backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 301 comment(s) - last by deadrats.. on Nov 12 at 10:23 PM
Obama is recruiting a transition team of former tech executives will help to push his vision of low-cost, fast, private internet

President-elect Barack Obama has an ambitious and comprehensive national agenda that seeks to put into effect many initiatives and changes.  To assist him in implementing this vision, he is recruiting top leaders to his transition team, which will prepare his plans and flesh out his plans, and ready them for proposal to the new House and Senate.

Top on Obama's agenda are many technology-related efforts.  President-elect Obama is no stranger to technology and has said that he wants more expansive protection of users rights to online privacy, a stance which surely runs counter to the RIAA, MPAA, and other groups' aggressive litigation efforts.  Also on the list are plans to free up unused government spectrum for public use.  Obama during his presidential campaign referred several times to the White Space, a section of the spectrum which Google and Microsoft have been lobbying for the government to free up.

Finally, Obama wants to fight bandwidth caps and mandate faster internet from internet service providers.  He is concerned of what he sees as a trend among companies like AT&T and Time Warner to give the customer less for more.

Among those whom Obama has recruited for his team are Google.org's Sonal Shah and Julius Genchowski, a former IAC executive.  Both individuals bring with them diverse and varied backgrounds to the table.

Sonal Shah is a part of Google's global development team.  She also served as a Vice President at Goldman, Sachs and Co. in the environmental protection department.  She is the founder of Indicorps, a U.S.-based non-profit organization offering one-year fellowships for Americans of Indian origin to work on specific development projects in India.  She's an expert on a diverse range of tech topics and an expert in global trade and the internet.

She also has government experience, serving in the Department of Treasury in a variety of roles, working in Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Julius Genachowski, an executive with Barry Diller's IAC/InterActiveCorp, likewise has government experience.  He worked with the Federal Communications Commission as chief counsel to former Democratic Chairman Reed Hundt.  He has been advising Obama on tech issues as is chairing the President-elect's Tech & Innovation Plan.

The pair first met in Harvard Law School, and he has helped sway Obama into making tech a focus of the campaign.  Mr. Genachowski is pushing for laws that would ban ISPs from slowing, blocking, or placing other controls on internet content over their networks, a plan tentatively approved by President-elect Obama.  The proposal has drawn harsh criticism from ISPs who argue that place limits on what their customers receive is critical to their business.

Rick Whitt, Google's Washington telecom and media counsel, says Mr. Genachowski is the perfect advocate with the technical know-how and desire to represent the average American, and the perfect leader for Obama's team.  Mr Whitt states, "Julius is a true believer in the power of technology to change lives and I think that bodes well for the Obama administration that someone like him is part of the transition team."

Both advisers eschew the traditional lobbyist background that many of the advisers from the past several administrations had hailed from.  Supporters say that this is a sign that Obama-administration really is about change, including in the tech industry.  With his party in firm control of the new House and Senate, barring a conservative filibuster, it looks like he may be able to pass through some impressive legislation which will protect citizens' rights on the internet.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Biden?
By Natfly on 11/6/2008 2:35:47 PM , Rating: 3
Why no mention of Biden and his horrible track record on technology?

Tried to expand copyright law.
Sponsored RIAA back legistlation.
Introduced internet anti-privacy legislation.

They seem to be complete opposites when it comes to technology. I hope he has no influence on Obama in this respect.




RE: Biden?
By vapore0n on 11/6/2008 2:43:43 PM , Rating: 5
Because he is not the President of the US?


RE: Biden?
By geddarkstorm on 11/6/2008 2:57:23 PM , Rating: 5
Don't underestimate the power of the dark side. Err, I mean, VP.


RE: Biden?
By krotchy on 11/6/2008 3:26:55 PM , Rating: 5
The VP only has power when the President is an idiot or dies. There is only one case I can think of where idiot was the case though..........


RE: Biden?
By BladeVenom on 11/6/2008 3:40:49 PM , Rating: 5
Or in case of a tie vote in the Senate.


RE: Biden?
By jwbarker on 11/6/2008 4:11:59 PM , Rating: 6
And when protecting the space-time continuum.


RE: Biden?
By NickWV on 11/6/2008 4:51:42 PM , Rating: 5
rofl, did not expect to see a Futurama reference here...


RE: Biden?
By FaceMaster on 11/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Biden?
By MrPoletski on 11/8/2008 11:51:54 AM , Rating: 2
ZOMG WTF a 6 RATING?!?!?!?


RE: Biden?
By tallcool1 on 11/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Biden?
By MadMan007 on 11/6/2008 3:59:24 PM , Rating: 4
Right, because it's the president and not the private, for-profit Federal Reserve that sets interest rates...


RE: Biden?
By MadMan007 on 11/6/2008 4:03:58 PM , Rating: 5
(the above is sarcasm if that didn't come across)


RE: Biden?
By OoklaTheMok on 11/6/2008 6:23:08 PM , Rating: 5
Carter got blamed for just about everything bad that occurred during his administration, and much of it was out of his control. I wanted Reagan to win in '80, but over the past eight years I have educated myself to the fact that he was largely inappropriately blamed for the events during his administration. Not saying he didn't make mistakes, every administration makes mistakes.


RE: Biden?
By tallcool1 on 11/7/2008 8:53:52 AM , Rating: 3
Is no different than Bush getting blamed for giving out bad loans causing the current housing market financial crisis.


RE: Biden?
By Suntan on 11/7/2008 11:52:28 AM , Rating: 1
RE: Biden?
By foolsgambit11 on 11/7/2008 6:21:45 PM , Rating: 5
You read that paragraph and see that they bowed under the Clinton administration's pressuring, I read that paragraph and see that they bowed to investors pressuring them to maintain unsustainable profit margins. Both pressures were working in the same direction - give mortgages to people who probably shouldn't be given mortgages. I think the market forces are stronger, but that Clinton (for a year or two) & Bush (for 7 years) failed to properly regulate because they liked where things were going (or where they thought they were going).

To say Clinton made the mistake first so nobody else bears any blame is ridiculous. If I forget to feed the dog and go on vacation, and my roommate is staying home and forgets to feed the dog for two weeks, then when the dog dies, I'd say the roommate is more to blame. Just like, even though Clinton made the mistake at first, Bush and a Republican dominated congress continued to fail to regulate for years. And years. Prevention is better than cure, but politicians (on both sides of the aisle) don't have the political capital to push for prevention. They can only get major changes done when the people are crying for it. In 1999, Fannie Mae's holdings were a concern; in 2005 they were a problem. The fact that two successive administrations failed to do anything about it until it became a crises shouldn't surprise anyone. Imagine the political ads saying, "so and so voted to keep working-class citizens from owning homes" or whatever they'd say. That's what the politicians in Washington were thinking for the past decade. (if they were thinking anything had to be done at all, and I imagine most weren't, on both sides of the aisle - Dems for home ownership, Reps for free market reasons)

In short..... um.... it's a complex issue involving the systemic weaknesses in our political and economic systems and can't be summed up as, 'it was Clinton's fault because he was too busy getting BJ's and lying about it.'


RE: Biden?
By elgueroloco on 11/8/2008 2:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
One big problem with your assertion: Bush introduced legislation to regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2003, but it was killed by a douchebag senator (Bob Bennet R-UT) whose son worked for Fannie Mae. Bush sought regulation again in 2004, but congressional dems praised Fannie and Freddie and prevented any legislation from happening.

Later, Dem Senator John Corzine (who I think is now Governor of NJ) tried to regulate them again. Kudos to him for being the only dem who tried to do the right thing.

In 2005-6, John McCain, Elizabeth Dole, Chuck Hagel, and John Sununu cosponsored a third regulation bill. Shot down again.

Most of Fannie and Freddie's congressional protection has come from Barney Frank (D-MA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Kent Conrad (D-ND), as well as Barack Obama, who has two former Fannie Mae CEO's (who were dismissed for corruption and given sweetheart loans from Countrywide) working as his top advisers. Bob the Douche Bennett aside, the Dems have been the primary force blocking regulation of the GSE's the whole time.

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhc5zr79_59c3mxs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QBRIsCkGQ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbkEAR2GgiA&feature...

This last one is a McCain ad made by a McCain supporter on youtube, but it's got lots of good info. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaABV1CWXug&feature...

You can say that it's the Reps' fault for not fighting the Dems harder, but that's like saying it's a girl's fault she got raped because her clothes were too sexy and she didn't struggle enough. F-ck Bob Bennett though. Nepotistic douche.


RE: Biden?
By eldakka on 11/10/2008 1:28:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If I forget to feed the dog and go on vacation, and my roommate is staying home and forgets to feed the dog for two weeks, then when the dog dies, I'd say the roommate is more to blame.


Actually, if it's your dog, then you are entirely at fault.

It's called personal responsibility, which the world seems to have forgotten about.

It is your responsibility to ensure the dog is fed. Which means lining up someone to feed your dog for you while you are away. It is no one else's responsibility to take on voluntarily your responsibilities. If you can't find someone else to feed your dog while you are away, then you don't go away. Simple.


RE: Biden?
By KashGarinn on 11/10/2008 4:46:08 AM , Rating: 2
So the original analogy wasn't good, and your retort with "your dog" is really confusing the issue altogether.

If we're talking about america as a dog, and the president as a owner, although we shouldn't be, because the president hasn't got the same power over america as a dog owner has of his dog (for that you'd have to look at all the branches of government as the "owner").

I like symbolism as much as the next guy, but the president isn't all-powerful, and thus isn't all-to-blame.

So if we would go with a dog and his owner analogy, it's better if we would say america is the dog, and the president is the presiding attendee of the dog with lots of others making sure that it's being treated properly. He doesn't decide what it eats, where it sleeps, or where to take its walkies, but in the end has to make sure it gets fed, gets its sleep and is taken out for a walk now and then.

Then when the current attendee has finished his duties, a new attendee has the responsibility to care for the dog, and thus has the responsibility from that point onwards to care for the dog.

So your line of
quote:
Actually, if it's your dog, then you are entirely at fault.
has nothing to do with the analogy itself and confuses the issue, but then again, the analogy was bad to begin with.


RE: Biden?
By Suntan on 11/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Biden?
By BansheeX on 11/7/2008 6:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right, because it's the president and not the private, for-profit Federal Reserve that sets interest rates...


Shows you how stupid we are to this institution. This guy got rated up to 5 and both his statements are untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve

The Federal Reserve is a government-enabled, quasi-government run establishment with a few private components. Many of the positions are government-appointed, and others work closely with the U.S. treasury to buy its debt obligations (bonds) on the open market with unbacked counterfeit money it creates at no labor or material cost, effectively appropriating the value of existing dollars without having to obtain them physically via a tax. They are not for profit, they were originally created with the socialist idealist notion of acting merely as a lender of last resort to stop bank run panics caused by the fractional reserve system, where banks loan out money they don't have at interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve

Instead of sitting on their hands, they soon got into the further socialist business of "directing" the economy with centralized interest rate manipulation (as opposed to the free market setting them). They created the phony inflationary bubble of the 20s, the 90-00s, and are now apparently capable of seizing entirely private entities out of nowhere, to the chagrin of the constitution.

They're entirely unnecessary, as reserve requirements should simply have been increased. But the government wants someone to monetize its debt beyond what they can tax or borrow. The Fed balance sheet is going to look really scary next fall, could be in the trillions. That's all credit inflation in the pipeline, but instead of creating another bubble in stocks or homes or bonds where average americans blindly think their wealth is increasing, it will inevitably filter into basic materials like food, gas, and real money (gold) when the phony bubble ends.

God we're stupid.


RE: Biden?
By Starcub on 11/8/2008 12:09:42 AM , Rating: 1
You do know that the fed chairman is a govt. employee appointed by the president don't you?


RE: Biden?
By xti on 11/6/2008 4:00:30 PM , Rating: 1
OPTIMUS PRIME!


RE: Biden?
By Hlafordlaes on 11/7/2008 4:26:05 AM , Rating: 4
Volker was appointed Fed Chair by Carter, and was the first to approach the problem of stagflation on monetarist terms. By limiting the money supply directly and letting interest rates take their course, he wiped out inflation. Reagan kept him on, BTW, and reaped the benefits of Carter taking the rap but actually fixing the problem. Carter wasn't perfect, but he didn't trade arms with the enemy (Iran) as did the next administration. For the last 3 decades it's been all empty rhetoric and under the table dealing when under Republicans. Take a look at the deficit run-ups under Rep. admins since 1980 and you'll see the amount of theft from our children. It's massive and no amount of chest-thumping can hide that.

All facts, sonny boy, facts. Sorry if they weren't listed in the Bible.


RE: Biden?
By werepossum on 11/7/2008 7:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Hlafordlaes on November 7, 2008 at 4:26 AM
Carter wasn't perfect, but he didn't trade arms with the enemy (Iran) as did the next administration.


I think that's the single most stupid thing I've ever read on the Internet. Congratulations!

In case you've forgotten, Carter CREATED Iran as the enemy. His increasingly restrictions, political war on the Shah in the UN, and cutting off support to Iran gave us the Islamic theocracy that today cuts off heads and rips out painted fingernails. The world Islamic movement was given its start by Carter, and he continues supporting it whenever possible to this day.

Sorry if that isn't in the Daily Kos.


RE: Biden?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 11/6/2008 3:58:43 PM , Rating: 1
Yea.... the Clinton years were pretty difficult with Hillary going into meeting and voicing her opinions at these meets when she was not even cleared to be in the room. Then Old Al Gore behind the scene controlling Bill actions.
It was nice to hear Bill say a few years later (after the white house) admit he was too much of a college frat boy while in office and let other do too much of his work. Of course the media does not like to play that interview.......
Bill was just lucky to have a republican congress that gave him the first balanced budget in decades (first republican congress in decades too), unlike George Bush who had the last 6 years with a Democratic congress that did nothing to improve this country - they did not want to have a chance that people would think George did something good.... So, how many people out there voted for change but still pushed the same button to put back in place the same democratic congress? Congress the one's who really control the economy with laws and budget not just influence it with control of the interest rates...


RE: Biden?
By FITCamaro on 11/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Biden?
By habibo on 11/6/2008 4:45:20 PM , Rating: 4
Now I have to stab myself in the brain to get that image out of there...


RE: Biden?
By lotharamious on 11/6/2008 9:34:18 PM , Rating: 3
That's why I love being a human being...

"Once you see it, you can't unsee it"


RE: Biden?
By djkrypplephite on 11/6/2008 11:21:24 PM , Rating: 1
We call it "meatspin".


RE: Biden?
By deadrats on 11/6/2008 4:21:59 PM , Rating: 4
actually, the republicans had control of both the house of representatives and the senate until the 2006 elections, only then did the democrats gain a small majority in the senate and the house is pretty much evenly split.

the current mess this country is in, from the 2 wars to the current economic crisis can be directly tied to the bush administrations policies and the republican controlled congresses stupid actions.

imagine, fighting 2 wars simultaneously, with the iraq war alone costing about 10 billion dollars a month and the bush administration cutting taxes for the top 10 percent incomes in this country.

and to make matters worse, the bush administration started printing paper as a means to pay for the 2 wars, since thanks to the tax cuts revenues to the federal government sunk.

now don't get me wrong, there is plenty of blame for both the republicans and the democrats going back to nixon for the current economic mess we are in, but the thought that somehow the republicans are angels and it's all the democrats fault is flat out laughable; and Lord knows that bush and the republican control congress certainly did their fair share to fuck america in the ass.

now i must say that there are numerous things i don't like about obama and i certainly didn't vote for him, but his stance on technology, as outlined in this article, is certainly something i could get behind him on.

lastly, am i the only one that thinks it's the height of stupidity for the ultra conservative republicans to want to deport all the illegal aliens, some 12 or so million of them yet support spending 10 billion a month in iraq.

imagine if instead of that war, we simply spend 5 billion a month, for just 1 year, improving the economies of the major countries of origin of most illegals, such as mexico, honduras, guatemala and the rest, so that these people could find decent jobs in their country and not have to illegally cross our borders to find work in the u.s.

as far as i'm concerned having 12+ million illegal aliens in the u.s. is a bigger security issue than iraq ever was...


RE: Biden?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 11/6/2008 4:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ah... No, do not spend 5 billion a month to improve another countries economy. Use it to improve our own (USA) first. Then when we are strong again we can start helping others.
You must remember.... ALL illegal immigrant cost direct and indirect money out of every citizen pocket. A large percentage of locked up criminals are illegal and tax money is needed to cover their stay in jail. Many students in publicly funded schools are illegal and their parents are not paying taxes to help cover their share, so your kid's say $10,000 per year average to help educate them goes down to say $5,000 per year average to help educate them. So, as a group the education level of the average student has suffered because of illegal immigrants. There are hundreds of ways illegals hurt the economy and therefor no, it is not stupid for people to want to deport all illegal aliens. They are simply tired of giving out a free ride.

As always... This is never an issue over immigrants, they are always welcomed, with proper paper work.


RE: Biden?
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 5:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
100% true. I don't think anyone has a problem with LEGAL immigrants. Illegals send their untaxed money back to their homeland to support their families that still live there, or they just let them take advantage of our tax funded programs here.

Illegals are breaking our laws, they should deport them all.


RE: Biden?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 11/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Biden?
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 5:32:40 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think it is an error. I think they do it on purpose to try to make them seem like they are not breaking a law. It is probably a scam to get votes from the illegals, which somehow vote I'm sure and keep their cheap labor.


RE: Biden?
By MaulBall789 on 11/6/2008 5:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
It's a two way street. They need businesses willing to hire illegals, off the books and pay them under the table, for them to send that money back to wherever they came from.


RE: Biden?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 11/6/2008 6:59:45 PM , Rating: 1
Well, that's just governmental laws that let issues like this develop. With the correct laws and tax incentives this would not be an issue. However, it is a good point.


RE: Biden?
By catalysts17az on 11/6/2008 5:58:15 PM , Rating: 1
i agree as a teacher with several years experience teaching at a high school and im a hispanic we should deport those who choose a criminal behavior. i mean i really angers me when parents are having to work three or four jobs just etch out a living and there kids come to school to screw around.....worse they become americanized.......with our public schools lacking real punishment we are seeing organized crime at the elementary schools.....when kids have more right than the teacher there is something wrong here and its only going to get worse.......by the way have you guys seen the movie idiocracy? thats were we are headed if you have seen the movie......science teacher in TX (so if i mispelled a few words here you know that spelling is not my forte)

P.S. Go Longhorns @ #4 there still a chance for a national title Class of 2000!


RE: Biden?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 11/6/2008 7:09:23 PM , Rating: 1
I'll agree with most of what you state. However, living in the USA and becoming Americanized is not a bad thing.... It's becoming part of the melting pot. The problem is that becoming Americanized today does not have the same meaning as what it did even a few years back (10 or 20 years ago). A true American in my book will work hard for a good future for themselves, family and country/community. Not the self centered criminal types that we are seeing more of lately.... I think you are think of Gangsterized, which is a bad thing.


RE: Biden?
By Gzus666 on 11/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Biden?
By cparka23 on 11/6/2008 8:22:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Well, legally we should deport anyone who is illegal. It isn't that hard to become a citizen or even get a work visa.
I agree with your opinion except for the above assumption. It's actually extremely difficult to get a visa for USA-schooled foreign nationals. Being local to many engineering firms and to the heart of the American energy industry, I can tell you that we're at the point where American college graduates cannot find corporate sponsorship for visas due to the vast numbers of people trying to stay in the US. Personally, I've seen a couple of friends (one engineer, one comp sci grad) leave the country for this very reason.

In the big picture, it is a moot point to your argument. Many illegal hispanic immigrants don't want to become citizens or obtain visas under our current system. But those that do want to be here legally wouldn't stand a chance to get either one. That's why they stump for legal programs that basically alleviate the fear they have of being arrested/deported (temporary worker privileges, driver's licenses, etc.). What they want is to not be deported or arrested, which is something entirely different from wanting to become a citizen altogether.


RE: Biden?
By andrinoaa on 11/6/2008 9:24:19 PM , Rating: 3
This whole arguement is such bullshit on so many fronts. Its an arguement I hear politicians from all over the world crap on about. Usually to get their names in the paper and to cover their own incompetance. It just appeals to the most base of human emotions. There is always some dickwit who likes to act like a neanderthal, witness how many people followed great leaders like Hitler ( he's just the first dick that came to mind ) Firstly its fucking ironic the country of immigrants want to kick out "illigal" immigrants. What were the first immigrants, if not looters and murderers? Second the great "christian" empire doesn't actually beleive what its founder said or did. What hypocrites. Third , your economy would suffer another kick if they all left. Christ, why don't you guys study your fucking history and LEARN from it! Its so easy to take the easy road and just accept the shit that comes out of peoples mouths, especially people who have simple solutions. Our neo-cons in Australia had a simple solution for illigals too. It ended up costing the tax payer a billion dollars to create a detention centre-read concentration camp. It used to cost us nothing to process them before. And the numbers were never really that significant in the scheme of things. This is what I mean, its all bullshit. And the most base and vocal supporters of this shit are children of migrants. Hell the irony is certanly lost on them. And the arguement goes, my family suffered so why shouldn't they. The politics of fucking envy. If they suffered , why arn't you doing something to alleviate the suffering of others? Hello?


RE: Biden?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 9:43:59 AM , Rating: 1
Someone is just filled with hate aren't they? Right andrinoaa, lets just let anyone who wanders over the border do whatever they want and use all our tax paid programs. What a great idea.

Now, back in the real world, it is a crime to come to our country without going through the proper channels. Last I checked, we are one of the most lax when it comes to immigration laws, look at most of Europe for example.

Who cares who was killed a few hundred years ago? People die and get taken over, that is called survival and human nature. You think America is the first place to forcefully take over a country? Forget the Turks and so many others that have followed suit? Societies that refuse to progress get killed and taken over, that is how it is. Adapt or die, that is life.

Your response is really all over the place and really ends up no where. We don't want to jail them, we want them deported to fix their own country. Our country would not just fail overnight because some unskilled labor left. We had an economy long before illegals came over.

Why should we alleviate the suffering of others? That is not our job, nor did we promise anyone this. Everyone likes to hate America but stand there with their hand out. We don't owe the world jack. If you want to come here and bring something to the country and do it legally, good for you. If you want to come break our laws to take our tax money and handouts, then they need to die.

This country wasn't a "Christian" empire as you put it. That is the bull they like to fill people's heads with. Most of the founding fathers were atheist or deist and even the religious ones were all for separating church and state for obvious reasons from the past.

In closing, most of your response was just a haphazard rant leading nowhere. It was even a rough ride to get to nowhere. Please try to make some sense when you respond, as I can barely build responses to this atrocious rant.


RE: Biden?
By foolsgambit11 on 11/7/2008 7:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it is a crime to come to our country without going through the proper channels.

Actually, it's a violation of civil law, not criminal law, so no, it's not really a crime. Well, at least, it's not a crime to be in the country illegally - I'm not sure about entering the country illegally (although it can't be that hard to get a tourist visa and overstay it, right?). Airport and border security has made everything a criminal offense. Sneeze at the metal detectors and they make you put the snot in a 3 oz. bottle, inside of a 1 quart clear zip-top plastic bag.

If you don't care about peoples and countries being taken over, then I'm sure you don't care if our country gets overrun with immigrants, either. That's called survival and human nature, after all.

Now perhaps it would be a good idea to show some form of taxpayer identification to receive government benefits. That would be much easier than moving 15 million illegal immigrants back to their country of origin. But I still say, rather than make the taxpayers pay to ship these people home, or pay to have them jailed (unless they are actually criminals), shouldn't we just set a fine for all illegal immigrants to pay upon discovery? It would simultaneously increase revenues to the government (instead of draw away resources) and work as a disincentive for people to come to America. INS would become glorified meter maids - after all, meter maids are a net earner for local governments. Isn't it about time INS became profitable?


RE: Biden?
By Parhel on 11/7/2008 3:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It isn't that hard to become a citizen or even get a work visa.


I have to disagree with that statement. My wife just passed the citizenship test and will be swearing in later this month. To date, we've spent over $5,000 just on government fees. We did mountains of paperwork ourselves to avoid paying another $2,000 to hire a lawyer.

To you or me, $5,000 may not seem like much of an obstacle. But for a poor Mexican farmer who dreams of bringing his children up as US citizens, that is an impossible figure . . . an amount of money that he will never in his life be able to save.

Also, you can't just up and decide to move to the US. Sure, you can get in if you have to come here for your job, if you are accepted at an American university, or if you have an immediate family member who is a citizen. But otherwise, you won't even get your foot in the door.

We all want the best for our children, and to watch them grow up with better lives than we had, which is why many illegal immigrants take the risk to come here. And in spite of that, I would be completely in support of deporting them, except for the that many of them had no available path to legal citizenship.


RE: Biden?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 3:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Then that is life. We cannot support them all. They devalue our economy and take take take. They need to fix their own country if it is that bad. Do you think everyone just got handed their own working country and economy? France had tons of revolts. We had our share of wars.

It isn't America's responsibility to make sure everyone has a great life. I don't work to put illegal immigrant's kids through school and make their life better. FIX YOUR OWN DAMN COUNTRY! They are taking the easy way out, that is why they are poor and worthless in the first place, they don't want to actually work. It is actually hard to better yourself and that scares some people.

I have no problem with legal immigrants, I welcome their contributions. Droves of illegals help no one but them and that isn't how this country works.


RE: Biden?
By Parhel on 11/7/2008 3:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
But why set it up so that only the most privileged people can move to the US? My great-grandparents immigrated to the US from Germany in the early 1900's, and they took labor jobs. They worked hard, and because of that our family has moved up the economic ladder. We're middle-class now. That's the American Dream. Under the current system, the only legal immigrants are the ones who will come and compete with us for the $100K+ jobs. I'm not saying "let everyone in." What I am saying is, if someone wants to move to the US and flip burgers or mow lawns, give them the same chance you would give a engineer with an Master's degree.


RE: Biden?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 3:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But why set it up so that only the most privileged people can move to the US?


Broke people from India, Nigeria, all of Asia, Russia, etc. etc. move here all the time and make something out of themselves. They come here on work visas, or many other fashions, but for the most part, legally. Do you think they are somehow inherently better than the illegals we currently have?

I have a feeling it is motivation. They take the easy way, cause it is in fact easier. Illegals are the lazy immigrants, the ones that don't really want to try for things.


RE: Biden?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 6:38:24 AM , Rating: 2
What kind of low life are you? Have you no empathy for your fellow human? They are not insignificant little ants, pal, they are humans. What utter arrogance you have. Just be greatfull you were born into privilige. Show some humility, arsehole.


RE: Biden?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 11/12/2008 10:15:26 AM , Rating: 2
Hey they started it.... If they did not cross the boarder illegally we would not have to debate on what to do with them. You want to show humanity, send home the illegals before the cold winter comes... No do not give them free money for housing and heating gas (yes, this does happen - often). I as part of the tax paying crowd say, "We can not afford them any more". I want that money spent on educating our youth, help our vets, elderly, and other people who have helped make this country what it is...

New comers welcomed.... There is the line, this is the language, here what to study, this is the test. Pass it and join the club.


RE: Biden?
By andrinoaa on 11/6/2008 9:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
spelling is not my forte, what else did you miss out on, History, sociology, basic gramma, economics or an inquisitive mind that asks, why are our young kids so obviously brutalized? Sorry but your arguement is full of holes. Are you equating organised crime with americanised? If so, doesn't that mean the immigrants are less criminal to start with? Hello? Are you thinking now?


RE: Biden?
By ggordonliddy on 11/6/2008 10:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
How in the hell are you a teacher when you don't have the spelling or grammar skills of a 2nd grader? What an incredibly sad and pitiful country we live in.

Saying that spelling is not your forte is not an excuse.


RE: Biden?
By PrinceGaz on 11/7/2008 12:00:03 AM , Rating: 2
His spelling seemed pretty good to me. The incorrect use of punctuation marks and capital-letters were the only real grammatical errors, but compared with a lot of posts here, they were trivial.

Perhaps you should have read all of his post before jumping on the last paragraph where he apologised for possibly incorrect spelling in it. You might also want to consider whether you would be willing to work as a teacher like he does, having to stand in front of a room of kids every day and doing your best to inspire and teach them subjects when many probably don't want to know.


RE: Biden?
By andrinoaa on 11/7/2008 1:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
The lack of thinking was more criminal than the spelling. I don't place as much importance on spelling. The absence of clear thinking is A REAL worry!


RE: Biden?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 9:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The lack of thinking was more criminal than the spelling. I don't place as much importance on spelling. The absence of clear thinking is A REAL worry!


In that case, you are one of the scariest people I have seen.


RE: Biden?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 6:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, dickwad, you haven't "seen" me. Whats the matter, does the truth hurt?


RE: Biden?
By foolsgambit11 on 11/7/2008 6:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
That's an oversimplification. Many illegal immigrants use fake Taxpayer Identification Numbers, so they do have taxes taken out (unless they are working an under the table job). But even in that case, they pay sales tax on all purchases. Legal immigrants also send remittances home. Illegal immigrants also contribute a large part to our economic system.

Illegal immigrants do the same thing for service sector and manual labor sector that shipping manufacturing overseas does - it lowers the costs for everybody else.

The problem is with our immigration system (although, with unemployment at the level it is, now is probably not the right time politically to go raising quotas), which can't keep pace with our economic system. Free market, baby. Down with these regulations that keep companies from being able to maximize shareholder profit.

But seriously, no matter how much the net economic loss is from illegal immigration (and I'm not certain that the net result is a loss), when you figure in the costs of a)kicking everybody illegal out, and b) keeping everybody illegal out, I have a feeling the costs of those programs (not to mention the expansion of government size and power into citizens' privacy) would be greater than the costs of illegal immigration.

I'm curious, why is the solution deportation, anyway? When you break the law (civil law, not criminal law, because immigration violations are not criminal), you get fined. Why deport them when we could have a virtually never-ending cash cow by having the government sue illegal immigrants for their 'economic costs'? To deport them would be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I mean, if your problem is that they aren't paying enough into the system, wouldn't it make sense to just charge them for it, and then a little extra for our time and effort?


RE: Biden?
By Starcub on 11/8/2008 11:55:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
100% true.

Nope. Many illegals do pay taxes. The first time they send their SSN applications in they get rejection letters, the second time they submit the same info and get sent SSN cards. Why? Because the unwritten message the govt is sending them is "we know you are illegal, so don't even think about applying for benefits, or attempting to obtain legal recourse agaist either us, or your employer."

This is why people in immigrant populous states are mad as hell. The companies that employ illegals are able to pay them lower than market wages. The govt is happy because the illegals are paying taxes that they will never be able to collect benefits from. Another fine example of your corporate govt at work raping whoever they can to fatten themselves.

More info here: http://causa-nostrae-laetitiae.blogspot.com/2007/0...


RE: Biden?
By Starcub on 11/8/2008 12:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
A correction to my post above: illegal aliens submit returns with phoney SSN's that are accepted by the IRS, not that the govt issues them valid SSN's. This guys explains it better: http://takethelongwayhome.blog.com/immigration/

The point remains however: the govt is complicit in the exploitation of illegal immigrants.


RE: Biden?
By F4iHorn on 11/7/2008 1:44:39 PM , Rating: 1
"actually, the republicans had control of both the house of representatives and the senate until the 2006 elections, only then did the democrats gain a small majority in the senate and the house is pretty much evenly split."

A small majority is all it takes to have control of the agenda and the passage of bills which the President either signs or veto’s. The DOW was around 14,000 in 2006. It's at 8,500 today.

"the current mess this country is in, from the 2 wars to the current economic crisis can be directly tied to the bush administrations policies and the republican controlled congresses stupid actions."

Conducting wars is one of the few thing the federal government should be doing. Meddeling in the housing market "i.e. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and forcing institutions to lend to certain people" is not. According to the Constitution. The Bush administration did not start or expand these organizations. In fact they warned many times of the potential harm that could result if they continued their practices. But nobody was listening because Bush is stupid right? Everyone that did start/expand these organizations, change the rules on lending, and defend these practices is a Democrat. You don't have to believe me. There are plenty of videos online where you can see them defend it with their own words.

"imagine, fighting 2 wars simultaneously, with the iraq war alone costing about 10 billion dollars a month and the bush administration cutting taxes for the top 10 percent incomes in this country."

I got a tax cut, and I'm NOT in the top 10% of incomes. I'm very middle class and I got a 2% decrease just like the top 10% of income earners. That's not including rebates for kids. So I don't know what the hell you're talking about and apparenly neither do you.

"and to make matters worse, the bush administration started printing paper as a means to pay for the 2 wars, since thanks to the tax cuts revenues to the federal government sunk."

IRS revenues as a percentage of GDP started dropping from 20.9% in 2000 to 16.4% in 2003. Something happened during that period I believe. After the Bush tax cuts it then steadily increased back up. During the two wars.


RE: Biden?
By Magius on 11/7/2008 3:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
"A small majority is all it takes to have control of the agenda and the passage of bills which the President either signs or veto’s. The DOW was around 14,000 in 2006. It's at 8,500 today."

You are assuming that every democrat will support anything their own party proposes, which is not the case (as it isn't with republicans either). The fact is that controlling it assures nothing, unless you have a vast majority of the seats in your favor, which the post 2006 Congress clearly did not.

"Conducting wars is one of the few thing the federal government should be doing."

I agree, but it has to be done in an intelligent and careful manner, two factors lacking from the current/past administration. The Afghanistan war was justified and every country was behind us, the Iraq is a mistake and we will have to live with the consequences. There was no real justification to start the second war, period. You only need to research on how the reasons behind the war changed with the seasons as previous justifications were proved to be false.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are just a mess. Their story just goes well beyond the veil of ideology. There are measures started and pushed by both parties that may be traced to the current crisis. Trying to pin it to one or the other is just plain folly. Since you appear to be well informed on the democratic side I will just point you to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Ac...

"I got a tax cut, and I'm NOT in the top 10% of incomes."

I think he meant that the top 10% did not need those cuts, not that other people also got them.

Now your last remark I need to do some research on. :)


RE: Biden?
By croc on 11/6/2008 4:47:24 PM , Rating: 4
Short term - medium term memory loss? Seems a common affliction among the Republican faithful...


RE: Biden?
By twjr on 11/6/2008 7:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is a problem with the more right wing faithful the world over.

Here in New Zealand we have an election tomorrow (not quite as big a deal as the US) and it looks pretty clear our more right wing major party will win the vote. People just don't seem to remember that in recent history whenever they have got in power they just stuff things up. Then we get a few terms of progress before people lose their heads again. Seems like we are always taking 2 steps forward 1 back.


RE: Biden?
By tdawg on 11/6/2008 5:06:41 PM , Rating: 5
Are you talking about Bush Sr or Bush Jr?

Our current president Bush had a Republican congress until the midterm elections in 2006, so from 2001 to 2006, it was a Republican congress that he was working with.

If you're going to try to spout history, how about you do some research first?!


RE: Biden?
By Natfly on 11/6/2008 3:03:33 PM , Rating: 5
You don't find it relevant that the soon-to-be president and vice-president have polar opposite agendas concerning technology?
That both are in significantly more powerful positions and are supposed to be "on the same team" so to speak?

Sorry, I just figured it was relevant and interesting.


RE: Biden?
By inighthawki on 11/6/2008 3:10:40 PM , Rating: 3
Technology is only one of several things that need focused on. No two people will ever agree on everything, but if they do agree on most stuff, then one thing won't hurt. Surely he would not have been chosen to be VP if he disagreed with all of Obama's idea...


RE: Biden?
By bodar on 11/6/2008 3:27:28 PM , Rating: 5
Isn't that a good thing? For Obama to be successful, he has to become centrist. Listening to other perspectives and compromising when appropriate is apart of that. Partisan BS is what keeps us from getting anything done.


RE: Biden?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Biden?
By bodar on 11/6/2008 6:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't exactly say he WOULD do it, only time will tell. I said it's what he needs to do. Do you disagree with that assessment?


RE: Biden?
By quiksilvr on 11/6/2008 3:46:33 PM , Rating: 3
Not necessarily. The purpose of the Vice President is to advise the President. Also I felt that the main reason Obama chose Biden was because of his extensive knowledge on foreign policy (and of course to ease the minds of the slightly racist).


RE: Biden?
By cornelius785 on 11/6/2008 3:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
But he is now (well soon) in a postion that has stronger influence and can influence more people compared to a lowly senator. That's the part that worries me. I just hope the biden resembles something closer to a figure head than someone trying to further their agenda behind the president's back.


RE: Biden?
By PitViper007 on 11/6/2008 4:46:21 PM , Rating: 3
I think that will depend on how much power President-elect Obama allows his VP. He could basically say, "Joe, be a good boy and sit over there and keep out of the way. GOOD BOY!!!" The VP's only responsibility as spelled out in the Constitution is to preside over the Senate, voting in the event of a tie. Oh, and to be around in case something happens to the president. Anything more the President assigns to him.


RE: Biden?
By PWNettle on 11/6/2008 3:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how any of that is anti-technology, more like anti abuse of technology, something few here seem to grasp.

I also don't see how improving consumer protection in technology goes against RIAA, that's quite the leap on (il)logic by the author.

Protecting consumers doesn't mean allowing piracy or preventing the protection of intellectual property, which, if anything, needs help due to the ease with which dirtbags abuse it and lack of significant punishment for all but the most blatant offenders - that get caught.


RE: Biden?
By tastyratz on 11/6/2008 4:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
Lets review Biden and his stance on tech related issues, shall we?
X means technologically unfriendly vote on the topic.

1. For the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act
Vote:
2. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and "anti-circumvention" rules
Vote: X
3. Prohibiting Internet gambling
Vote:
4. Making it more difficult to renew Net-tax ban
Vote: X
5. Increasing paperwork for Internet sellers, including on eBay
Vote: X
6. For more restrictions on Web firearm sales than newspaper sales
Vote: X
7. For Internet filters in schools and libraries
Vote: X
8. Making ban on Net-access taxes permanent
Vote: X
9. To liberalize computer export restrictions
Vote:
10. Against taxing purchases made online
Vote:
11. For free trade bill with Trade Promotion Authority
Vote: X
12. For overruling state anti-spam laws with federal Can-Spam Act
Vote: X
13. Extending ban on Internet access taxes through 2007
Vote:
14. For research and development tax credit
Vote:
15. Creating nationalized ID card and linking computer databases
Vote: X
16. For curbs on class action lawsuits
Vote: X

(source)
http://news.cnet.com/2009-1040-6130830.html?tag=mn...

In summation: Biden is a technological antichrist. The only reason he isn't the bottom of the list is he doesn't show up to vote a large portion of the time.


RE: Biden?
By GaryJohnson on 11/7/2008 12:56:05 AM , Rating: 5
Some of that's really worded strangely or poorly referenced or something. Like #5 they link to an amendment about requiring online sellers to say "You may be charged sales tax" on their websites. That doesn't sound like "Increasing paperwork for Internet sellers". Is that link bad or is someone over-sensationalizing?


Sounds good
By FITCamaro on 11/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds good
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 2:47:03 PM , Rating: 4
Have to agree with this. Letting monopolies and cronyism between these companies go on is what is killing us here.


RE: Sounds good
By FITCamaro on 11/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sounds good
By Gzus666 on 11/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sounds good
By GaryJohnson on 11/6/2008 4:39:27 PM , Rating: 5
We're already half-assing it: public roads, public schools, NASA, national defense, public safety, social security, anything you can put 'national', 'public', or 'social' in front of, etc...

If you want to go one way or the other, under capitalism, the above systems have to go. Why aren't the people advocating free markets saying that?


RE: Sounds good
By Gzus666 on 11/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sounds good
By TomZ on 11/6/08, Rating: -1