lack of compassion".

Bush said "America, let's roll"
Obama says "America, we will carry you."


RE: Good News....
By FITCamaro on 1/28/2009 11:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not really when the biggest piece of pork in US History made it through the House today. Despite not garnering a single Republican vote. I was just glad to see a united Republican front against this piece of crap. In the House at least. In the Senate we already know idiots like McCain and Graham will vote for it. But I still hope many Republicans show their disdain for it. That way in two years when we've spent trillions of dollars and not a damn thing has been done to fix the economy, the Republicans can use it as fuel to show the American people that spending money doesn't fix the problem and they were against it.

It really sucks that we had such a piss poor candidate for President. If we'd had a real conservative on the ticket, Obama likely would not have been president.


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 1:35:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Republicans can use it as fuel to show the American people that spending money doesn't fix the problem and they were against it.


I agree with you, but they don't need to show it as proof. This has been tried in the 30's, the 60's, and 70's. All with terrible results.

Obama and the Democrats know this too. They aren't actual idiots. This is nothing more than an excuse to indoctrinate more people into the Democratic party and to expand the government.

Once you have sold enough idiots that this is the right path. It can never fail. In a few years, when we're still in trouble, Obama will just stand in front of the cameras, put on his game face, and orally seduce the minions that we " have achieved much, but still have a long way to go. " Remember, he's sold them that he just "inherited Bush's bad economy" and the only solution is trillions and trillions of "stimulus".


RE: Good News....
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 2:04:28 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
" Remember, he's sold them that he just "inherited Bush's bad economy" and the only solution is trillions and trillions of "stimulus".


Funny, Bush made a similar claim- he justified a 1.3 trillion dollar tax refund program as a result of the recession that Clinton supposedly left him. He sold enough idiots on this program to make it happen during a time when most the states in the country were lacking money...

quote:
This is nothing more than an excuse to indoctrinate more people into the Democratic party and to expand the government.


Could the previously mentioned program have been nothing more than an excuse to indoctrinate people into the Republican party (by giving them money) and weaken the government so that it was powerless (or unwilling) to stop the coming recession?

I love it when people who attack Democrats blame anything the "government" does on them- it's almost as if the last two terms of office and a majority in congress between 96-2006 was not held by Republicans; they certainly had absolutely nothing to do with the current economic mess.

Keep in mind, I'm not faulting Republicans for the whole mess either- I just find it funny that in spite of the long stretch of holding government power- they somehow were not a party to anything that is happening.


RE: Good News....
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 6:18:24 AM , Rating: 3
Uh yeah and the Bush tax cuts did a lot of good. For one thing small businesses popped up all over the place. Not to mention that tax revenues were actually HIGHER than under Clinton at first because while he cut taxes he also took out a lot of loopholes.

I won't say Bush was perfect because at the end he seemed to be chugging the koolaid. But his tax cuts were a good thing. We need actual tax cuts again right now to actually stimulate the economy. And couple that with decreased social spending (*gasp* let people take care of themselves?!?!? ITS CRAZY!!). This pork will do absolutely nothing to help the economy and the Democrats have even admitted it.

But its going to pass. So the value of the dollar will fall, inflation will eventually rise, more people will lose their jobs, and the Democrats will sit back smiling that they're working their way towards their goal of having the vast majority of people dependent on them.


RE: Good News....
By omnicronx on 1/29/2009 9:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
Tax cuts only stimulate the economy if it creates a boost in consumer spending. Now what are the chances that people will just pocket the money, as these are bad economic times. Personally I feel this is more than likely. If this fails to happen, economic growth will not increase and as a result the rich will benefit and the poor will not.. I'm not saying I support the Democrats plan either, but its just something to think about..


RE: Good News....
By zombiexl on 1/29/2009 10:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
But the poor usually pay no tax and more than often get more money back in their return than they paid when they do work. They generally dont create jobs, or anything other than spend to stimulate/help the economy.

Should they really be the main people to benefit from a tax cut?

I say the first thing is make it so no one can ever get
back more than they paid into the system. I'm liberal enough to say that i'm ok (not overly happy) if someone pays no taxes if they dont make that much.

The next step is to cut taxes at every level. Move the 10% bracket to 5%, 15% to 10%, etc..

Dont forget to cut corporate and capital gains taxes as the third step.

Also stop raising SSI payments. Most people on SSI are capable of working. Why did they deserve a 5.8% increase this year? The rest of the country is freezing and cutting pay (if the media is to be believed).


RE: Good News....
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 11:30:50 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
So the value of the dollar will fall, inflation will eventually rise, more people will lose their jobs, and the Democrats will sit back smiling that they're working their way towards their goal of having the vast majority of people dependent on them.


See, there it is, blame the democrat again, and he hasn't been in office for two weeks- you're behaving as if the value of dollar didn't start to fall months ago, and inflation on many goods hasn't already started to rise. Sure, home and energy costs have been reduced, but many goods on which people *can't* really reduce their demand of, such as food, the cost has risen.

quote:
For one thing small businesses popped up all over the place.


Yet somehow, the poverty rate increased during his tenure and job growth was pretty much stagnant. And look, we're in a worse position than when we started.

Arguing for Bush won't help you in this case- there are only so many numbers you can skew- when you look at the end results, the national debt has more than doubled in spite of his reduction programs, pork didn't seem to be cut any during his or the republican's majority tenure in congress. All the things you are arguing for didn't seem to improve when you had Republicans in control of the legislative and executive branches.

I'm not saying Obama's plan will be better or worse- I'm saying lets wait and see- and that it doesn't help to have a complete blindness to the fact that all of this started prior to his tenure in office.

But of course revisionist history will take hold on the republican side (it looks as if it has already started by your claims of future inflation and the fall of the dollar, again, as if it hasn't already started) just as it does on the democratic side.


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 9:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny, Bush made a similar claim- he justified a 1.3 trillion dollar tax refund program as a result of the recession that Clinton supposedly left him.


Common Liberal talking point.

Tax cuts never cost the government money. You are simply getting back some of what you put in. But because Liberal Democrats view ALL of your money as theirs, a tax rebate is termed a "loss" of government money.

What would you rather have ? 1.3 trillion going BACK in the peoples pockets ? Or trillions going to abortion clinics, environmental groups, and other such pork ?


RE: Good News....
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 10:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
Common conservative talking point. You're living under the illusion that republicans don't give money to their own interests and that because the government handed you an extra $300 check it did better in your hands than, say, bailing out banks, fighting two wars, or perhaps reconstruction after a hurricane. All it did was work as a cheap campaign ploy to secure you to the republican cause- fortunately my price is not so cheap


RE: Good News....
By Chaser on 1/29/2009 11:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
$300 check it did better in your hands than, say, bailing out banks, fighting two wars,

President Bush made it very clear that the IRS accepts direct payments. -That's if you'd prefer to give more towards those two wars.


RE: Good News....
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 11:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying whether or not I advocate the wars- however, you might agree with me if you're a republican, if you're truly concerned about funding homeland security, you don't cut taxes.

And you certainly don't give up needed revenue at a time when just about every state in the nation has gone broke.


RE: Good News....
By Curelom on 1/29/2009 11:43:31 AM , Rating: 2
The government needs to do the same thing everybody else does. Tighten it's budget.

Certainly you don't take needed revenue from the people just when they need it most.


RE: Good News....
By Chaser on 1/29/2009 1:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you're truly concerned about funding homeland security, you don't cut taxes.


Certainly, as I'm sure you are as well.

But I digress on state budgets simply needing more taxpayer money to balance spending. Homeland Security and the Department of Defense budgets are but a pittance of the nation's GNP compared to out of control federal and state entitlements.

Fiscal responsibility and realistic CUTs -yes there's that dirty word- also play an important role in responsible government budgeting.

Obama's latest spending bill, and make no mistake that's exactly what it is- proposes a billion and a half dollars for Amtrak. A government subsidized transportation system that hasn't been solvent for over 40 years.

So I disagree with this notion that government needs more money so we need to pay in more. History has shown that tax cuts increase revenues. Whereas tax increases and "rebates" to those that don't pay taxes, comparatively stifles it. Ask Jimmy Carter.


RE: Good News....
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 3:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Department of Defense budgets are but a pittance of the nation's GNP compared to out of control federal and state entitlements.


The problem with this idea is that the budget allotment almost never includes current engagementsm(war on terror, Iraq, Afghanistan)- that's all discretionary spending . When you look at defense spending as a whole, not just what is initially allocated at the beginning of a budget- the allocation to defense is staggering. Further, you must look at certain forms of investment in research, which is not always allocated as DOD money. Sure, the department itself may recieve a relatively small budget at the beginning of the year, but by years end they've eaten up quite a bit more. They don't need a big initial budget because they get a good portion of discretionary spending. This ends up being far more than entitlement programs republicans complain about. It turns into an entitlement program for the defense industry.

In that respect, 1.3 trillion spent on refunds/tax reduction early in the Bush administrations tenure barely covers the average 1 trillion it spends *per year* in overall military allocation. And this is next to the alternate budgets allocated to programs like DHS, which has wasted billions on its own according to the GAO.

So please, let's discuss fiscal responsibility and a tightened budget in that light, shall we?

Social security programs may not be the most efficient of programs, but it's necessary considering people are getting laid off left and right; I'm not advocating everyone be supported by the state, but when the free market fails to provde enough jobs for everyone, some kind of social protection is needed to ensure that those who have lost jobs don't descend into complete poverty, and further damage the tax revenues generated by the masses in everyday spending. These programs do more to tangibly keep our economy running, versus what DHS and the DOD do.

And keep in mind, we have already infused damaged markets with billions; money has already been given to their cause.

While it is important that people take care of themselves, they certainly are unable to do that if everyone is getting laid off and no one is hiring. The free market is currently failng us in this respect, and it is also failng to keep the economy running as a result.


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 3:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not saying whether or not I advocate the wars- however, you might agree with me if you're a republican, if you're truly concerned about funding homeland security, you don't cut taxes .


Well I can see I'm talking to an idiot. Homeland security, and the government as a whole, grew under Bush despite tax cuts. Defense spending was increased, NOT cut.

We are safer now than we have EVER been. Whether or not you agree with the steps that were taken to achieve that is another fight. But that is simply a fact.

quote:
And you certainly don't give up needed revenue at a time when just about every state in the nation has gone broke.


Wrong again. Stats that DON'T have oppressive tax and spend liberal leaders are thriving compared to those with. And the ones who are "broke" got that way because of wasteful SPENDING, not lack of taxes.

The entire premise of your arguments are, typically for a Liberal, false and totally wrong. It's as if you actually believe the government, state and federal, needs 100% of the money it taxes. Or what it spends that money on is actually necessary.


RE: Good News....
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 3:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Defense spending was increased, NOT cut.


I'm clearly talking to an idiot- I never said these programs were cut. My point, which you not so cleverly tried to avoid, is that if you want to ensure that we can afford to defend ourselves, you don't give up the money.

quote:
Stats that DON'T have oppressive tax and spend liberal leaders are thriving compared to those with. And the ones who are "broke" got that way because of wasteful SPENDING, not lack of taxes.


http://www.cbpp.org/12-11-01sfp.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/12-13-01sfp.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/12-23-02sfp.htm

As of 2001 (the timeframe when Bush was pushing out this 1.3 trillion refund) most states in this country were facing a deficit. This includes conservative states such as Texas. You'll note that by 2004 (the last link) a good number of "red" states were in the red in terms of state budgets- are you going to tell me that liberals invaded Texas and screwed up the budget so that by 2004 they were 4 billion dollars in the hole?

Sure, we can debate on a state by state basis what is necessary, and what isn't, but the fact is, even the "red" states had budget issues at the beginning of this decade.


RE: Good News....
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 4:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm clearly talking to an idiot- I never said these programs were cut. My point, which you not so cleverly tried to avoid, is that if you want to ensure that we can afford to defend ourselves, you don't give up the money.


Yeah I'm the idiot. So you admit defense spending wasn't cut, and that it's budget is larger than ever, but invent a scenario where we need to ensure " we can afford to defend ourselves ".

If we can't afford to defend ourselves NOW, when in the hell would be EVER be able to ?

You act like there is literally a large bank somewhere filled with tax money set aside for defense spending, and that Bush has endangered that bank by cutting taxes.

There is so much wrong with the premise behind your argument, that I'm almost the idiot because I'm trying to cut through them.


RE: Good News....
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 7:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but invent a scenario where we need to ensure " we can afford to defend ourselves ".


You obviously missed the entire idea I was trying to convey- you keep accusing the democrats of trying to push their agenda and giving into special interests under the guise of economic recovery.

My point was that Bush did the exact same thing- he pushed a conservative agenda- make people vote republican by giving them $300 back in tax money at a time when states were experiencing a deficit.

I'm pointing out to you that a financially weakened government cannot effectively solve problems such as national defense (or in this case economic/social collapse). Democrats and Republicans consistently try separating these ideas as if one is a more crucial goal to fulfill.

quote:
You act like there is literally a large bank somewhere filled with tax money set aside for defense spending, and that Bush has endangered that bank by cutting taxes.


And you behave as if any economic misstep is completely a fault of Democrats- you even made the statement:

quote:
Stats that DON'T have oppressive tax and spend liberal leaders are thriving compared to those with.


Which is a statement that is either in denial or ignorance of the fact that extremely conservative states have experienced budget deficits in the last decade, even very rich conservative states such as Texas. Bush didn't even think to take care of his own state.

Perhaps if some of that money had been diverted to Minnesota, which has a Republican governor (all though their legislature currently is controlled by Democrats)- they might not have had a bridge collapse on them killing people. I'm relatively certain some of the people that died might have given up their $300 checks that were issued in exchange for bridge maintenance. All is not perfect in this country, and there are plenty of infrastructure related projects to be taken up, that are not social security related, that could help to employ more people and move the economy. A $300 per working person cut, on the other hand, doesn't really change anyone's lives. It just helps a few republicans feel better about voting republican.

I consider these aforementioned issues just as important as national defense.

But apparently it's more reasonable to let states go broke and let our infrastructure whither away in the name of republicanism.


RE: Good News....
By omnicronx on 1/29/2009 10:55:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tax cuts never cost the government money. You are simply getting back some of what you put in.
The money has to come from somewhere, as it is lost government revenue. This simply moves the burden to another sector as the government has to recoup its losses, I would hardly call that getting back what you put in.


RE: Good News....
By omnicronx on 1/29/2009 8:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That way in two years when we've spent trillions of dollars and not a damn thing has been done to fix the economy, the Republicans can use it as fuel to show the American people that spending money doesn't fix the problem and they were against it.
Any president regardless of affiliation would have had a bailout package if the wanted any chance of re-election.. I find it really funny you have convinced yourself otherwise.


RE: Good News....
By mdogs444 on 1/29/2009 9:12:40 AM , Rating: 3
Thats actually quite false.

In fact, the house Republicans put to vote their plan yesterday. Funny thing is, not only did it cost half as much and was comprised almost entirely of tax cuts and reductions in spending, but Obama's economic team actually put in writing that the Republican plan would create as many as 6.4M jobs versus Obamas estimated (and bloated) 4M jobs.


RE: Good News....
By omnicronx on 1/29/2009 9:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but Obama's economic team actually put in writing that the Republican plan would create as many as 6.4M jobs versus Obamas estimated (and bloated) 4M jobs.
The House voting, and a President acting are two very different things. And what kind of jobs? I would be interested in knowing the different between the two plans.


RE: Good News....
By mdogs444 on 1/29/2009 9:53:15 AM , Rating: 2
I've only seen/heard snippets of the bill throughout various internet articles and news channels.

However, their bill was aimed at tax breaks for families and businesses. Therefore, the job creation would be primarily in the private sector, versus Obama's job creation in the goverment sector.


shock and awe
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 4:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Are the Obamocrats going to push this through anyway? Obama must have missed calling a few congressional members. Notice how according to MSNBC the republicans are responsible for millions of Americans not being able to buy a converter box they prob don't need anyway. But if the digital transistions goes as a success in February, MSNBC will be reporting and giving air time to Pelosi to announce what a success for America their (democrats) digital TV conversion idea was.

If you look at it, the republicans are all for change. They just don't use it as a catchy word. But their definition of change is "growth".




RE: shock and awe
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/28/2009 4:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't put much into the "according to MSNBC" comment. I was just simply stating the source for my information.


RE: shock and awe
By ZachDontScare on 1/28/2009 5:30:02 PM , Rating: 3
Whats funny is that with a democrat president, a democrat senate, and a democrat house... they couldnt pass a simple bill. Here's hoping that continues as a trend, and we can save a trillion dollars in pork barrel payoffs to democrat special interest groups. (or as the Obamessiah calls it, 'stimulus spending').


RE: shock and awe
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 5:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whats funny is that with a democrat president, a democrat senate, and a democrat house... they couldnt pass a simple bill. Here's hoping that continues as a trend ,


Amen brother.


RE: shock and awe
By omnicronx on 1/29/2009 9:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
Too bad its not going to last, as I am sure you both already know it only takes a majority to pass a bill.


RE: shock and awe
By mherlund on 1/29/2009 9:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
Not always, it this case it needed 2/3's


RE: shock and awe
By psychobriggsy on 1/29/2009 9:03:19 AM , Rating: 1
I love how so many people seem to be blaming everything on the Democrats and Obama. He's been in power what? Ten days? Sheesh.

This DTV transition will be a complete mess for the 6 million households without a digital receiver. Never mind when people realise that they need one box per TV in their house. Still I guess that'll be a little bit of economic stimulus. Not that I have much sympathy, it's not as if the transition hasn't been well publicised.

But delaying it isn't a solution, that's just pushing the inevitable off. It's actually far better to get it over with, and blame the Republicans for timing it for February, failing to set up a decent coupon system, and vetoing the delay, than it is to actually delay and still have the inevitable mess.


RE: shock and awe
By zombiexl on 1/29/2009 10:51:04 AM , Rating: 3
Really vetoing? I believe only the president has veto power. The bill failed to pass in the house they didnt veto it they voted it down.

How many of those 6 million households are in public housing? Just asking, becuase of they are we already paid for their converter box. They just spent the money elsewhere..

Most of these 6 million people probably spend more on things like cigarettes, soda and McDonalds (a month) than the 40$ they would spend on a converter box.
If they wanted to watch tv, they could have been responsible enough to buy one.


RE: shock and awe
By Dreifort on 1/29/2009 11:18:08 AM , Rating: 2
Uh.... you just proved my point pscho.

Obama has been in power what? ten days? and he's already screwing with the perfectly good transition from analog TV to digital? why? to appease liberal groups. Everyone seems to forget that we've been watching DTV commercials for TWO YEARS! If ppl watch their TV SOOO MUCH that they can't afford to be without the analog - apparently they have seen 1000s of these commercials then. And it's their own fault for not acting on it.


Mostly Good
By HotFoot on 1/28/2009 4:25:44 PM , Rating: 3
When I first heard Obama wanted the DTV transition postponed, I was confused as to why. I'd read about the transition years ago. Then again, I'm intereted in tech (obviously) so maybe I'm more aware of the situation than most grandmas and grandpas.

I agree with people here who have posted in the past that this situation isn't incredibly serious. Some people will be surprised when their TVs don't work, and they will find out the 'hard' way that they need to go out and buy a converter box for a pretty small fee.

Otherwise, TV isn't an essential service. It's not like power, gas and water is going to stop flowing to homes. If there's vital information you get on your TV, well you can still get that same info on your radio. If you need weather and traffic reports there's usually a number to call to get an automated update, too. Big deal if the TV's don't turn on. It's only temporary anyway and the people who aren't prepared by now probably won't be prepared six months from now either.

I still view the Obama administration with optimism. There are a couple things I'm weary about, one being this DTV delay and the other being the wording behind how urgent the $850B package needs to be passed. It's like a high-pressure salesman pitch and I think that amount of taxpayer's money deserves a little more attention.




RE: Mostly Good
By ExarKun333 on 1/28/2009 4:49:05 PM , Rating: 5
Wrong. Television (also know to the masses as "TV") is essential to the stability of our government. Without TV, people might start to think for themselves and revolt.


RE: Mostly Good
By FITCamaro on 1/28/2009 11:40:34 PM , Rating: 1
Someone else said this another day. Was it you or did you pirate it?

Either way, as I said before, its definitely true.


RE: Mostly Good
By PrinceGaz on 1/28/2009 10:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
Is there something wrong with this site which causes the word "wary" to change into "weary" whenever it is used.

Comments along the lines of "I'm weary of what someone might do" or "I'm weary of changes to something" are very common.

I'm wary of people who can't use the correct words when posting articles or replies.


RE: Mostly Good
By HotFoot on 1/29/2009 11:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
You got me! I typed the wrong word. I'd go edit it but either I can't or I'm too lazy to do so.

Please put some kind of joke in the type of post you used. Otherwise people are going to think you take it seriously when you say that. I like being pedantic from time to time, but I make sure people know I'm just bored and not actually attacking the OP.

I just accept that people spell things wrong. Hell, I can't even argue most of the time because I spell things the way they do in England whereas most of what I read is American English. Can't really complain: it's the rights spelling where you're from!

ASince you started this volley, I would just like to point out a big pet peeve of mine is poor grammar. For one thing, you ought to use a question mark as the final punctuation on a sentence that is a question. For example: Didn't they teach that in Grade 2?
quote:
Is there something wrong with this site which causes the word "wary" to change into "weary" whenever it is used.


RE: Mostly Good
By zombiexl on 1/29/2009 1:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think that amount of taxpayer's money deserves a little more attention.


You would think, but we were forced to bail out banks with little review before it passed. We we forced to make loans to car companies when congress voted it down.

I'm willing to give Obama a chance, but so far I havent liked what I've seen.


Republicans hate the poor
By monkeyman1140 on 1/29/2009 11:54:32 AM , Rating: 1
You know, we've had 14 years of GOP domination in Congress, and 8 years of GOP domination of all 3 branches of government, and as a result we are in a state of economic collapse.

And what is the GOP doing, fighting a 2 month delay in DTV transition. I mean come on, whats the big deal. They're not cancelling the superbowl here, and you vidiots already have your digital receivers and cable TV.

Can't you cut some slack to poor people for at least 10 minutes and pretend to love your fellow humans who aren't as fortunate as yourself? Kinda like Jesus did?

After seeing TARP I and TARP II in the pipeline, we should have come to the conclusion by now that giving money to rich people that don't need it won't work.

How about doing the work of jesus and giving some money to the poor? Don't they deserve a little bit of the fruits of America too, considering they do all the heavy lifting?

You people disgust me.




RE: Republicans hate the poor
By zombiexl on 1/29/2009 12:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
Disclaimer: I am by no means rich. I grew up pretty well in the middle lower class (yeah not lower middle class). I am now solidly in the middle middle class so I have some idea what I am talking about... Also I dont proof read most of what I type so there may be (probably are) many typo's.

Dems have owned congress for 4 years now, what have they done to help anyone but themselves?

How are the poor doing all the heavy lifting? Why is it that you people always say the rich only get ahead by stepping on people. I'm not saying some people do it, but most do it through hard work and innovation.

It's also funny you think the GOP is the party of the rich elite when most dems are super rich.. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, John "Heinz" Kerry, pick any Kennedy, George Soros, etc, etc, etc.. Also Obama and his wife made something like 4.2mil last year..

Get over yourself and realize the democratic party isn't trying to help the poor or anyone else. They want to enslave the masses through over-bearing taxes, methidone clinics, welfare checks, etc..

Since you want to get all high and mighty and be like Jesus. Conservatives (at least the ones i know) are more likely to support teaching a man to fish than handing him a fish.. Giving handouts is just a way of enslaving people and making them dependant on government.


RE: Republicans hate the poor
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 12:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dems have owned congress for 4 years now, what have they done to help anyone but themselves?


False- Dems won office in 2006, but did not take office until 2007. At best, they've been in office 2 years.


RE: Republicans hate the poor
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 12:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I should rephrase- they have only "owned" congress for two years- they gained seats during the 2006 elections.


RE: Republicans hate the poor
By zombiexl on 1/29/2009 1:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
My fault. I admit that i was mistaken about that. The rest i stand by..


RE: Republicans hate the poor
By superflex on 1/29/2009 12:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
So now the dems are Jesus-like for their compassion to the poor huddled masses w/o their liberal spewing TV.
Nice


RE: Republicans hate the poor
By superflex on 1/29/2009 12:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
How is it that conservatives give more to charities than liberals, but were the one's who hate the poor?


RE: Republicans hate the poor
By zombiexl on 1/29/2009 1:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
Liberals dont actually want to give their money, they would rather spend yours. They are so full of themselves that they really believe that they can spend your money far better than you can.


Let's just get it over with
By SoCalBoomer on 1/28/2009 4:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
I've been on DirecTV for years and pretty much everyone I know either is on Sat or on Digi-Cable . . .

I'm TIRED of the commercials and scrollers telling us that the transition is coming up. . . WE KNOW.

Friggin Democrats trying to delay again. . . ladies and gentlemen, SUCK IT UP. Let's just do this thing. . .yank that band-aid, let out the "yelp", and get it done. . .




RE: Let's just get it over with
By acase on 1/28/2009 4:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yah, what kills me is all of the damn warning commercials that are being brodcast on my DIGITAL CABLE channels. And really, they are only going to be missing out on about 3-10 channels when it goes off. It isn't like some crazy TV fanatic with 10 shows DVRed isn't going to get to see the season finally of Sex in the City (wouldn't that be a shame).


RE: Let's just get it over with
By Doormat on 1/28/2009 4:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
The idea is that while you might have DC on one TV, if you have other TVs in your house that are only getting OTA signals (like in a kids room) its a way to still get the message out.

I'm not saying its a good idea, just an idea.


RE: Let's just get it over with
By omnicronx on 1/29/2009 9:18:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Friggin Democrats trying to delay again. . . ladies and gentlemen, SUCK IT UP. Let's just do this thing. . .yank that band-aid, let out the "yelp", and get it done. . .
What don't you get about the words 'unanimously passed by the Senate'. I didnt agree with the delay at all, but lets put the blame where it is due, and that's pretty much EVERYONE.

The House not passing the bill is nothing more than the Republicans trying to show they still have some power, in which it could be one of the only time it happens this term.
Thank god they did, but I really think all of you are giving them far too much credit. I bet half of them didn't even know what they were voting for, or the implications.


RE: Let's just get it over with
By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 12:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny- they blame all the democrats, but they seem to forget that there is a democratic majority in the house- some of the democrats must have broke in order for it to fail in the house.

Just like the senate republicans must have broke from house republicans so it can pass in the senate.

Personally, I don't care whether it is delayed or not- everything I watch is all ready coming in digital- so what do I care if it is delayed a bit more? It's not like keeping the analogue spectrum will degrade the quality of anything I'm watching.


RE: Let's just get it over with
By gstrickler on 1/29/2009 4:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...some of the democrats must have broke in order for it to fail in the house.
Wrong. Although 13 house democrats did vote against the delay, it required a 2/3 majority to pass. The democrats don't have a 2/3 majority and the republicans have more than 1/3, so all the house republicans voting against it was sufficient to block it's passage. Next time check your facts before spouting off.

I've posted on this many times, there is no reason for a delay. There is no real benefit to a delay and there are significant costs to a delay.


By HinderedHindsight on 1/29/2009 7:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong. Although 13 house democrats did vote against the delay, it required a 2/3 majority to pass. The democrats don't have a 2/3 majority and the republicans have more than 1/3, so all the house republicans voting against it was sufficient to block it's passage. Next time check your facts before spouting off.


Many apologies, I didn't intend to offend your sense of numerical consistency. But my violation of your sense of order doesn't detract from the fact that some Democrats in the house voted against the measure, meanwhile ALL Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of the measure- which was really my central point- you can't just blame the Democrats for this.

quote:
I've posted on this many times, there is no reason for a delay. There is no real benefit to a delay and there are significant costs to a delay.

My other point, if you cared to note, is that I don't care if there is a delay. It does not directly affect me, and I cannot determine a way that it indirectly affects me- if you can, I'm proud that you spent more time thinking about this than I did.

In the mean time, I thank you for reminding me that Republicans still hold at least 1/3 of the House- I had almost forgotten with the way the right keeps crying "the democrats control everything".


Once again, lobbying screwed it up!
By Doormat on 1/28/2009 4:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
The coupon program should have been means-tested (if you make over 50K/yr, you don't qualify, etc). Other European countries have done the same thing and they didn't have these problems, but the US broadcasters lobby worked hard to remove any means testing from the coupon program, and now its broke.




By diggernash on 1/28/2009 6:25:14 PM , Rating: 4
This comment sums up my fears for America. Means testing roughly translated would read "method by which the government shall determine which citizens shall be the takers and which citizens shall be taken from;" I seem to be continually disgusted. If you can't afford 25 ($65- $40 of fluff because of guvment money) bucks for a converter box, then you have already proven you are not a worthy investment. Your likely hood of returning the government's investment through future income taxes is slim; while the likely hood of you continuing to leach dollars from everyone else is high.


By psychobriggsy on 1/29/2009 9:10:03 AM , Rating: 2
The European countries have a longer timetable for switch-over, and they are using the far more common DVB-T standard, so the same hardware can be used throughout Europe, and thus is cheap. It's also been in practically every television sold for the past four or five years.

The UK will only complete switch-over in 2012. Personally I think this is totally lame and they should get it over and done with.

The US has been very ambitious with its plans, and is willing to sacrifice a few people's television viewing to achieve them. I hope stores have enough boxes in stock on that day to supply the people that haven't got one yet.


Here's the problem...
By Goty on 1/28/2009 4:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"The outgoing Bush administration grossly mismanaged the digital television transition and consumers are confused, households are not prepared, and the coupon program for converter boxes is broken."


So, if all of these people are confused by such a simple issue, then how exactly is CHANGING the date so close to the switch going to help these evidently ill-informed people?

If the households aren't prepared, who cares? The biggest problem this will cause is that the people without converter boxes or cable will be without TV for a few weeks. I really fail to see the issue with this. Go outside, READ (maybe a newspaper if you think they'll be cut off from information), spend meaningful time with your family! All of these are more valuable uses of your time than sitting on your butt in front of the boob tube.




RE: Here's the problem...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 4:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well you have to understand, that quote came from a Liberal. Using the Liberal False Premise checklist, we can see that he's a liberal, and why he said what he said.

Liberal False Premise Checklist.

1. Without Government, people aren't smart enough to handle this.

2. It is the responsibility of government to provide every single person with a converter box coupon. Even those who don't/didn't need one.

3. The plan Bush put into place isn't good enough because of ( see #1 & #2 )

4. Delaying the switch, and adding more pork barrel money into the plan, will resolve the issues.


RE: Here's the problem...
By cubdukat on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Here's the problem...
By Chaser on 1/28/2009 8:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Too bad the Drug-Addled Gasbag or the Hannitary Napkin probably said it first, if we wanna go the talking-points route...


I wonder if Air America will go digital. Oh snap. They can't even pay their local broadcasting bill and went into bankruptcy. Good move Al.


RE: Here's the problem...
By cubdukat on 1/29/2009 2:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well played, sir. Still doesn't change anything I said, though.


delay date?
By bugzrrad on 1/28/2009 4:55:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
A bill passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate earlier this week to delay the scheduled DTV switch until January 12.


huh? does _anyone_ proof read these things?




Good
By rmlarsen on 1/28/2009 4:24:01 PM , Rating: 4
Regardless of when the transition date is set there will be a deluge of complaints. For this type of thing you simply have to set a date, and a large number of procrastinators and those completely oblivious to the issue will be dragged kicking and screaming. Let's just get it over with already and free up all that delicious bandwidth.




For once the 5% doesn't win
By jhb116 on 1/28/2009 6:33:40 PM , Rating: 4
I've seen lots of good arguments as to why this is good. It seems most are missing one other important point. Even though 6.5 million is a large number - compared to the total US - this is roughly 5% of American households or 2% of total # of Americans. The majority shouldn't have to pay for the laziness (in most cases) our shear inability to comprehend (Darwin award winners) of the 5%.




Why...
By cscpianoman on 1/28/2009 11:45:54 PM , Rating: 3
Why is it so hard for many of our elected officials to realize that there will always be those who are slow to respond or do nothing? These 6.5 million will, in very short order, and probably on Feb 17 go and swarm Walmart and Best Buy looking for convertor boxes or they might buy some TVs. The funny thing is, there is no delay and the problem is quickly resolved. I congratulate the House Republicans on this one.




Corruption
By Dfere on 1/29/2009 9:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
So let me get this straight. The government SOLD the rights to the bandwith to be freed, then was going to delay the rightful owners from using it?

I smell serious kickback here. How much revenue would have been made by air stations in 5 months? (And don't tell me the switch isn't going to kill air broadcasting. Half of my air stations are currently running infomercials all day now).




RE: Corruption
By cubdukat on 1/29/2009 2:27:16 PM , Rating: 1
Ya think?

Actually, they probably hadn't planned on delaying it, but given what they were seeing with the various cities that did cut-off tests, they had no choice.

I really believe they had no intention of delaying the cut-off, because that would have meant giving back some or all that money they got from the telcoms. They just wanted to make it seem like they gave two shits about the people...which, of course, we know they don't.


I don't know about you but...
By axeman1957 on 1/28/2009 4:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about everyone else, but the first time I heard about the DTV change over was quite some time ago (maybe in 2000, give or take a year) when my parents were buying a TV. The sales person said "oh, you don't want this TV, it wont work in 2 years because the country is switching to digital TV". Ever since, the "deadline" has been pushed back more and more. As others have said, at some point you just need to make the switch to force the last few people to switch over.




So Is This the End of It Already?
By cubdukat on 1/28/2009 5:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
I certainly hope so. Guess I'd better try and find that antenna...




EPIC PHAIL!
By clovell on 1/28/2009 6:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
lulz - somebody had to say it =)




RE: EPIC PHAIL!
By devrox on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: EPIC PHAIL!
By clovell on 1/30/2009 3:03:08 PM , Rating: 1
To think there are so many important things that need to be done in this world and all our government can whine about, is the people who have ignored a transition to DTV for two years.

Fixed that for you.

If we thought as long about bailout spending as we have this stupid DTV switch, we might not be in a recession now.


good
By LumbergTech on 1/28/2009 7:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
im glad this is over with...

I don't think there was any legitimate reason to not switch over...its been too highly politicized




Digital Transition
By crafty on 1/28/2009 9:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
All this means is that the bill has 20 days to go through the rules committee and be voted on with a majority vote on the floor.

All the bill says is that stations analog broadcast licenses are extended 116 extra days, with no mandatory order to vacate them until the new date.

Why the hell is everyone so up in arms about this issue? The money for the coupon vouchers ran out awhile ago and needs to be renewed so people can continue to watch their same old television.

You think elected officials are willing to lose votes from old people over a technology issue? Television watching is a major part of many retired people's daily routine. They don't all have cable. Extending it once diffuses it as an issue after the government bungled the voucher distribution.




By oxymojoe on 1/29/2009 12:34:50 AM , Rating: 2
One of Obama's advisers is a exec at Clearwire.

There were rumors that the delay was to aid Sprint and hinder Verizon LTE roll out. As many of you know, Verizon bought a massive chunk of the bandwidth, and might have something deliciously insidious on the mobile broadband front that makes Sprint nervous.

Then Verizon turned around and said it was ok for the delay...now wee see the delay is delayed. Speaking of microwaves...I think my grey matter is a little toasty. :0)




Thank goodness
By rburnham on 1/29/2009 9:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
This is good news. Let's get this DTV transition finished. The delay would have solved nothing. People that don't know about the switch can listen to the dang jukebox-sized radios when their TVs stop working.

Even though I voted for Obama and like the majority of his ideas, this DTV delay is one of his bad ideas. But that is why the government has checks and balances I suppose.




ummm
By meepstone on 1/29/2009 12:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and consumers are confused, households are not prepared


What's so confusing about tv going from analog to digital. either the democrats are the dumb, confused ones or they are mentally retarded in thinking others are confused because this is so black and white. they are changing it and its on the friggin 17th of feb. can we get any more retarded in this country?




By icanhascpu on 1/28/2009 7:07:07 PM , Rating: 3
Welcome to idiotsville. Population; you.


By jhb116 on 1/29/2009 1:00:38 AM , Rating: 2
I'd plus you up if I had the option. Apparently he is so blind and/or to stupid to know that this DTV thing was actually a brain child of the Clinton Administration. In fact - the gov't auctioned off large chunks of bandwidth during that time frame.


True colors will be exposed
By paulpod on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: True colors will be exposed
By Kazairl2 on 1/28/2009 11:19:02 PM , Rating: 3
"One little thing that will expose the inherently cruel nature of Republicans is the fact that existing antennas WILL NOT WORK for people who do try to use the new broadcast signal. I hope the rich, high-tech snobs who post here are the ones forced to go on their parents roofs in 20 degree, February weather and change an antenna."

It's obvious you don't have a clue (and a serious envy problem). I pick up DTV signals just fine from the same old indoor non-amplified antenna that I was using for the last 5 years. The only difference is that now I can fully collapse the rabbit ears, since all the digital signal comes in on UHF frequencies. All I needed to change over was an Insignia converter box from BestBuy. Voila, no more ghosting, no more snow, no more white noise covering up the sound, no more fiddling around trying to find the perfect positioning for the antennas or notch on the selector knob. All the channels now look like cable. That includes action scenes and the subchannels. I can now receive channels 2-1, 2-2, 5-1,5-2,11-1,11-2,17-1,30-1,34-1,34-2,36-1,42-1,46- 1,63-1,63-2,63-3,63-5,and 69-1. That includes all major networks (even Univision and another Spanish station) and even a 24-hour weather/radar station which could serve as warning of dangerous storms such as the tornado that struck downtown Atlanta last summer. The picture dissolving to blocks only happens very rarely and on the weakest channels. Once the conversion is finally done and the stations start broadcasting their digital signals at full power, blocking should cease entirely.

BTW, the initial decision to do the changeover was made way back in the Clinton years. That's how long people have had to prepare for this. You could postpone the date of changeover FIVE YEARS and still catch people unprepared. There are undoubtedly some people who won't do anything until they turn on the TV and get nothing but static.


By theapparition on 1/29/2009 8:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
As you stated, absolutely no new antenna is necessary. The OP is clearly mis-informed and has an obvious agenda.

But I need to add one thing to your post. DTV channels are indeed broadcast on the UHF freqencies, but after the switch, will move to thier corresponding analog channel.

Example, Channel 3 analog is broadcast on VHF-low channel 3. Channel 3 digital may be broadcast on UHF channel 53 (example). When the analog signal gets shut off, Digital Channel 3 will now be broadcast on VHF-low channel 3. This will all happen transparently to users, since digital tuning no longer requires actually finding physical channels, all channels are now "virtually" allocated.

So you may need to extend those rabbit ears after the switch. :-)


By monkeyman1140 on 1/29/2009 11:56:49 AM , Rating: 2
It depends purely on where you live. Not everybody has the benefit of living 5 miles away from the transmitters.
I had to put a Radio Shack VU-190 antenna in my attic to get DTV, which is about 14 feet long!


RE: True colors will be exposed
By oxymojoe on 1/29/2009 12:22:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not suprising that today's Republicans want people to watch "News" networks where there is rarely any news delivered, never any journalism, and only short-term-profit driven opinions by cowards who sit behind a mic and never go out into the field.


So are you saying that the Republicans want everyone to watch the news? Are you insane? With the exception of Fox news, the news channels are overwhelmingly left-leaning and simply drool over Obama. If everyone listened to the radio and didn't watch TV the Democrats would have been mutilated by conservative radio like Rush Limbaugh...that's why the Dems want the fairness doctrine. To crush any remaining dissent. But you wouldn't know that, hence your post. :0)

Television is a privilege, not a right.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




14 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki