backtop


Print 190 comment(s) - last by xphile.. on Feb 9 at 9:14 PM

House Democrats and the President push stimulus bill which contains provisions for the expansion of broadband networks and the preservation of net neutrality

Barack Obama and House Democrats talked big when it came to broadband expansion and net neutrality.  Apparently, they made good on their promises and packaged net neutrality and broadband expansion provisions into an $819B USD emergency stimulus package.

On Wednesday, House Democrats approved the $819B USD bill, which includes a $40B USD boost to certain areas of the tech sector.  The bill offers $6B USD to help expand broadband to areas it does not currently reach and $20B USD to help America bring its health care records online, which should help to greatly cut health care costs. 

The bill also includes $11B USD to revamp the nation's electrical grid which is very dilapidated throughout much of the country, having been built in the 1960s, 1950s, or even earlier.  The bill will also pump $2B USD into energy efficiency and renewable energy research.

The bill was virtually split on party lines, passing 244-188.  Not a single Republican voted to approve the bill.  Republicans wanted to cut out the grants and loans for broadband, technology education, and scientific research expansion.  They want to replace the bill with a slightly leaner one, with slightly more tax cuts, targeted across more income levels, including for those making over $200,000.  The bill now awaits Senate approval.

The Senate is currently drafting its own bill, so technically two bills will go through the approval conference.  The House and Senate leaders will meet at a special conference committee to iron out the differences between the two bills.  They hope to have a finished piece of legislation submitted by mid-February for President Obama's signature.

Google's Eric Schmidt, Motorola's Greg Brown, IBM's Sam Palmisano, Micron Technology's Steve Appleton and Xerox's Anne Mulcahy were among the CEO's Barack Obama brought to the White House to discuss the bill and other matter.  President Obama stated, "I know that there are some who are skeptical of the size and scale of this recovery plan. And I understand that skepticism, given some of the things that have happened in this town in the past."

The new bill is perhaps most significant as it represents the first major legislative victory for both net neutrality and open networks.  Net neutrality, stymied under the Bush administration via threat of veto, is the concept that internet traffic, including P2P streams, should not be discriminated against or throttled.  Open networking is the principal that network providers should not be allowed to discriminate against certain manufacturers or providers devices, if they have the capability to access the network.  Those receiving funding to build networks under the bill will have to abide by these principles.

The bill also includes some of the internet speed mandates previously mentioned.  Seventy five percent of the networks built must be fast enough to support video conferencing.  While telecom comments are scarce, CTIA, the wireless carriers' principal trade group, did urge lawmakers to vote against the proposal which it called "vague, undefined and unnecessary", citing opposition of telecoms to the openness provisions.

Motorola's Brown however supports the bill, stating, "At the heart of this debate over the economy is the question [of] whether America will be the preferred destination for businesses to operate, entrepreneurs to start ventures, investors to make their financial bets and high-skilled workers to continue their careers.  President Obama understands that our economic policy must be geared towards strengthening U.S. competitiveness for the long term."

The bill realizes many of the technology initiatives alluded to in President Obama's inaugural address.  While avoiding passing painful regulations on existing networks, the bill offers a nice balance by simply ensuring that new networks are more open and data neutral. 



Comments     Threshold


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

Junk
By mdogs444 on 1/29/2009 1:30:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
On Wednesday, House Democrats approved the $819B USD bill, which includes a $40B USD boost to certain areas of the tech sector. The bill offers $6B USD to help expand broadband to areas it does not currently reach and $20B USD to help America bring its health care records online, which should help to greatly cut health care costs. The bill also includes $11B USD to revamp the nation's electrical grid which is very dilapidated throughout much of the country, having been built in the 1960s, 1950s, or even earlier. The bill will also pump $2B USD into energy efficiency and renewable energy research.


And will also pump in:

$335M for STD prevention
$400M for global warming research
$4B for Acorn, community organizers
$25M for a new ATV track
$6B to weatherize low income housing
$1B for AMTRACK (hasn't been profitable in 40yrs!)
$15B to increase the pell grant (how does paying for kids school equal more jobs?)
$20B for increase in food stamps
$80B+ for unemployment and cobra
$3B to the nation science foundation (yes, the same one that just got busted for having its executives look at porn all day)
$900M for flu prevention
$650M for DTV coupons

Great job guys....i can see all these newly created jobs now! haha. Who says this is junk spending?




RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 1:36:10 PM , Rating: 4
Seems like an aweful lot of port in there. Basically it's "tax and spend" without the "tax." We'll have to coin a new phrase - "borrow and spend" politics.

Just like after 9/11 - we can justify these types of atrocities because we are in a "crisis." In a few years, we will probably look back and regret a lot of this big spending.


RE: Junk
By mdogs444 on 1/29/2009 1:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we can justify these types of atrocities because we are in a "crisis."

That is exactly the liberals thought process behind this. Didn't you notice that yesterday, when Al Gore was testifying to Congress, he used the term "Climate Crisis" as frequent and often as possible?

No longer is it "global warming", or "climate change", but now it is "climate crisis".....fear mongering to make quicker profits from his Madoff-like Ponzi carbon trading scheme? You make the call.


RE: Junk
By MadMan007 on 1/29/2009 1:47:10 PM , Rating: 5
Now let's be fair, the politics of fear and crisis has been exploited by politicians of all persuasions for a good while now.


RE: Junk
By Samus on 1/29/2009 2:00:12 PM , Rating: 5
1.3T for IRAQ.
800B for Banks

Ohh wait, wrong administration.


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Junk
By goz314 on 1/29/2009 2:49:01 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, and President Bush had veto power over them too, yet he signed off on the $700B stimulus package.

Suffice to say, everything is not black and white in Washington. Simplifying every single action taken by any of the government’s three branches down to one ideology or another is just plain naïve -unless, of course, you enjoy trying to polarize every topic down to ideology.


RE: Junk
By Dreifort on 1/29/2009 3:45:34 PM , Rating: 5
so if Bush vetoed the first stimulus...he's a bastard.
if he lets it pass...he's a bastard.

last I checked, Bush had a dad.


RE: Junk
By therealnickdanger on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Junk
By therealnickdanger on 1/29/2009 4:28:18 PM , Rating: 3
Haha, that looks like "boob+".


RE: Junk
By goz314 on 1/29/2009 7:41:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The difference is that Bush signed a 700B LOAN... to save the banks.


My, oh my! How quickly our memory fades these days to suit our own interpretation of events. LOL!

The 700B T.A.R.P. is most certainly not a loan program. It authorized the treasury department to purchase troubled assets from banks. The aim was to reduce or eliminate the exposure that those banks had to those assets. Many of them had over-extended their financial positions through vehicles that included reformulations of inherently risky investments.

There is nothing in the program that guarantees the treasury is going to be paid back for "saving" the banks from their own self generated mess. The governement can and will likely sell some of these assets back to the market some point in the future, but at what depreciated value? Can someone say, "Pennies on the dollar?"

Here is a quick refresher for you;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Assets_Relie...


RE: Junk
By WTFiSJuiCE on 1/29/2009 3:00:36 PM , Rating: 5
Approved by enough republicans in congress and signed by the former republican president so your point is?

Both parties have been acting like spoiled children and shutting the other out once one comes into the majority.

The political parties are just like the Union of Auto Workers. They were necessary when they were created and have done a lot of good in their heyday, but now they're just bloated and brainwash the masses in order to feed their own self-serving agenda.

Reminds me of Sally Struthers on the Starvin' Marvin episodes.

Stop this liberals are evil/conservatives are evil BS (thats just what Limbaugh wants). They both equally stagnant and equally haven't/aren't getting anything done to help this country. Its not one group's fault, its both + the people's fault (in short, everyone has a piece of the blame).


RE: Junk
By bodar on 1/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Junk
By bodar on 1/30/2009 6:38:58 AM , Rating: 3
Why exactly is it so wrong that I want politicians to quit all their BS special-interest-pandering and childish partisanship?


RE: Junk
By mikefarinha on 1/29/2009 5:56:58 PM , Rating: 3
To be fair Rush Limbaugh frequently likes to remind people that the money being spent in Washington is your money, my money, it isn't their money that is being spent.

He also likes to frequently make the point that many politicians(usually of a particular persuasion) think they can spend your money better than you can... this whole fiasco is the epitome of that point.

Some politicians are of the persuasion that you can spend your money better than they can... and in doing so you, not the politicians, will (and have) grow the economy.


RE: Junk
By ebakke on 1/29/2009 3:35:47 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
800B for Banks
Half of which Bush's administration got to spend, and half of which Obama's administration gets to spend. And as soon as you add this latest "stimulus" plan, it quickly becomes obvious that everyone enjoys spending other people's money. It's not just Republicans, and it's not just Democrats.


RE: Junk
By Ammohunt on 1/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Junk
By Muirgheasa on 1/29/2009 4:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
Millions of dead non-terrorists being the big downside to that one of course. Oh, and the fact that the American public were badly misled on the reason for the war...


RE: Junk
By ColumbusGuy on 1/30/2009 11:09:30 AM , Rating: 3
"Millions of dead non-terrorists being the big downside to that one of course."

Admittedly, I don't have all the facts and statistics pertaining to the Iraq war, but I seriously doubt there were 'Millions' killed if you count everyone that died as a result of the second Iraq war. Do you have a credible source for this very large number you've quoted?


RE: Junk
By Muirgheasa on 1/30/2009 2:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well that was a little hyperbolic, so I apologise for that. The actual figure is something over a million, I believe, but, as you rightly point out, not millions. The basic point stands though, regardless of whether or not it was hundreds of thousands or millions.


RE: Junk
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Junk
By MrBungle123 on 1/29/2009 2:40:36 PM , Rating: 3
yup, pretty much.

Is it just me or does the media/government label everything a "crisis" whenever they feel something should to be done regardless of how important it really is?


RE: Junk
By sgw2n5 on 1/29/2009 9:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
You'd probably consider this a crisis too if you had a family to feed and no job.

/just sayin'


RE: Junk
By xphile on 2/9/2009 9:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah - Id be damn scared about what I could do with 3 billion dollars for porn too.... that's a crisis of indescribable magnitude...


RE: Junk
By yacoub on 1/29/2009 2:00:27 PM , Rating: 4
Speaking of Gore, this is most interesting:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/3857474...


RE: Junk
By MadMan007 on 1/29/2009 1:46:17 PM , Rating: 4
I call it 'debt and spend' and it was mastered over the last 8 years unfortunately and has become standard operating procedure.


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 2:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neither is good, but I'll take the former of the two scenarios.
I agree with the idea of what you are saying, but don't you think that the federal government really "has" to spend money now to stimulate our economy and break the cycle of recession? What alternatives do you think exist right now?

I'm against the spending - but I also don't have a better alternative that I can sugggest either.


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 2:17:55 PM , Rating: 5
Cut personal, capitol gains, and corporate income taxes in half to fuel increased investment and job growth as well as private spending and saving?

Crazy I know.


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 2:19:06 PM , Rating: 3
And slash Welfare and Medicare spending as well as trim many of the thousands of government jobs. Why does a single politician need a staff of more than 2-3 people?


RE: Junk
By MarcLeFou on 1/29/2009 3:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
Increasing government spending (in things such as infrastructure, etc.) in times of economic recession is a textbook example of economics. The basic rule is to generate surplus in the good years to spend it in the bad.

The increased government spending then trickles down to the consumer who then spends said money, thus making the economic wheel turn.

Of course no government actually *saves* during the good years but I don't really see an alternative for the US government after this one since it'll be so deep in debt.

As for cutting down welfare, as much as I don't like seeing lazy slackers making money off my hard work, its the worse thing to do in an economic crisis because the "poor" often don't save a penny and instead spend it all. Removing that money from the economy at a time it desperately needs it would only make a bad situation worse. The depression in the 30's was so bad in good part because there were no welfare systems so people without jobs didn't have a single penny, thereby drastically reducing the consumer base, leading to more layoffs, etc.

As for cutting down on taxes, a greater portion of the income of people paying taxes goes into investments and savings so tax cuts are usually less effective. The important thing to factor in when regarding the income tax rate is to try to have it as high as possible but low enough so that as little people are tempted to work illegally to bypass it.


RE: Junk
By Dreifort on 1/29/2009 3:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yes this theory worked with FDR. It just took about 8 yrs and while the unemployment rate did eventually come down, our inflation rate rose to record highs.

FDR prolonged the depression and his means to get us out of recession did work (there are different ways to solve a problem - some just take longer), it pushed the value of the dollar down tremendously.


RE: Junk
By MarcLeFou on 1/29/2009 3:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
Considering the value of the US currency compared to 5 years ago, I dread to see how much lower it could go.


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 2:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cut personal, capitol gains, and corporate income taxes in half to fuel increased investment and job growth as well as private spending and saving?
Similar tax cuts during the Bush presidency didn't have the intended positive effect. Why do you think it would work now?

It seems that trickle-down economics does have its place - it seemed to work well for Reagan, but it clearly doesn't work all the time.


RE: Junk
By MrBungle123 on 1/29/2009 2:26:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Similar tax cuts during the Bush presidency didn't have the intended positive effect. Why do you think it would work now?


The recession Bush inherited from Clinton was shortened by the Bush tax cuts.


RE: Junk
By Steve Guilliot on 1/29/2009 3:23:14 PM , Rating: 1
No. The economy "recovered" when it started being fueled by an unprecedented level of consumer debt. People used the equity in their homes, and all those "zero interest" credit cards to sustain their standard of living.

Why? Mostly because they could: human nature and easy credit. Partly because adjusted wages have declined since the tech bubble bust.

Now, we are reaping the rewards of the "recovery" you are falsely crediting to the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts only succeeded in jacking up the national debt and increasing wealth disparity.

Supply-side, trickle-down, reaganomic, Jude Waniski-wannabe, Milton Friedman-wannabe, Faux News-watching, Rush-listening robots need to pull their heads out.


RE: Junk
By ebakke on 1/29/2009 3:46:52 PM , Rating: 4
So Americans started living beyond their means when Bush became president?


RE: Junk
By Dreifort on 1/29/2009 3:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
Clinton made it possible for me making $27K in 1995 to purchase a house worth $180K, butI didn't take out a loan.

Man, I should have put myself in debt back then, what was I thinking!? I clearly missed the boat to live like a rockstar.


RE: Junk
By bupkus on 1/29/2009 4:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No. The economy "recovered" when it started being fueled by an unprecedented level of consumer debt. People used the equity in their homes, and all those "zero interest" credit cards to sustain their standard of living.


RE: Junk
By Nfarce on 1/29/2009 7:05:22 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Supply-side, trickle-down, reaganomic, Jude Waniski-wannabe, Milton Friedman-wannabe, Faux News-watching, Rush-listening robots need to pull their heads out.


Oh put a sock in it, you moveon.org pansy, PMSNBC-watching, Jon Stewart "news" watching, Al "Senate thief" Franken wannabe, Keynesian-junk econ loving, Air America listening moonbat.

(Gee that was easy - we should all name call more often!)


RE: Junk
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/2009 9:38:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
No. The economy "recovered" when it started being fueled by an unprecedented level of consumer debt. People used the equity in their homes, and all those "zero interest" credit cards to sustain their standard of living. Why? Mostly because they could: human nature and easy credit. Partly because adjusted wages have declined since the tech bubble bust. Now, we are reaping the rewards of the "recovery" you are falsely crediting to the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts only succeeded in jacking up the national debt and increasing wealth disparity. Supply-side, trickle-down, reaganomic, Jude Waniski-wannabe, Milton Friedman-wannabe, Faux News-watching, Rush-listening robots need to pull their heads out.


#1 rule of economics. Charging businesses and people more money through taxes never ever in the history of the world stimulated any type of growth. You liberal jackasses need to realize that when you raise taxes the businesses will CUT JOBS. Why? Because they can no longer afford to employ people under their current situation. Cutting taxes, getting the money back to the people who need it to invest in new equipment, hire people to run that equipment and get the ball rolling on a number of levels is where you come out of a recession.

Take a look at Ronald Regan. He said, we are in a poor economic situation, he cut taxes to give businesses more expensible income so they could build and expand and actually hire people. Bam, out of recession.

You liberal taxocrats need to get YOUR head out of your asses.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Complete idiocy here from you.


RE: Junk
By MadMan007 on 1/29/2009 11:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah the Dems should take a lesson from the Bush years and lower taxes for the already wealthy and run up deficits from a trumped-up war instead.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 11:27:14 PM , Rating: 3
The "rich" are the producers of our economy. They EMPLOY people. They provide goods.

If you tax them, they raise prices on goods. OR they layoff workers to maintain their profit margins. Look around you man, why do you think businesses are laying people off by the thousands ? People aren't SPENDING as much.

We have a consumer driven economy. If we don't have people producing goods, and people buying them, the whole thing goes to hell.

But please, you and the Obamanites continue with the class warfare on the rich and the belief that all business tax cuts do is go into some "fat cats" pocket.


RE: Junk
By Starcub on 1/30/2009 1:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you tax them, they raise prices on goods. OR they layoff workers to maintain their profit margins.

Or both, at which point they go out of business like they should. Unless of course, you keep feeding the monster because he's growling even louder. But what government proponent of free trade would do that!?! Insanity I tell you!!!


RE: Junk
By MrBungle123 on 1/30/2009 1:55:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah the Dems should take a lesson from the Bush years and lower taxes for the already wealthy and run up deficits from a trumped-up war instead.


You do realize that its the "rich" that pay the vast majority of the tax burden right? people making less than about 40K a year effectively pay no taxes. Sure they get some taken out of their check every payday, but between the income tax returns and child tax credits etc. It is all returned to them and then some.

Tell me how do you lower taxes for people that pay no tax?


RE: Junk
By snownpaint on 1/30/2009 11:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes, while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money.

Can I pay 19% of my income and Warren pay 33%..

Trust me, I paid money to fed and state. The my tax papers show it..


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 1:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006
Buffet is kind of a hypocrite when it comes to his statements about taxes. After all, what would keep him from paying 33% if he felt that was the "correct" tax rate for someone in his income level?


RE: Junk
By sgw2n5 on 1/29/2009 9:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Bwahahaaaahaahaaa

Cool, DT has their own revisionist historian!


RE: Junk
By MisterChristopher on 1/30/2009 3:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
Here's an even better idea. How bout completely eliminating the income tax. Eliminating the income tax would have profound effects on the desire people have to work. It would also make sense when considering that the economy that is struggling is the people's and not the government's. Letting people keep what they work for will always help the economy.


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 6:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well completely eliminating it would mean very little government income. It does need to take in some money. The only problem right now is that what is taken in is never enough to the Democrats. Until they take all our income it will never be enough.


RE: Junk
By snownpaint on 1/30/2009 12:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
How about cutting income tax. Increase sales tax..

You do not get taxed getting money, but you get taxed when you spend it. Everybody has to spend money to live.
No taxes for saving money
No taxes for capital gains.
Higher inherency taxes, remove the aristocratic society. (because you can't take it with you)
With the baby boomer dying off in the future there will be a ton of tax income, or they will spend it during their retirement..


RE: Junk
By geddarkstorm on 1/30/2009 2:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
Increasing sales tax decreases a person's effective income - their dollar counts for less. It's like instant inflation. This is no different than taxing income directly, just a different dance to the same old tune.

Inheritance tax, or death tax, are incredibly stupid if set too high. Don't you think the poor can save money if they are frugal, and pass it on to their next generation, giving them the chance to get an education and pull themselves up the economic ladder? My great-grandfather certainly did. Seriously, inheritance is not simply for the rich, but anyone who is wise with money to leave behind, and taxing it is counter productive for the propagation of wealth through all levels of society.


RE: Junk
By MrBungle123 on 1/30/2009 2:55:58 PM , Rating: 2
It would make it much easier for people to get out of debt though since they would get to "keep" all their income, and no longer have to pay taxes on the money they use to pay bills. It would also have the added bonus of instigating an effective flat tax since everyone would be paying the same percentage on their purchases. I say do away with the income tax and give us a sales tax instead.


RE: Junk
By MrBungle123 on 1/29/2009 2:23:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
don't you think that the federal government really "has" to spend money now to stimulate our economy and break the cycle of recession? What alternatives do you think exist right now?


To answer your question... No. The government doesn't have to spend money to end the recession.

Our economy is cyclical. There are periods of expansion and contraction with the expansions generally outlasting the contractions.

During each expansion period prices inflate. The one we are most familiar with during the last expansion was the price of housing. Real estate values skyrocketed and reached levels that were unsustainable. The "housing bubble" bursting is what started the recession. What is happening is the pricing levels are correcting themselves; they must go down to levels that fall more in line with the amount of wealth being generated by consumers. The government injecting huge amounts of money into the economy is going to put money in the hands of the public which will temporarily slow or stop the contraction, however the government will be spending money at a rate that is unsustainable so when the spending stops (as it must eventually) the correction will resume. All these spending plans will do is prolong the pain. The other thing about this is that the government is spending money they don’t have. So they can either print or borrow the money in order to pay for it and since we use a fiat money system any increase in the supply of dollars will cause inflation. The increase in inflation will be a sort of stealth tax on the people since wages will lag behind the inflated costs of goods and services further hurting the economy.

The best thing the government could do for the economy is to offer huge tax breaks to businesses to spur job growth and curb their own spending so that they aren't running deficits.


RE: Junk
By MisterChristopher on 1/30/2009 3:58:56 AM , Rating: 3
Absolutely agree.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 3:31:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but don't you think that the federal government really "has" to spend money now to stimulate our economy and break the cycle of recession? What alternatives do you think exist right now?


TomZ, sometimes I think you have it figured out. And sometimes you are just an idiot.

The New Deal did not work. Spending our way out of recessions in the 30's, 60's and 70's did not work. Why is this going to work now ?

Simply shrugging your shoulders and blindly going along with a strategy that has been historically proven to be unsound, because you personally can't come up with something better, is the most idiotic position I have seen someone take in the last few days on DT.


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 3:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
Well, during WWII, the government spent its way out of the Great Depression. And that was obviously quite a bit worse than the current recession (so far). Actually, the number of parallels between today's recession and the Great Depression are kind of scary. But I digress...

The honest truth is that nobody knows if the current round of economic stimulus will work or not. But the real problem is that I don't see anybody presenting a better plan.

Criticize me if you feel it helps you, but I notice you didn't propose an alternative to all the spending.


RE: Junk
By MisterChristopher on 1/30/2009 4:03:54 AM , Rating: 2
There is a very simple and much better plan that exists.

Remove the income tax. Cut federal spending massively. Remove the FED.

Natural prices for borrowing money will return. People will begin saving and living in the positive again.


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 6:52:34 AM , Rating: 1
We recovered from the Great Depression largely due to World War II. Not the New Deal. As others have said, it prolonged the depression. Only the massive manufacturing required for the war got us out. At the end of World War II other governments owed the US massive amounts of money for all the weapons and food we shipped them.


RE: Junk
By geddarkstorm on 1/30/2009 2:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention our economy during the war completely changed in type. It went from what we know now, to a ration system for several types of good like food and fuel. Coming out of that sort of reset the system - let alone the massive employments that were necessary for war level manufacturing, and the drafts.

I've been of the same persuasion on how to fix this issue as John Stewart since this began: reset the economy by abolishing all current debt. Debt, and the trading of debt by banks so they could have the correct amount of money in their books at the end of every day to cover all deposits (at least so the government would think so), is part of what got us into this mess. Use this stimulus package to simply erase all consumer debt and start it over - but at the same time change the way the system works so this can't happen again. Make it harder to willy-nilly trade around debt so our entire economy won't depend on imaginary money as much. Sure, that would probably slow things down quite a bit, but at least everyone won't wake up one day and realize it isn't real and cause the economy to collapse like a house of cards. I think that collapsing is far more painful than having stricter morgage and loan requirements would be, which would force people to save more and spend within their means.

Unfortunately, I'm not an economist so I can't be certain this would be a good idea or blow everything sky high, or even how to correctly implement it, but it certainly seems like it could work.


RE: Junk
By MadMan007 on 1/29/2009 2:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
Calling one or the other 'bullsh** spending' is really a matter of opinion as you say yourself, many would say Iraq in particular and the way money was spent there was bullpoop. It's also not hard to argue that various inherited failed policies have put the current administration between a rock and a hard place. Getting out of huge messes doesn't happen overnight when it took years to get there.

You're right neither is good which is why as an ideally fiscal conservative I bash neocon policy but I'd rather see money spent at home in a broad sense than for overseas adventures that ultimately benefit a few companies.


RE: Junk
By BPB on 1/29/2009 2:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
Iraq's a failed policy? Tell that to the Iraqi people, or my nephew who served in Fallujah, or my buddy in Baghdad. Admittedly it was failing for some time, but that is no longer the case, not by a long shot. Speaker Reid may have said we lost the war, but he would never admit any Republican won anything, much less a war. Mind you, give The One time and he may lose it, but as of right now it's not a failure.


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 3:08:34 PM , Rating: 5
Please don't forget that the reason for war was based on incorrect intelligence (and possibly deception). In other words, the war was a mistake from that perspective. Going into war by mistake is clearly a "failed" foreign policy, to put it mildly.

There's no doubt that Iraq is better off than they were 10 years ago. But the real question is whether that benefit was worth what America and other countries invested in terms of deaths, injuries, dollars, and political capital.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 3:47:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That's like saying was the Revolutionary War worth it, you shill. You can't quantify and assign values to a war in terms of lives, money, and capital. In those terms, WWII wouldn't have been "worth it" for us either. We should have just stayed here and hoped Europe sorted it all out, right ?
No, the difference between the Iraq war and the other wars you mention is that the other wars were all NECCESSARY wars. The Iraq was was one that we CHOSE to engage in. That is a key difference. I hope you can understand that.

And it is a PROVEN FACT that the intelligence that supported the decision to invade Iraq was dead wrong. Incorrect. A mistake. Get it?

quote:
And did you actually pull the WMD card ? Only a moron still believes that's why we're in Iraq. Next you will be saying we went over there to steal all the oil.
No, we're in Iraq now because we (a) made a mistake in the first place, and (b) inherited ownership of Iraq's security because we removed Hussain's government.

But you are right, that the American government does have the expectation to be fully reimbursed for our dollar investments based on Iraqi oil revenue. But that won't help the families of those who were killed or the soldiers and civilians who were injured during the war.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 4:17:41 PM , Rating: 5
...and I know you are a denier.

To state that it was not necessary for America to become involved in WWII shows you know nothing about history, or else you are in denial. I can't help you any more there, other than to say you should do some reading, watch some documentaries, etc. about WWII if you think our involvement was unnecessary, because you have no clue.

And your views on WMDs and the Iraq war reflect the "revisionist history" that Bush tried to spin after it became clear that the initial justification went wrong. I can't educate you on everything here, but read just this section of this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#Authorizatio...

There is no doubt that I am a pacifist - war is always bad - but I do acknowledge that war is sadly sometimes necessary. Iraq doesn't fall into that category.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 4:29:19 PM , Rating: 1
Excuse me ??

I PERSONALLY believe it was VERY necessary for us to be in WWII. I was doing something called "making an argument", you might have heard of it ? I was making the point that anything can be justified and rationalized. There WERE people who, for some reason, didn't want us to be in WWII. You can't deny that.

Goddamn man. You made me write an entire paragraph because you couldn't understand a simple Devils argument...

As for your second paragraph, how cute, a Wikipedia link. So original, I didn't see that coming. I love how the Wikipedia is the Liberals best friend. Maybe because it's written by Lib's ?

quote:
And your views on WMDs and the Iraq war reflect the "revisionist history" that Bush tried to spin


SPeaking of revisionist history.. ummm, didn't every single Democrat vote for the Iraq war ? Didn't they use the EXACT SAME intelligence info that Bush had to make their decision? Yeah but suddenly it's Bush's own personal war.. Good call.


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 4:43:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I PERSONALLY believe it was VERY necessary for us to be in WWII.
Try not to trip over yourself while you're backpedaling...
quote:
As for your second paragraph, how cute, a Wikipedia link. So original, I didn't see that coming. I love how the Wikipedia is the Liberals best friend. Maybe because it's written by Lib's ?
So instead of confronting the facts, you attack the source. Here's another Wiki link for you to enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homimem
quote:
SPeaking of revisionist history.. ummm, didn't every single Democrat vote for the Iraq war ? Didn't they use the EXACT SAME intelligence info that Bush had to make their decision? Yeah but suddenly it's Bush's own personal war.. Good call.
More revisionist history on your part. No, in fact many Democrats - and even some Republicans - voted against authorizing the Iraqi war. This Wiki article has the votes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passa...

Also, the reason that it wash Bush's war was that it was the Bush Administration that took the inititive to enter the war. It was his staff that made the case to obtain the necessary authorization from Congress, and it was also the Bush Administration that was responsible for the faulty intelligence assessment that convinced Congress (and the American public) to sign-on to that war.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 7:53:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Try not to trip over yourself while you're backpedaling...


Now I have to proove to you that me, a Conservative, is PRO WWII because you are too thick to tell I was using a third person Devils Argument to build an argument ? Ok uhhh, I'll get right on that, somehow..

A huge majority voted for the Iraq war. Ok, so I should not have said "every single" Democrat voted for it. But the point stands. This wasn't Bush's war. It was legally voted in by a huge majority in BOTH parties.

I refuse to click on any Wiki links because , for the most part, they are biased and written by people with no more authority or education than you or I. And in most cases, less I assume. Think what you will.

quote:
, and it was also the Bush Administration that was responsible for the faulty intelligence assessment that convinced Congress (and the American public) to sign-on to that war.


Heavy handed statement. The man was barely in office when we were attacked. Most of the Intel came from Clinton appointed CIA officials. To say "his administration" is to blame for the Intel is just a terrible misrepresentation of reality.

Why don't you just come out and say you think he lied ? That would be a lot more honest than this case you are trying to make. Presidents don't go undercover and gather Intel. All they can do is make the best decisions based on what info they have. You don't think he had advisors ? You don't think EVERY BRANCH of his military staff saw the Intel and came to the same conclusion ? I just love this image people like you portray of Cheney and Bush somehow single handedly running the country. If you don't think he did that, fine, say it. But don't blame him for something that is out of his area of responsibilities.

You have admitted to me you are a pacifist. So I kinda know I'm wasting my time. If you don't believe ANY justification for war, then you sure as hell won't be able to find one for Iraq.


RE: Junk
By WTFiSJuiCE on 1/29/2009 4:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
Pulling this out of my ass but here you go.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/107/ho...

Enjoy.


RE: Junk
By bodar on 1/29/2009 5:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
The big difference is that, in one case, we were attacked by a sovereign nation, and we declared war against them and their allies. In the other, we were attacked by a private group, and we declared war on a nation that financed them (good) and another nation which we later learned had nothing to do with it, so our reasons for being there changed weekly, til we just retconned our way to "free the Iraqi people".

Also, what happened to paying for the war with Iraqi oil? Never happened. We just jacked up our spending even more by contracting out military jobs to private industries. And we all know how much the Iraqi people love those guys.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 10:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
"A private group"

Interesting. I find it fascinating that people would have no problem backing the War if it were against a uniformed army. But because it's terrorists, we call them "groups" and cut them slack.


RE: Junk
By bodar on 1/30/2009 6:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about slack? I have no problem with fighting terrorists in theory. The problem is that they don't wear uniforms, and they don't necessarily represent a nation. You can't sanction them, and they are hard to find, let alone drop bombs on, without killing ordinary people who happen to inhabit the same city. The average citizen has absolutely no say what these private groups do, and should not just be collateral damage.

Our nation certainly has the right -- and a duty to its citizens -- to defend itself, but manufacturing wars is not the way to do so, at least in my opinion. War is just another business these days, and that's yet another problem.


RE: Junk
By sgw2n5 on 1/29/2009 9:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, 17 Saudi hijackers smurfing a few planes is almost exactly the same as a coordinated multi-carrier sneak attack that nearly whiped out an entire fleet. I never noticed the similarities before...

The only thing that the war in Iraq has accomplished is to bolster new terrorist enrollment.

The war in Iraq has been a miserable, costly (both in human life and dollars) failure.


RE: Junk
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/2009 9:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And it is a PROVEN FACT that the intelligence that supported the decision to invade Iraq was dead wrong. Incorrect. A mistake. Get it?


Actually there's a great deal of intelligence that points to all those WMDs being transferred to Iran and elsewhere, whoever could pay for them. Ever notice how Iran has been waving a fist in our face since we went to Iraq? They purchased or aquired much of what they have from Saddam.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Junk
By WTFiSJuiCE on 1/29/2009 4:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please, no one has been taking Reid seriously for years.

The only reason he is in congress is because of a pact that the Nevada gov't signed with the Native American apology act stating that, and I quote:
"in addition to said casinos given to the tribes, further recompense shall be put forth in the form of an idiot, who will then be elected to represent the nation of white devils and will be subsequently reelected to serve as a constant reminder of the carelessness and suffering that had once been applied to the native peoples."

Perhaps now that he's senate majority leader, we should renege on that deal tho, I mean...the Native Americans have had their fun long enough rite?


RE: Junk
By sgw2n5 on 1/29/2009 9:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes the truth is a biatch, especially so if spoken from a dobber like Reid.

Militarily, the war was a tremendous success. But by every other conceivable metric... not so much.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 10:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Militarily, the war was a tremendous success.


In war that's the only measure that counts. If you are overly concerned about political implications, then you are thinking wrong.


RE: Junk
By sgw2n5 on 1/30/2009 12:03:22 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously, the most powerful fighting force the world has ever known, easily crushed defending fighters during the invasion.

However, tanks and helicopters aren't particularly useful against an insurgency are they?

Getting there and conquering the land was relatively easy, policing it (which the military shouldn't be doing anyway), is an entirely different matter.

All in all, we shouldn't ever have been there, and we shouldn't be there now.


RE: Junk
By MozeeToby on 1/29/2009 1:48:06 PM , Rating: 5
Ok, I know I'll get modded down for this but screw it...

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/charts.html

The republicans were in control of the white house for the majority of the graph and congress for parts of it. It's not as if the democrats are the only ones who increase government spending.


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 1:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - I don't think "debt & spend" is a partisan issue - it seems clear that both Republicans and Democrats equally support that notion.

But to be fair, if we weren't in a recession right now, I'm sure that Obama would be talking about raising taxes along with raising spending. So in that sense the two parties are a little different. Both are demented, however. :o)


RE: Junk
By MadMan007 on 1/29/2009 2:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
I get a laugh at how 'lower taxes' ended up getting spun all to hell in the election cycle. Letting tax cuts end is a tax increase? Pure spin.


RE: Junk
By MrBungle123 on 1/29/2009 2:30:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I get a laugh at how 'lower taxes' ended up getting spun all to hell in the election cycle. Letting tax cuts end is a tax increase? Pure spin


can you explain to me the functional difference between tax rates going from say 8% to 10% by letting a tax holiday end and raising taxes from 8% to 10% by passing legislation that increases a tax rate by 2%?


RE: Junk
By MadMan007 on 1/29/2009 11:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that you have to explain it that way to make it clear is exactly what I'm talking about - spin.


RE: Junk
By MisterChristopher on 1/30/2009 4:29:05 AM , Rating: 2
This is ridiculous for 2 reasons.

1. An increase: "to make greater." - Clearly according to webster, an increase has no time component. It is only relative to what exists within the frames that we give it. Relative to the time frame where taxes were cut, ending those cuts is clearly a simple increase in overall taxes.

2. This country spent most of its existence with no income taxes. So, if you do frame overall taxation with a time period, try using the time frame that represents the majority of the time our country has existed. To say "ending tax cuts is not a tax increase" shows both your lack of understanding of history, and your lack of understanding of reality.


RE: Junk
By zombiexl on 1/29/2009 2:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
Dont worry the taxes are on the way..


RE: Junk
By Amiga500 on 1/29/2009 2:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
You've (the US) been doing it (borrowing to fund the budget) since the 40s... why stop now?


RE: Junk
By SiliconDoc on 2/4/2009 3:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
They're not planning on stopping, it's that they plan on increasing the percentage by ten or twenty fold, which of course would be a big, big problem, since inflation and population growth cannot cover the masssive immediate increases. DEFAULT is the danger, and without that the inflation will spiral so rapidly the usual government LIES about how low it is, won't work, and their little COLA increases they MUST PAY by law to all the useless govey workers and those on the dole will become IMPOSSIBLE to pay.
We're talking inflation like the commie hero of the dems down there in Venezuela slapped on "his people" 400% IN ONE YEAR.
So, the problem is, the wackos from the 68er gen and all their DOPEHEAD FREAKS like Al gore and Crack n Coke and hemphead Obama the muzzie lib foreigner child, NOW RUN THE PLACE.
So the anything is possible (and therefore anything goes), religion hating, rebellious, hate the "man", fight the establishment, smoke the dope, Bill Ayers bombing, communist indoctrinated, jerkaloons, IN POWER, can pull some of the biggest disastrous insanities any of us will have ever seen, and their past lives, and jungle bong use, and pill head popping power trips, and psycho new psychological microscope Oprah mindsets, got us here, and they're going to blow it all to kingdom come, trying to "get us out".
They written CRIME into the laws, because they said right and wrong was just a "relative thing" - so bit by bit and little by little the crimitard corruption seeped and seethed into the US gov matrix, and now it's DEEPLY EMBEDDED part and parcel of policy, of law, of expectations and actions, and it's come to a head, and the disaster is just beginning to emerge.
Make no mistake, they are stealing and fumbling their way in ever deeper, and by no means have they learned any lesson whatsoever - and the half insane indoctrinated and msm fed retarded populace will only help them.
Don't expect any sort of return to moral or ethical behavior - the GENERATION of the 68er rebels have come to their lead, and they are FAR, FAR WORSE, than those they cried out against.
Greedy, self centered, no moral compass, lying, spinning, backstabbing, throwing under the bus, two-faced, image managers, of the highest disorder - and all those that surround them know and understand how dark and deep the dirty rabbit hole goes - and NONE OF THEM CAN STOP IT.
They have stood before in Congress, on the floor, for a DECADE plus on C-Span, telling us just how filthy they all are, and crying each in turn how it MUST STOP, but it never does, it only gets worse, the minute they admit one gigantic crime and sin, they are onto exceeding it in the very area they just confessed - it's as if their confession allows further degradation.
Don't expect anything except a further fall into carnal mismanagement.


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 1:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
Did you see this gem?

quote:
Diesel Emissions Reduction: $300 million for grants and loans to state and local governments for projects that reduce diesel emissions, benefiting public health and reducing global warming. This includes technologies to retrofit emission exhaust systems on school buses, replace engines and vehicles, and establish anti-idling programs.


I have a feeling this will be like New York's anti-idling laws. Where you can get a ticket for letting your car idle. Unbelievable.


RE: Junk
By teriba on 1/29/2009 1:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you like anti-idling laws? They significantly reduce emissions.


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 2:00:27 PM , Rating: 1
Because I should be allowed to sit in my damn car all freakin day with it idling if I want to. It's called personal freedom. And show me any proof of them significantly reducing emissions. Unless your definition of significant is anything > 0, then no.

What's next? Being required to turn off the water in the shower while you're putting shampoo in your hair or lathering up?


RE: Junk
By MadMan007 on 1/29/2009 2:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like a link to detailed info on anti-idling laws. Letting a car idle 'all freakin day' is obviously exagerration because one would have to be stupid from a personal utility perspective to do that.


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 2:21:37 PM , Rating: 3
I said I should be allowed to do it if I WANT to. There should be no law preventing me from doing so as there exists in New York.

http://www.epa.gov/smartway/documents/420b06004.pd...


RE: Junk
By MadMan007 on 1/29/2009 2:25:04 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for the link. and I siad you'd have to be stupid to do so if you look at it from a logical viewpoint, 'idling all day' is just a waste for you and paid by you. I guess you think it's OK that it's being paid by you but that's just being selfish...we're all on the earth together. Feel the love!


RE: Junk
By MrBungle123 on 1/29/2009 4:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
why should any of us have to justify any of our actions? Do I really need to come up with a reason why I should be able to go get a Mt. Dew out of the vending machine? What business of yours is it? Could I use the dollar to feed a bunch of ethopian children? sure. Will the bottle just end up in a landfill? yup. Do I really need the extra calories? Nope. Do I have any reason what so ever that justifies my actions? Not a one.

But that is part of living in a free society, we can go and do things that don't make sense, for no reason at all because that is what makes us happy. If I'm allowed to waste my money buying over priced carbonated sugar water then why shouldn't someone else be allowed to waste gasoline idling their car all day? I worked for the money, Its mine, let me do what I want with it.


RE: Junk
By Xirj on 1/29/2009 6:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
Fascinating. Somehow in two paragraphs you've summed up what is wrong with the mindset of the "free american society". Humans aren't free particles floating around in a vacuum of complete randomness. I love reading pieces like yours, where people get all high and mighty on their independence. "I don't need the world, so why should the world judge me". The sad truth to you, but to me a wonderful part of life, is that since birth our lives are incredibly interconnected. Sure idling that car to you might seem like the epitomy of freedom, but to people around you and your offspring it is only a burden. I recommnend watching the movie Threads, it makes a great case for the interdependency of humans.


RE: Junk
By abscoder on 1/29/2009 2:23:10 PM , Rating: 4
Not too get all spider-man here, but with personal freedom comes personal responsibility.

All this me-me-me bullshit has contributed to a lot of the predicaments we find ourselves in... together.


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 2:46:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Because I should be allowed to sit in my damn car all freakin day with it idling if I want to. It's called personal freedom.
Do you think your freedom is absolute and without bounds?

Have you ever heard the saying, "your freedom ends where another person's begins"?

Think about it.


RE: Junk
By BPB on 1/29/2009 2:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
Bad quote, and most likely made up. It's more akin to "Your feedom to punch ends at my nose." Why would my freedom end where your freedom begins? I'm free to say what I want to say, as are you. But I don't lose my freedom to speak simply so you can have your freedom to speak. Sure, my freedom to throw a left hook ends at your nose, but that doesn't go for all freedoms. Not by a long shot.

As to the whole idling thing, what would his idling have to do with your freedom? Would his idling impair you in any demonstrable way? Would you be afraid to walk by his car were it running? He'd be wasting his money, and a wee, wee bit of fuel. Are you going to micro-manage his life so much that you're going to tell him he can't idle? Geez, I can see the goverment saying auto makers have to make all vehicles like the Chevy Malibu hybrid. That car turns off the engine while at red lights and such. But that's a lot different than telling me I can't sit in my car while it idles. Man, are you going to come in my home and force me to brush my teeth to your liking? Wash my hands to your liking? Just because something's a good idea it doesn't mean you get to impose it upon people. And an imposition it would be.


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 3:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would my freedom end where your freedom begins? I'm free to say what I want to say, as are you.
Suppose you go to a movie theatre, and in the middle of the movie you start shouting "Fire, fire!" for no reason. Do you think your "freedom of speech" includes that?

How about if you use your freedom of speech to slander me? In that case, as I said, your freedom ends where mine begins.


RE: Junk
By WTFiSJuiCE on 1/29/2009 3:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would my freedom end where your freedom begins? I'm free to say what I want to say, as are you. But I don't lose my freedom to speak simply so you can have your freedom to speak. Sure, my freedom to throw a left hook ends at your nose, but that doesn't go for all freedoms. Not by a long shot.


That is unless you are using your freedom of speech to incite a riot or publicly spewing death threats against a specific person. Because then you will lose that freedom.

Basically, "Your freedom ends when it infringes upon another person's freedoms".


RE: Junk
By GodisanAtheist on 1/29/2009 3:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think the same logic behind smoking bans is behind the idling ban.

A number of buildings are actually ventilated at street level, and the exhaust of idling vehicles can very often be picked up and recirculated through someone's ventilation system.

I know at the Uni, the entire lab complex disallowed idling cars as they can and have caused people inside and seemingly far removed from the source to become nauseous or ill, not to mention the potential for contamination in any number of experiments.


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 7:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
My personal freedoms are bound by the Constitution.

And how does anything talked about here affect the freedom of anyone else? Someone else is going to feel less free by me sitting there idling my car? No.

There is absolutely no justification for anti-idling laws except for idiot environmentalists trying to take away personal freedoms in the name of stopping something that doesn't exist. CO2 is not a pollutant. Otherwise stop breathing.


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 9:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting that car tailpipes don't contain pollutants (even ignoring CO2)?

Car emissions lead to air quality problems in large, dense cities like New York. Since air pollution is estimated to be responsible for 3-4% of deaths in the US, not to mention other its affect on people with ailments like asthma, I think there is some sense in curtailing emissions by restricting idling in large cities.

I realize you are making a theoretical constitutional freedom argument, but as a practical matter, I don't see how your "right to idle" is compelling against the potential to reduce air pollution in cities. Specifically, do the benefits you get by idling really outweigh the health benefits you and other residents get? Maybe in some cases, but probably not in general.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 4:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because I should be allowed to sit in my damn car all freakin day with it idling if I want to.


Amen.

Honestly people what are you supporting ? Has it really gotten to the point where every activity a person can do has to be categorized, scrutinized, cataloged, taxed, fined, and labeled ??

Smoking, cellphones, texting and now CAR IDLING !!??

What's next ???


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 4:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly people what are you supporting ?
What are you supporting - a person's "right" to "sit in my damn car all freakin day with it idling if I want to"? That seems pretty silly to me.

Anyway, I thought driving was a "privledge" not a "right" (as we hear all the time here on DT).


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/30/2009 9:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is actually going to sit in their car all day. If THAT is what was being fined, then I might go along with it.

We're talking about a government entity arbitrarily deciding what period of time of idling is "too long", and giving you a fine for it.

The premise behind it is politically and socially motivated. Two of the worst reasons to pass legislation. Also it's a great way to extort more revenue from the people.

quote:
That seems pretty silly to me.


Based on the past few days of debating with you, I have the impression that a great many of our rights would fall into your "silly" category.


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 10:57:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're talking about a government entity arbitrarily deciding what period of time of idling is "too long", and giving you a fine for it.
You mean like limits on "how fast" you can drive? I sure hope the government doesn't arbitrarily decide to do that! :o)

Oh noes, I can't drive 100MPH - help me, help me, I'm being repressed!


RE: Junk
By MrBungle123 on 1/30/2009 11:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's not real hard to make an argument against allowing people to drive at speeds that require high levels of experience to handle safely. But I have yet to hear anyone make an argument for an idling law that has any real substance behind it.


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 12:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I have yet to hear anyone make an argument for an idling law that has any real substance behind it.
Here you go: Did you know that 3-4% of Americans die due to air pollution? Couple that with the fact that most air pollution in major cities is due to automotive exhaust. Finally, when a car is idling, it is not doing anything "useful" in terms of its main purpose - moving people and things from point A to point B. So the principle at least is sound, in my mind.

And I don't know for sure, but I'll bet these laws are not aimed like average citizens like FIT. I mean, how often do you sit in a city idling your car for hours on end? It is probably primarily intended to prevent commercial vehicles like taxis, buses, etc. from continuing to run their engines even when they are otherwise idle.


RE: Junk
By MrBungle123 on 1/30/2009 2:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
Air pollution is going to be higher in the cities with or without an idling law. You burn more gas driving then you ever will by simply letting the car idle, and very few people are just going to let their cars idle needlessly. Besides there may be very good reasons for letting the car idle. It could be very cold outside which means the lubercants in the car are not going to be as effective so there is less engine wear if you let it warm up a bit before stressing it through stop and go traffic. Later in the vehicles life if the engine wear is bad it will pollute more since it will be burning oil and using the fuel less effectively. The windows could be frosted over or fogged up both of which can be difficult to get rid of unless the car is warm, and it is dangerous to drive with either of them obstructing the view through the windshield. There could be animals that need to be left inside the vehicle for a few minutes, on hot days and leaving them there with the A/C on is more humane than letting them bake in a solar oven. Sorry still not convinced.


RE: Junk
By SoCalBoomer on 1/29/2009 3:24:16 PM , Rating: 5
They may - but for a Diesel, which runs most effectively at constant and low rpms, and for a refrigeration truck (without independent unit), which depends upon a PTO from the diesel idling, it would cause problems.

A while back I decided to burn off the remainder of the fuel in my tank believing it be contaminated, I couldn't do it. There was less than a gallon of diesel in the truck and I let it idle for 8 hours before we just manually drained the tank. There was still over half a gallon of fuel left!

Instead of "anti-idling". . . why not do something REALLY creative and beneficial!

We all sit at stop lights waiting for an EMPTY road. . . right? The traffic "computer" is sitting there on a timer, even the ones controlled by traffic sensors run on a polling timer. . .

That's flippin 1960's tech!

We have this thing called a computer that can run programs that are run by events. Heck, a PENTIUM (Pentium I) that is networked to the other signals around it (some systems use this - but not really that many) could do a better job than what nearly all of us are stuck with! So we sit, idling (which is supposedly bad), waiting for traffic that is not there. . .

There's an infrastructure investment for you.


RE: Junk
By PAPutzback on 1/29/2009 1:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
ATV Track. Where did you get this info?


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 2:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
P. 45: “$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration.”


http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=32544...


RE: Junk
By theArchMichael on 1/29/2009 1:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
many of the programs that you have displayed above seem like common sense aid for a bill to help support the nation and its citizenzry during this global economic crisis.

Right off the top the first thing that normally people cut back on is health when the wallet tightens. There was just a report on NPR on this. So funding Cobra ( a in between jobs health insurance fund), std prevention and flu prevention makes sense.

As an engineer or scientist or technology enthusiast at least ( i assume), I would think you'd be pleased to see the funding for global warming research and this could be a very lucrative technology to exploit (for those that develop it) in the future, that even you must admit will bring jobs that can not be outsourced engineering jobs, technician's jobs. OR we can send all that money over to Europe ( no offense guys :-D ).

Amtrak and CSX, the rail system at large do serve as a vital part of this nations infrastructure. Both Republicans and Democrats have realized this and have helped fund AMTRAK FOR OVER 40 YEARS BECAUSE OF IT.

Why not create some construction and technician jobs and also help relieve some of the enormormous demand for energy in this country. I live in DC but when I visit CA the rolling brownouts are alarming. <- $6B to weatherize low income housing. The people who can most likely least afford a capital investment on their home or dwelling at the moment. Think of it this way every kilowatt that is saved through insulation, is less money YOU have to pay buying poower off the grid.

Assumming you are an engineer or scientist or technician or something of that nautre I would think you would try to encourage those who follow into your field. Science and technology can be an intensive and expensive education, with not always a lucrative payout waiting at graduation. Plus, graduates of higher education are less likely to draw on food stamps, unemployment, have a home in direpair, be without health insurance... most of the itemizations you are complaining about. So you could see the Pell Grant intitiative as an investment for putting your mind more at ease in the future.

Agreed I certainly think that the Acorn and ATV(wtf) money need to be questioned but most of what you listed there looks to be on the up, for this type of bill.


RE: Junk
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 2:15:59 PM , Rating: 4
STD Prevention = free. Don't sleep with hookers or sluts you meet in a bar.

Global warming - Waste of money to prevent something we don't control.

Construction jobs to relieve energy problems? Building power lines doesn't give you more power. Even improving the power grid to make it more efficient won't solve California's lack of enough power plants. Build a few nuke plants and they'll have the energy they need.

Weatherizing low income housing - This is already government funded or subsidized housing provided by you the tax payer. Now we're just spending more money to make them more comfy. So these people will have even less desire to leave.


RE: Junk
By passive on 1/29/2009 2:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
STDs:
I'm torn between hoping you give your kids that same advice about STD prevention, and hoping you never have any kids to pass your defective ideas on to.

Look at the STD infection rates in this country. http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticusa.htm

People clearly aren't very well informed about these things. For my money, I would rather make sure they are well informed, than have them burdening the health care system because of their ignorance.

Global Warming:
You're clearly listening to the wrong people about global warming. It's a shame, but please stay out of our way while we try to fix this problem.

Electrical Grid:
We need to get power from wind farms in Texas to California. The current lines are too inefficient, so we need new ones. Nuke plants will take longer to get online, and you really think hippy-dippy California is going to go for them?

Weatherizing:
Construction jobs aside, if the taxpayers already subsidize this housing, they probably subsidize the heating too, right? So reducing the heating costs will save money.


RE: Junk
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/2009 9:49:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
STDs: I'm torn between hoping you give your kids that same advice about STD prevention, and hoping you never have any kids to pass your defective ideas on to. Look at the STD infection rates in this country. http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticusa.htm People clearly aren't very well informed about these things. For my money, I would rather make sure they are well informed, than have them burdening the health care system because of their ignorance. Global Warming: You're clearly listening to the wrong people about global warming. It's a shame, but please stay out of our way while we try to fix this problem. Electrical Grid: We need to get power from wind farms in Texas to California. The current lines are too inefficient, so we need new ones. Nuke plants will take longer to get online, and you really think hippy-dippy California is going to go for them? Weatherizing: Construction jobs aside, if the taxpayers already subsidize this housing, they probably subsidize the heating too, right? So reducing the heating costs will save money.


Planned parenthood is a program just made to provide a prod for the minorities in hopes they vote democrat. Here's a fucking clue, the poor have been voting democrat since the 1940s and they are all still poor. WTF.

Global warming does not fucking exist as a manmade and preventable or reversable idea. 50 of the worlds top climatologists just stated emphatically that IT DOES NOT EXIST!

Wind farms? Do you realize how much land that takes up? How much money is required? No? Well, it's MUCH MUCH more than investing in proven and stable technology like Nuclear. Nuclear is just boiled water and new systems can recycle itself.

Weatherize homes...why don't they fucking get a job and pay for it like me? Why do all the liberals want to provide handouts to people who are a detriment to society? Oh wait, nevermind...because they voted 12 times.


RE: Junk
By theArchMichael on 1/29/2009 2:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
STD Prevention - agreed. My dad and I had that talk about hookers :-)

noone said anyting about building power lines. What I was reffering to was construction jobs to properly insulate low income housing, which you so graciously pointed out is owned by the government so that they would consume LESS ENERGY.
NOW SEE IF YOU CAN FOLLOW ME>
> if low income housing saves energy through insulation installation.
>That will increase supply and lower demand.
> That means YOU pay less for energy off the grid you yokel.

Who the F*** would abandon their federally subsidized home during a GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS! If they do they should do so and walk right out into traffic becuase that is stupid too. See we are in agreement you want to support this bill you just haven't figured it out yet. If for nothing else than to have a sooner opportunity to get those welfare leeches of the tax rolls. lol


RE: Junk
By svenkesd on 1/29/2009 2:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
<- $6B to weatherize low income housing. The people who can most likely least afford a capital investment on their home or dwelling at the moment


I live in an apartment complex next to low income housing. Every single one of them has a satellite TV dish on their porch. %80 of the cars out front are nicer than mine, including a newer BMW. Apparently people in low income housing can afford more than me.

Most likely a lot of them can afford it, they just won't have to now.

My tax money going to these people does nothing short of make me sick.


RE: Junk
By BPB on 1/29/2009 2:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
You lost me at NPR.


RE: Junk
By Rugar on 1/29/2009 3:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
COBRA funding may be worthwhile. (And I heard the same interview on NPR, but I'm a little less receptive to the sob story told there since the couple they interviewed had a total of EIGHT CHILDREN from a mix of their own kids, adoption, and fostering. You can afford eight kids? You can afford to buy insurance.)

Investments in research may be worthwhile.

STD prevention may be worthwhile.

Road and railway improvements may be worthwhile.

.
.
.

If we want these, then funding for each should be proposed and voted on separately. Lumping every single wishlist project in the world into a bill and calling it a "stimulus package" is a giant serving of crap IMO.


RE: Junk
By sgw2n5 on 1/29/2009 1:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm don't agree with either of the recent economic stimulus packages (Bush's or Obama's).

That being said, we will actually see some return on this money as opposed to the trillion dollars we have blown in Iraq.


RE: Junk
By passive on 1/29/2009 2:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, you want to know how these will create jobs?

$335M for STD prevention
- Less sick people, means more people healthy enough to work. Also, you have to pay scientists, educators, distributors, etc.
$400M for global warming research
- Scientist is also a job. While my hope is that they are simply going to pay me $400M and let me do all the research, it will likely go to quite a variety of different occupations.
$4B for Acorn, community organizers
- Well, if you recall, Acorn pays people to register others to vote. Given that turnout in the last election was only 57% (still a 40-year high), seems like you could hire a lot of people to do this.
$25M for a new ATV track
- Assuming this is the maintenance and restoration referenced in another post, nothing wrong with that. Safer ATV trails means less accidents, and you have to hire people to do the maintenance.
$6B to weatherize low income housing
- This is bloody great. Firstly, you have to pay people to do the weatherizing, which probably means people from the construction sector, which has lost a ton of jobs. Secondly, you reduce demand for heating resources, which saves money and reduces our dependence on foreign oil and the demand on the electrical grid.
$1B for AMTRACK (hasn't been profitable in 40yrs!)
- What on earth does it being profitable have to do with creating/saving jobs? This makes me think you are getting your information from a less-than-unbiased source, as this seems to be a Republican talking point.
$15B to increase the pell grant (how does paying for kids school equal more jobs?)
- Really? You don't see the connection between having more educated people and improving the economy? Besides the long term benefits, this will keep those kids out of the unemployment lines, and help save jobs at colleges and universities across the country.
$20B for increase in food stamps
- Simply a necessity in times like this. Hopefully there will be improvements to the program to also make it easier to eat healthy. Otherwise we will end up paying much more long term for their health care costs.
$80B+ for unemployment and cobra
- See above (except for the eating part).
$3B to the nation science foundation (yes, the same one that just got busted for having its executives look at porn all day)
- Porn is expensive, they need that money! Ok, so I don't know anything about this one. :)
$900M for flu prevention
- Less people who get the flu means more healthy people able to work.
$650M for DTV coupons
- They underfunded the program the first time, so I don't think we can really complain about this, other than to say the whole DTV switchover is a mess.


RE: Junk
By homerdog on 1/29/2009 3:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
$4B for Acorn, community organizers - Well, if you recall, Acorn pays people to register others to vote. Given that turnout in the last election was only 57% (still a 40-year high), seems like you could hire a lot of people to do this.

Ah, I can see why the Dems would support that.


RE: Junk
By tdawg on 1/29/2009 4:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
Acorn and the like register people to vote, not to vote Democrat. Remember, McCain was a proponent of Acorn until he it benefited him to be against Acorn.


RE: Junk
By MrBungle123 on 1/29/2009 3:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
Want to see what this really means?

quote:
$335M for STD prevention

pads the pockets of the democrat/liberal friendly organization Planned Parenthood.

quote:
$400M for global warming research

helps the government come up with new ways of controlling our lives based on a fabricated "climate crisis" and the anti-business, anti-personal freedom legislation to combat it.

quote:
$4B for Acorn, community organizers

helps the democrats get more votes by registering the homeless multiple times and encouraging them to vote democrat to get freebies and government hand outs.

quote:
$25M for a new ATV track

nothing more than a localized, pork barrel spending project that should not be funded at the national level. This is pandering to the population in a very small area of the country.

quote:
$6B to weatherize low income housing

This money will be spent on HUD (housing and urban development) houses, these are occupied by people that effectively live on the state as it is. More welfare which does not encourage people to better themselves and further cements a lower class of people that make a living from entitlement programs paid for by leeching off the more productive members of society. But hey they typically vote democrat so why not right?

quote:
$1B for AMTRACK

why are we propping up a failed business? Funding jobs with public money does not create jobs, it takes money out of the private sector. This is money that successful private industry could be using to pay wages and actually be doing something productive while its at it.

quote:
$15B to increase the pell grant

Giving away free money so people can go to college is inflating tuition costs. If the universities administration sees that everyone is getting a $2000 grant to help pay for school expect a $2000 increase in tuition and fees the following year. Loans are available if you don't have the money as most don't. Paying for it yourself also incentivizes you to work harder and not screw around so much while in school.

quote:
$20B for increase in food stamps

more transfer of wealth from those that are productive to those who are not. Most of the people you see using food stamps buy candy and crap with them anyway. If we're going to give out food stamps there should be limits on what can be bought with them.

quote:
$80B+ for unemployment and cobra

I don't mind unemployment so long as the people on it are actively searching for work, and there are limits to how long you can collect it.

quote:
$3B to the nation science foundation

more pandering to special interest groups

quote:
$900M for flu prevention

this is ridiculous, how many long term jobs are you going to get out of this? If you want to help the economy with 900M dollars why not give it to an entrepreneur to start a new company or an existing one to expand their current business. That would make jobs that last for the foreseeable future this is just going to waste more money and have no real effect on the economy.

quote:
$650M for DTV coupons

How long have they been advertising the DTV switch? why are we wasting 650 million tax payer dollars to buy more DTV converters from china so that people that people that want to use their 15 year old TV can keep watching the price is right? I say you've had your warning, you didn't get in line for the first free ones, too bad.


RE: Junk
By Dreifort on 1/29/2009 4:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
you can put this on a billboard nationwide and they still won't comprehend what has happened. All they know is Obama did something so it must be magic.


RE: Junk
By Nfarce on 1/29/2009 8:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
And hence, all the downrating that goes on here by the leftists. I remember them quite well telling Republicans when they ran congress with Bush as president that any spending plans need to be questioned thoroughly by all sides. Now, apparently, that went out the window under the guise of "need for the people" and whatnot. Slick as snot.


RE: Junk
By sgw2n5 on 1/29/2009 9:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
The stupid is strong with this one.


RE: Junk
By omgwtf8888 on 1/29/2009 3:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, here is what i do not understand. If the heart of the problem is the credit freeze, we need to increase deposits. So rather then pour money out in all directions, why don't they give each taxpayer an allocated amount of this money into a bank account. Restrict the withdrawals to a percentage amount after the first year, second year, etc. Banks have ample deposits, citizens have something sorely lacking (savings), and the funds are accounted for by each and every taxpayer.


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 3:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
Handouts like you suggest don't really do much. Why not? Because in a time of economic uncertainty, a lot of people tend to use "windfall" money to (a) pay down their debt, and (b) increase their savings. And neither of these things do much of anything to break the cycle of recession.

Of course, this is not 100% - some percentage of people will go out and spend the money - but a lot of people don't because they are fearful about the future. And they money spent doesn't bring any long-term results - only a short term "blip" in the economic indicators.

The best way to get people to go out and spend is to take away the fear. Obama knows this, I think, but I haven't seen him take action yet to address this specific problem.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 3:50:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The best way to get people to go out and spend is to take away the fear. Obama knows this, I think, but I haven't seen him take action yet to address this specific problem.


Smart people tightened their spending months ago BECAUSE they fear Obama. I think you have the solution figured out, but have missed the cause.

Smart people with smart money got that way for a reason. They see what's coming, believe me.

The man has called out the rich several times as if their standard of living was in injustice, and even said " we need to spread the wealth". And here you are, talking about what Obama can do to take action on people not spending as much !!??

Tom, good lord, did you eat a bowl of STUPID for breakfast ???


RE: Junk
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 4:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well, quite frankly given your posts, you'd be a good judge of stupid, I guess. :o)

Seriously, though - your argument that people are reducing their spending because of fear of Obama makes no sense. Please try to follow the logic here. The reduction of spending - and associated recession - started before Obama was even elected. So unless the majority of Americans CORRECTLY PREDICTED that Obama would be elected, and were fearful of the impact, then it is impossible that Obama cause the current crisis.

Furthermore, since the majority of Americans support Obama per recent polls, and also the majority of Americans are also reducing their spending, your assertion also is obviously false based on that.

Your implied idea that some minority "smart elite" in our country is causing our recession is also silly. The loss of confidence that characterizes our current crisis is pretty much across the board.


RE: Junk
By SiliconDoc on 2/4/2009 3:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny how liars charcterize criminal conduct and the result, as a loss in confidence.
Strangely enough, at least for the two talking indoctrinated con artists, the only thing that brings back any confidence whatsoever is the stopping of the criminal conduct that created the hatefilled loss to begin with.
Now far be it from me or you to demand that those who have partook in such a years on end, far to long, legalized crime spree, actually fess up and return to the RULES that create a solid market and fiscal outlook to begin with, since if that had happened, confidence would have already returned.
I certainly don't see the Chicago crime boss as one who will straighten out the dirty players. No, he dug right in, and is taking the bank for all it's worth.
We'll get some pretty words, as they stuff their pockets like jackals, and the crybaby leftards scream it's for the good of all.
More, more, more centralized government control, of all the States, all the people, and the entire economy, as the long march to complete and utter communism and fascism combined, continues. Of course there are thousands of excuses for exactly why it must happen this way, and a thousand more will be dreamed up forthwith.
It's clear enough, the writing is on the wall, and it has already started to collapse. I'm not sure anything will stop it, reverse, or clean it up. I really doubt it. I can't think of anything that can. It has taken on a life of it's own.


RE: Junk
By sgw2n5 on 1/29/2009 9:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
Are these the same rich people who drove their respective companies into the ground then come bugging me and my tax dollars for a bailout?

The same rich people with "smart money" who went out and blew half of their life savings on shiny new guns and ammunition when Obama first got elected?

If Tom ate a bowl of stupid, you must have just smoked about 50.


RE: Junk
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/2009 9:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are these the same rich people who drove their respective companies into the ground then come bugging me and my tax dollars for a bailout? The same rich people with "smart money" who went out and blew half of their life savings on shiny new guns and ammunition when Obama first got elected? If Tom ate a bowl of stupid, you must have just smoked about 50.


The people who went out to buy new guns and ammo stimulated the economy more than any tree hugging minority liberal democrat ever has. Not only that, but those people like me, can afford to do it. Why? Because they work...novel concept. Go apply for a job somewhere...start from the bottom and work your way up. The people you hate have been driving this country since the beginning and you want to punish them? Good job moron.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/30/2009 9:30:06 AM , Rating: 2
Guns are also a great investment. The saying goes 'if you have guns, you always have money'. Guns hold their value very well, and often it increases with age, depending on model.

You could certainly find worst things to spend money on.


RE: Junk
By Reclaimer77 on 1/30/2009 9:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The people who went out to buy new guns and ammo stimulated the economy more than any tree hugging minority liberal democrat ever has


This is Daily Tech. Remember, the only spending that can stimulate the economy is GOVERNMENT spending.

/sarcasm


RE: Junk
By SiliconDoc on 2/4/2009 3:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
Libtards believe everything is because of emotion, and emotion is the golden rod that the lib worships. Therefore, if their god Obama can cause the people to stop fearing, then all will be well in fairy fairy land for the libtard.
No, they actually are that stupid, self decieved, and insane.


RE: Junk
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/2009 9:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Handouts like you suggest don't really do much. Why not? Because in a time of economic uncertainty, a lot of people tend to use "windfall" money to (a) pay down their debt, and (b) increase their savings. And neither of these things do much of anything to break the cycle of recession.


Or like me and my friends, we go buy a new toy. Be it a PC upgrade, a new firearm, a new TV, or whatnot. That puts more money out there to businesses...


RE: Junk
By Teh Interwebz on 1/29/2009 4:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
$335M for STD prevention
-STD's sap a massive amount of money from the economy (think hidden costs of smoking form yester-year)
$400M for global warming research
-Worth while in my mind but if you think the whole thing is hocus pocus theres obviously no rationalization here i can provide.
$4B for Acorn, community organizers
-Cant defend this because I dont know enough about it. Most probably cant attack it for the same reason.
$25M for a new ATV track
-Not sure what this is. If someone can elighten me I'd appreciate it.
$6B to weatherize low income housing
-Helps the environment, helps the poor, and helps our power grid. Whats not to like.
$1B for AMTRACK (hasn't been profitable in 40yrs!)
-Wasnt profitable before because driving a car wasnt the nightmare its become today (in terms of environment, time, and money). Not profitable now because its been so neglected, for good reason, that now theres barely any direct connections except for the biggest cities, there are no bullet trains so there is no time savings, and it shares most of its tracks with commercial carriers creating more delays. Id say reinvesting in this infrastructure is a very worthwhile alternative to expanding interstates.
$15B to increase the pell grant (how does paying for kids school equal more jobs?)
-If youre not dumb as a box of rocks you can run a business or hold a decent job and grow the economy.
$20B for increase in food stamps
-I'd say this is becoming necessary after all the recent job cuts. Then again if you believe all the people laid off for lazy POS's that simply couldnt cut it then I cant argue with you.
$80B+ for unemployment and cobra
-See comment above.
$3B to the nation science foundation (yes, the same one that just got busted for having its executives look at porn all day)
-Our econ is based on tech. First we made a fortune on cars, then airplanes, now computers. If we dont come up with the next big thing we risk loosing our special place in the world. Seems worthwhile to me.
$900M for flu prevention
-If bird flu strikes and we are unprepaired this economic crisis will pale in comparison. I havent had to go through a pandemic in my lifetime and I'd like to keep the streak alive.
$650M for DTV coupons
-Not sure if I agreed with this in the first place, but since the gov agreed to provide DTV converter box coupons we need to fund it.


RE: Junk
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/2009 9:57:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
$25M for a new ATV track -Not sure what this is. If someone can elighten me I'd appreciate it. $6B to weatherize low income housing -Helps the environment, helps the poor, and helps our power grid. Whats not to like.


1) it's a track...just like it says...think dirtbikes with 4 wheels. They are spending YOUR TAX DOLLARS to build a track somewhere you've never heard of in a place you'll never visit. Just because they can force it through.

2) How does giving people who do NOTHING for the economy, nothing for society except bitch and moan help the environment? It does not. They should get a job, work hard, and earn their way. It used to be that when people came here they wanted to work harder than everyone to get ahead, now people just hold out their hand and expect everything free. Nothing is free, if you work you are giving people who do not want to work a free ride. You think that's ok? Then go move to Germany or the UK. Why do people living in HUD homes drive BMWs and have 500 channels of DirecTV?


RE: Junk
By snownpaint on 1/30/2009 11:33:23 AM , Rating: 2

Reduce STD= decrease health care costs(universal healthcare)
Global Warming= we don't have a clue (beside its getting hot
Acorn = What community?
ATV track= Yes please, ether give money or make restrictions less impeding so people can build tracks. I want new ATV/MX Tracks.. These places are vanishing out here on the east coast and so are the businesses that relay on them..
Weatherize low income houses= helps with healthcare.
Amtrak = make trains profitable, and reduce emissions, mass transport/freight (when gas rockets in price Flying>$$)
Pell Grant = educated kids, make productive future/less petty crimes.
Food stamps= being hungry sucks, maybe you should try it.
Unemployment= is growing, of course it is going to need$$
NSF - Nova and other shows rock. who doesn't look at porn (that's what the internet is for)
Flu Prevent. - Goes with universal healthcare cost reduction
DTV coupons - do the switch first, Americans are reactive. but we like our TV


A fair bargain
By theArchMichael on 1/29/2009 1:33:08 PM , Rating: 3
Although I believe in capatalism and I don't think that many would dispute that the telcom industry and infrastructure in the US is far from ideal. The reason for that is debatable. But at least now we should be able to get faster internet speeds at a more affordable price, while building jobs, and maintaining net neutrality (an essential part of the internet, I believe) and reaching the more rural areas of the country (because we are oh so interested to hear what those people have to say lol.. jk ... thats not cool).

<confession>I like the notion of this BTW, I have NOT read the bill or the specific addendum's.</confession>





RE: A fair bargain
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 1:44:17 PM , Rating: 1
This will do nothing to increase internet speeds. The money is going to increase broadband adoption, not invest in speeding it up.

And if your idea of a fair bargain is spending $819 BILLION dollars to get $6 BILLION for increasing broadband availability I can I have $10,000 to buy you a coke?


RE: A fair bargain
By theArchMichael on 1/29/2009 2:00:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
can I have $10,000 to buy you a coke?


Only if its a kilo of coke!
"I can't feel my face... I mean I can touch it .. I can't feel it from the inside..."

As part of a broader package for doing things of this nature I think its fair. We are improving road and metro infrastructure so why not our most glaringly deficient internet infrastructure (well depending on where you live metro sucks in some parts of the US as well).
Also if $6 billion puts net neutrality into law thats a MORE than fair bargain.


RE: A fair bargain
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 2:10:46 PM , Rating: 1
How about gas taxes go to improving roads dumb@ss? As they're supposed to instead of getting spent on other things. That's why we're supposedly paying them after all.

How about tax incentives for broadband companies to improve their networks? As I said before, this will do nothing to improve broadband speed. All it does it provide funding for laying new cable to areas currently without access. If anything this will lower your speed by creating new users on the already overburdened systems.

And net neutrality doesn't cost anything. It's a piece of paper saying to treat all traffic the same.

The fact is this was supposed to be an economic stimulus bill. None of this sh*t should be in there.


RE: A fair bargain
By MadMan007 on 1/29/2009 2:22:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
How about tax incentives for broadband companies to improve their networks?


Read up on the Telecom Act of 1996. This was tried and failed because there wasn't any kind of enforcement to make the companies comply with the requirements of the Act. Now if a proposed Act includes harsh penalties for not complying with the Act by basically pocketing the tax breaks as profits then great, if not it's just a repeat of what's already been tried.


RE: A fair bargain
By theArchMichael on 1/29/2009 2:47:19 PM , Rating: 1
first of all the economy is a diverse and complex mechanism thats understanding is most likely beyond you or I. Job creation is one of the few things that we can most definitely say would help in that end. This money is spent pursuant of work to be completed ... by workers... these are called "jobs" ... geographically in this country... dumb@ass.

In refernece to tax incentives for telecoms, The difference between a tax incentive and a one time payout attached to a bill is that the tax incentives if passed are likely to be persistent whereas a payout buried in a bill of this magnitude is likely never to be seen again. So a tax incentive wouldnt be a good idea. BTW these businesses create a societal burden of which there is financial representation which we call a tax burden. It is the cost of doing business in this and most countries. If we do not make these entities pay their tax burden we are giving them money, whcih is also "welfare" silly.

This transportation insfrastructure that CURRENTLY exists cannot be fully sustained by the gas tax, that was the debate when clinton suggested suspending the gas tax last spring. Most of the transportation system was built in the 30s 50s and 60s with extra FEDERAL GOVERNMENT money. The most major transportation expansion was by virtue of the "new deal" FDR's bill that this one which is being debated is often compared to. Different economists feel differently but there is no doubt that the citizenry benefitted a great deal from the "New Deal" which gave out of work people consturction, road clearing, lumberjack jobs to at least put food on the table.

Telecoms always complain that the reason that people internet bills are so high is that they have to recoup the 'enormous' amonut of money it costs to lay the lines to their house. It would stand to reason that a telecom claiming to be overburdened by traffic and laying new line should stand to be able to improve or lower the cost of their service if one or their other were being subsidized by the government. Think about it silly bear.

<sarcasm>And finally, Net Neutrality doesn't cost anyting like freedom doesn't cost anything.</sarcasm>

I almost want your Neo-Conservative efforts to succeed in strking down net neutrality so you can see how fun it waiting 3 minutes for a page to refresh on dailytech so you can post some more of your ignorance... dumb@ss (lol ok no more name calling).


RE: A fair bargain
By Dreifort on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: A fair bargain
By Teh Interwebz on 1/29/2009 4:58:15 PM , Rating: 1
All the jobs created by throwing money at liberal companies or liberal agendas will be TEMPORARY.

Thats the whole beauty of these New Deal style stimulus packages. They are both long term and short term solutions.

In the short term these temporary jobs give bridge the gap between a layoff and an economic turnaround. Does it do this perfectly? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes.

In the long term these temp jobs are creating the infrastructure our economy will run on for the next 50 or 60 years. Our more or less high powered economy over the last 60 years has been due in large part to all the infrastructure that was built during the New Deal following the Great Depression. The infrastructure investments in this bill will fuel similar growth in the future until the country once again out grows it.


RE: A fair bargain
By Alexvrb on 1/29/2009 11:42:43 PM , Rating: 1
The New Deal didn't work. WWII worked. The New New Deal is treading dangerous ground. If we're not careful, we'll end up like Japan. Even long before the current economic downturn their growth has been poor, despite lots of government stimulus packages. Japan built a $2 billion bridge to an island of 800 people. Is our broadband-to-nowhere really all that different? Or any of our pork spending? Pork has always had its place, but on this scale it's a lot easier to pass massive pork barrel spending if you slap "economic stimulus" all over it.

I also can't help but wonder how many illegals contractors will employ on these projects. Kind of damages the point of giving US workers jobs. Not that this sort of thing is directly the fault of the government, but they've certainly done jack squat to prevent it.


RE: A fair bargain
By Oregonian2 on 1/30/2009 2:50:55 AM , Rating: 2
Although it won't help job creation, a lot of the spending are for things that need to be done, and as such there's just a lot of spending with stimulus used as the excuse, so I don't look so bad on those, they're falsely justified, but perhaps needed to be done. But that said there is a ton of pure pork (museums, etc) to an absurd point as well (as reported in some of the news media).


RE: A fair bargain
By theArchMichael on 1/30/2009 4:30:08 AM , Rating: 2
in reference to the legality and immigration status of workers DHS ( Department of Homeland Security ), has on their website a free immigration status checker to see if documents are forged or stolen. Which is actually quite common, well more common than I would have thought I should say.

This will be good for small businesses and such that normally couldn't afford to or found this type of work too cumbersome.

I certainly hope that any contracting to do this massive repair/expansion is done responsibly. Remembering what happened in Iraq when they tried to privatize war is embarrassing and infuriating as a citizen of a free market democracy and a taxpayer, respectively.


RE: A fair bargain
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 6:40:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not against net neutrality.

And for whatever money is needed over what the gas tax collects, state governments should be picking up the tab. If they choose to have tons of pork projects to give handouts to people which means they don't have the money for roads, that's their problem.


RE: A fair bargain
By Superbike on 1/30/2009 2:17:02 AM , Rating: 1
right on


RE: A fair bargain
By BruceLeet on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: A fair bargain
By crafty on 1/29/2009 3:26:10 PM , Rating: 3
The same arguments were made for not bringing electricity or phone lines out to rural areas. It is simply not cost effective for profit-minded companies to extend certain services for rural people.

We get most of our food from these areas. We owe them infrastructural support.


RE: A fair bargain
By superflex on 1/30/2009 9:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
Thats a pretty big assumtion that the impoverished broadband areas are the breadbasket. I'm pretty sure this means laying lines to areas in Nevada, Wyoming and other areas which couldn't grow dirt if they tried.


Yikes
By CommodoreVic20 on 1/29/2009 1:51:42 PM , Rating: 5
Another 800 billion blatantly stolen from Americans. Thank you sir may I please have another?!




RE: Yikes
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 1:52:27 PM , Rating: 5
*lubes up the shaft*

Why yes!


RE: Yikes
By Spuke on 1/29/2009 2:29:54 PM , Rating: 5
Lube? They're using lube?


RE: Yikes
By MrBungle123 on 1/29/2009 2:36:38 PM , Rating: 1
nope.

Sandpaper condoms and if you need lube they have some lemon juice.


RE: Yikes
By excrucio on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yikes
By crafty on 1/30/2009 2:14:28 AM , Rating: 2
I missed the "helping Tyrone" provision of the stimulus. Could you please direct me to it?


RE: Yikes
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 6:43:52 AM , Rating: 2
Then you didn't read the bill. It is packed with Welfare.


RE: Yikes
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 6:43:09 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming 300 million LEGAL Americans it works out to $2,700 a person. But the long term costs of much of this will be FAR higher.


RE: Yikes
By tallcool1 on 1/30/2009 9:36:55 AM , Rating: 2
This guy has been in office for less than a month and is trying to spend almost 1 Trillion dollars of our money!

Everybody open your wallets! Time to spread the wealth...


The Vote on the House Bill
By buckeyeman on 1/30/2009 6:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that 11 Democrats voted against this bill.




RE: The Vote on the House Bill
By MrBungle123 on 1/30/2009 11:05:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yes they did, I would like to thank every member of congress that voted against this ridiculous excuse for legislation, and congratulate the 11 Democrats that had the courage to stand up to Pelosi and rest of the socialists in the House of Representatives.


I'd like to say...
By MadMan007 on 1/29/2009 2:52:28 PM , Rating: 3
Can I just say that generally these comments are some of the most pragmatic in a clearly politically-oriented posting on DT in some time? To see people who typically go far one way or anthoer come to a consensus such as (to paraphrase) 'many policies on both sides suck' is quite refreshing.




Does That Actually Mean...
By cubdukat on 1/29/2009 2:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
...that I won't get a knee-jerk "No" answer out of a Comcast tech when I ask him how to get my Linux box on their network? (I actually have a pretty good idea how to do it, but I just like to tweak them.)

Does that mean that ISP techs might actually need to have something more than a rudimentary knowledge of networking, limited only by what the Windows config disc they pawn off on you allows them to see?

Problably not, but wouldn't it be cool if it did?




SOS, DD...
By Beenthere on 1/29/2009 2:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
...changing the criminals on Capitol Hill hasn't changed the mentality of stealing all they can from tax payers and treating us like mushrooms.




My Math Must Be Off
By KakarotUSMC on 1/29/2009 10:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
So, NC is $2 billion in the hole.

Okay.

How does $12 million fix that shortfall?




For those interested...
By Spivonious on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: For those interested...
By sciwizam on 1/29/2009 1:56:23 PM , Rating: 4
How about something that links directly to the bill and not some summary from HuffPo:

http://www.readthestimulus.org/index.php?


RE: For those interested...
By Bc6 on 1/29/2009 3:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
Great, now we can look at The Heritage Foundation's summary of the stimulus plan. Just what we need.


RE: For those interested...
By Spivonious on 1/30/2009 10:09:50 AM , Rating: 1
Honestly, the link I copied had a PDF of the actual bill. Don't know how it got redirected to the summary.


Oh noes! Money for Americans!
By crafty on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh noes! Money for Americans!
By diggernash on 1/29/2009 7:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
Myself and most of those around me have highly adaptive theft deterrent systems based on proven high speed lead injection systems. I'm afraid it is approaching the point that said devices may also be needed to quell other hordes of thieves and destroyers of the Constitution.

Each of you should search Andrew Jackson's farewell speech and give it a read. Post your opinions of that forward looking document. That was a man with first hand experience, the mind to absorb what was happening around him, and the gonads to do something about it.


RE: Oh noes! Money for Americans!
By sgw2n5 on 1/29/2009 9:13:48 PM , Rating: 3
For what it's worth, read up on good old Andy Jackson. He was a crook and a murderer.


RE: Oh noes! Money for Americans!
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/2009 9:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
States are flat broke because the Bush economy put so many people out of work. Unless you want all your shit(and that is all you seem to care about, your shit) to start getting stolen by hordes of hungry, out of work people you might want to think of giving up your ideas of Ayn Randian wonderland and start living in the real world where people are struggling to survive this economy toppled by monstrous greed.


Wrong, it was a Liberal Democratic majority congress that did that. Force banks to loan to ppl who can't pay, dip into the pockets of CEOs for overlooking their books, and blame it on the other guy.


RE: Oh noes! Money for Americans!
By sgw2n5 on 1/29/2009 11:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
Enough with the revisionist history. Sheesh.

The CRA has nothing to do with the mortgage crisis. Freddie and Fannie are in trouble, but it's because of CMO debt obligations they bought up, just like the banks. The blame lays squarely on the shoulders of banking executives, not on the Democrats OR the Republicans.

Go read up on that and get back to me.


By cmdrdredd on 2/1/2009 2:07:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Enough with the revisionist history. Sheesh. The CRA has nothing to do with the mortgage crisis. Freddie and Fannie are in trouble, but it's because of CMO debt obligations they bought up, just like the banks. The blame lays squarely on the shoulders of banking executives, not on the Democrats OR the Republicans. Go read up on that and get back to me.


Go look up which democrats profited (hint: Obama)from overlooking Fannie and Freddie.


By wolfwood on 1/30/2009 12:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong, it was a Republican Congress in cahoots with Clinton who started the Fannie/Freddie mess. BOTH parties are equally to blame.


RE: Oh noes! Money for Americans!
By crafty on 1/30/2009 1:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
Mortgage sellers were making a ton of money off the worst of these loans. They'd sell it to a customer, get a huge margin off of it and then turn around and sell the paper into the floating bank shitpile. This had much more to do with deregulation than some canard about not allowing banks to redline.

People getting loans they couldn't pay for was stupid, but there was a lot of fraud and misrepresentation of these loans too. And remember the real estate markets in some places like California made it impossible for people with even a median level income to buy a home without an adjustable rate mortgage or an interest only loan. The real estate agents told them "no problem, in 3 years it will be worth double what it is now". Homes just in that one place were overvalued by hundreds of billions. That one million dollar trailer you just bought becomes real money at some point.

Remember Bush bragging about the Ownership Society? Democrats didn't control Congress until 2007. Am I missing something here, or are you just going off of someoene else's talking points?


By SiliconDoc on 2/4/2009 2:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, you're missing the YEARS I heard Clintoon and the democommunists screed the highest minority home ownership the nation had ever known, as the computer revolution fueled new jobs, that the same idiots in DC took false credit for.
The truth is the GD government can't create job one, unless it takes taxes and hires some idiot that takes away a private sector job, or creates a useless, wasteful position just to have another commiedemo voter on the dole.
That of course, is exactly what the bailout is for. Paying the wages and pensions and reitirements of about 33% of the US public at this point. If they snag all of healthcare, and implement a few other plans they keep pushing for, we'll be 50% communist, instead of just 33%.
Why not just have the government do it all, we can all get apaycheck form Uncle Sam, then 30 million dollar parachutes won't be all that common, and they won't need to collect taxes, they can just pay it into a digital account that empties as the social workers spend their proletarian control allottment. Then we'll all be equal, like the demonrats want - and their new illegal alien commie indoctrinated since birth( by his athiest commie mommie and muzzie daddies) selected election caucus thief who can't show his Mombasan Imam birth cert can be blacktator forever - just like you Alex Jones lunatics said Bush would be.
How about it comrade, why stop at 33% government employment ?


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki