backtop

Print 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
RE: Sounds good
By rcc on 11/6/2008 5:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
NASA has been crippled by political and societal issues.

People have forgotten that gains sometimes require risks. Don't do anything that might jepardize a human (or any) life, even if they are volunteers. So, the price of the safety programs exceeds the price of the technological advances.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of throwing lives away. However, if our ancestors hadn't taken a chance here or there Europe might never have colonized the Americas (and while some of you make think that's good... work with me here a bit), or Australia, etc. etc.

In fact, the only thing that has pushed technology faster than the space programs (or exploration programs in general)around the world, has been war. How sorry is that.

People kind (how PC is that. : )) in general has to be pushed to acheive. Perhaps that's why so many successful people have "grumpy" spouses.


RE: Sounds good
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 7:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
You really don't know much about NASA do you? The space program has brought about hundreds of the innovations you enjoy every day. The money is a hell of a lot better spent here rather than giving stupid welfare moms money to squirt out more bastard kids into poverty to continue the cycle.

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

Just some. Respect NASA, I promise you they have brought us more than anything you will even begin to dream of doing.


RE: Sounds good
By OPR8R on 11/7/2008 12:05:16 AM , Rating: 4
You had him good before your "stupid welfare moms" comment...


RE: Sounds good
By Etsp on 11/7/2008 1:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
I think he meant "the slutty, uneducated moms on welfare, not the responsible, hard working moms who had a run of bad luck an need a little extra help so they can get back on track."


RE: Sounds good
By andrinoaa on 11/7/2008 1:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
Ok you snob. How do you differentiate? And what happens when the trailer trash has no money? They steal and end up in gaol. How much less does it cost to give them a meagher allowance? You cannot legislate out the bottom 5% of society, they will always be wih us. Get over it.


RE: Sounds good
By Spuke on 11/7/2008 3:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
Look here. My Mom, who I love dearly, was one of those women that made mistakes, spit out three kids, never went after the father for child support and ended up on welfare. We were friggin poor dude!!! But you know what? She didn't stay there. She slowly worked her way out of her mess, stopped having MORE kids , a now she has two kids with degrees and great careers. The third one (my sister) has issues with busting her ass to get ahead.

My brother and I busted our asses and now reap the rewards. I've been where ALL of those poor kids and welfare moms are. It's not a dead end and the only person holding you back is yourself. Every chance I get, I SHOW kids exactly how to get ahead. YOU need to get over it and quit encouraging this cycle of poverty!!!


RE: Sounds good
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 6:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
I am not encouraging , just stating the bleeding obvious. You can't legislate these people out of existence. What is so hard to understand? On purely economic grounds , its a case of diminishing returns. If you read carefully, I don,t advocate, I POINT OUT the inconsitencies and stupidity of certain fixed points of view, doh!!


RE: Sounds good
By Etsp on 11/7/2008 5:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
I differentiate between the ones who think of welfare as a temporary crutch and the ones who think it is a permanent source of income.


RE: Sounds good
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 9:50:10 AM , Rating: 2
Actually no, I mean them all. The taxpayers owe you nothing. They chose to get knocked up, they had dead beat fathers they didn't go after for support, they didn't "fall on hard times" they screwed up. People need to be responsible for their own mistakes and quit expecting others to bail them out.

If something isn't working out, work harder, better yourself. I'm sick of people complaining that because something is hard, they deserve to be handed money.


RE: Sounds good
By JediJeb on 11/6/2008 6:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you there are a few things the federal government has to do. According to the Constitution the federal government must provide for the common defense of the nation. Also to establish justice and secure domestic tranquility. All spelled out in the preamble.

Public education is a good thing, but I think it needs to be handled more on the local level than the national level because the needs of each location across the nation are very different. The only thing I would want standardized would be English, Mathmatics, History, Science, and Civics. Of which now days Civics is hardly even taught, most students today can't even tell you what the preamble to the Constitution is or how many divisions there are to government or even the difference between the House of Representives and Senate.

NASA is great but I also wonder if once space becomes comercialized will space exploration really take off?


RE: Sounds good
By andrinoaa on 11/6/2008 9:49:43 PM , Rating: 3
How about a more definite definition of Government responsibility. Lets start :
To provide for the basic needs of its citizens.
It doesnt mean it has to physically provide everything. It can facilitate. This means it has to be involved in food , safety, education and basic infrustructure. We do need laws, we need "roads" (internet can be seen as a road ). Stable and fair economic conditions. Equal opportunity.
Now tell me, which of the above would free enterprise do really really well if left to its own volition? I suggest non!


RE: Sounds good
By andrinoaa on 11/6/2008 9:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
Oh , I forgot, clean water, clean air and clean shelter!
This is not communism. If you think it is, go to a real communist country and you will see the difference. This is what we , as humans , are about. We are social animals. To pretend anything else is whistling dixy


RE: Sounds good
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 9:53:40 AM , Rating: 3
Where are these "real communist countries" that you speak of? Communism has never been tried, not once. Always a socialist dictatorship. You can't have a dictator in communism you idiot.

Maybe you should start reading as you seem to try to suggest in other posts. Just cause we are social doesn't mean we have to hold up the weak, stupid and lazy.


RE: Sounds good
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 7:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
I am suggesting that capitalism in its purest form would be just like those quasi communist countries you are so afraid of. Same slave, different master.
You are the idiot for making assumptions that are obviously untrue and impossible to quantify. Stupid weak and lazy are not the only reasons people luck out. Ever consider the fact that you were born into privilige to start with? You could have been born as an "untouchable" in India. How do you think that would have affected your chance of becoming president? I could have said some americans are dickwads, but how could I ever possible justify that?


RE: Sounds good
By JediJeb on 11/7/2008 11:53:21 AM , Rating: 2
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America .

Well if you read the Constitution you will see what the government should do and should not do. Roads, Water, and such can be covered by " Ensure Domestic Tranquility" and " Promote the general Welfare" of the citizens of the US.

If you study history, roads were built before the government ever invested in any roads, most were built by local or state governments or private citizens. Even water started with private systems then grew into Municipal systems, which were still built and controled by a small group of citizens living in a local area.

Water and Electricity became something the Federal Government helped to provide later because it promotes the general welfare, also just receintly basic telephone service was added. The thing is, the government mandates these services to be made available to you, but you still must pay for the service.

The governments job is to ensure you have the right to work without descrimination, from there it is your responsibility to obtain the job by being the best candidate for the position. If you want to be a doctor, you must study to be a doctor, if you want to be an assembly line worker, you must be ready to work hard and learn the position. If no position is open that you want, you can take one you do not want until you are able to move into what you like. Also you have the right to start your own business and work for yourself if you wish. Handouts for people who do nothing is something the government has done but is not specifically mandated by the Constitution. Providing basics for those who are disabled is a good thing, but would be even better if it was provided by local groups instead of the government. It is just a sad reality that so many people are wrapped up in themselves to not be willing to help others out. Where I grew up, if a poor person needed something, several families would get together and help provide it. If their roof was leaking we would buy the materials needed and take a weekend to all join in and repair the roof. Or if they had no food we all went and bought groceries for them. Now days people, even where I grew up, are more worried about missing the ballgame on Saturday than helping someone out.

The sad truth is, that if government will do something for us, we stop trying to do it for ourselves. Then we become dependant upon the government to do more and more for us. Before you know it the government controls all and what started out as a government of the people, for the people, and by the people turns into a people of the government, for the government and by the government, and our freedoms end.

If you want to live free, then you must be willing to provide for yourself.


RE: Sounds good
By GaryJohnson on 11/6/2008 7:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, clearly the government has to do something, otherwise they don't need to exist.


You said a mouthful.


RE: Sounds good
By vapore0n on 11/6/2008 2:50:46 PM , Rating: 5
Currently the ISPs (ATT/Comcast/Timewarner) have no one pushing them to provide more. Right now ATT and Timewarner are trying out downgrading their service greatly while the customer keeps paying the same.

Comcast has the monopoly in most towns over here. All they have to do is lobby some senator and prevent them from breaking their monopoly.

The people are not strong enough to send a message to such big companies.
While I agree, the government has been getting too much into the people's business, in this case I think we need big brother's help. Isnt that why we pay taxes? So they serve us?

Cost more money? That is where the market will actually sort itself. I pay a hefty price for mid-grade service. Damn Comcast monopoly...


RE: Sounds good
By HrilL on 11/6/2008 3:17:12 PM , Rating: 5
Yup that is truly the current problem. In areas where Verizon has been allowed to compete with their FIOS services the cable companies were forced to up their speeds in order to compete but in the other areas where there is no competition the speeds have stayed the same slow speeds they always have been and then they are adding a cap on how much bandwidth you are allowed to use. If the monopolies are removed everything will sort itself out and we won't be forced to pay outrages prices for mediocre service. This won’t cost anyone more but the companies that are ripping us all over and have been for years. For example I am forced to pay $10 extra a month because I don’t have basic cable TV service. And the extra $10 doesn’t give me basic service either. I don't want their crap service with only 40 HD channels and they aren't even 1080i or p its 720p crap. Over compressed and looks lossy for $80 a month when I can pay DirecTV for much better service for $20 less.


RE: Sounds good
By MadMan007 on 11/6/2008 4:08:30 PM , Rating: 4
That was already tried in the 90s with deregulation and ultimately lead us to the situation we are in today. What's needed is proper regulation of ISPs as the utility which they are rather than the growth sector they continue to want to be.


RE: Sounds good
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 4:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't just opening it up to anyone who wanted to become an ISP be a better answer? Competition is always the key to keeping prices low and services high. Regulation doesn't work in a capitalism, let it go.


RE: Sounds good
By Staples on 11/6/2008 4:31:13 PM , Rating: 4
Without regulation, we'd have big business screwing the customer at every corner. Greed is why the free market does not work very effectively.


RE: Sounds good
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 4:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Right, but that is if there is only a few companies providing a service and no one else is allowed to provide this service. When multiple people provide the same service, prices drop and quality stays high. If it doesn't, customers leave. The problem is regulation leads to them allowing monopolies, which is the real problem.


RE: Sounds good
By MadMan007 on 11/6/2008 5:28:39 PM , Rating: 3
The irony is that the deregulation done in the 90s has ultimately lead to fewer companies and less competitoin after it played out over a number of years.


RE: Sounds good
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 5:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure this stemmed from some behind the scenes deals made to stop others from being allowed in the business. Otherwise, we have to realize there is nothing stopping someone else from jumping into the business other than regulations.


RE: Sounds good
By NullSubroutine on 11/6/2008 8:02:09 PM , Rating: 4
A single powerful corporation is the inevitability of the 'free market'. In fact, there is no such thing as free market. Big business pushes for deregulation so they can screw the consumer easier under the guise of competition. Then, amidst defunct sales the uber corporation lobby's for a bail out. Since they are the only business (or only one of a few) they are able to make the case of doom and gloom because of the loss of jobs if they go bankrupt and all the consumers that no longer have their needed product.

Corporations suck the life force from any economy. Mega corporations were predicted by Marx and while many whine that any sort of regulation is communist or socialist there is no other known solution to prevent the domination of market place of business that does not simply have better products and services.


RE: Sounds good
By Ringold on 11/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds good
By Spuke on 11/7/2008 4:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There can't be a monopoly due to anti-trust law, so thats a moot point. In markets you see a small number of oligopoly's, you still see fierce competition. For example, air carriers are so fierce they nearly compete themselves in to oblivion. Car manufactures compete fiercely; I don't exactly see Toyota giving any mercy to GM, Ford or Chrysler. Retailers can also compete heavily on price, especially times like these; Walmart is so successful because of its efficient supply chain. As for bailouts.. the banking system is one of the most heavily regulated globally already, and the hand of government is all over the house price bubble that sparked this off. If you're referring to The Big Three's bailout bid, if we had allowed them to fall decades ago, or smashed their unions, we wouldn't have this problem now. Corporations are the economy, but I'm not sure you understand what an economy even is composed of. Large companies play a role; not so much job creation, but they generally take existing technologies, apply huge economies of scale, compete heavily with surviving competitors and provide low costs to society. Small business' role is to create the next generation of products and grow up to be a big corp themselves; small business provides the job growth in the US. Capitalism isn't perfect, but unlike Marxism it is the best system we have yet created. Thanks for proving why economics should be taught more widely in school, though. Companies suck the life out of economies.. Did you even see the circular flow diagram in high school econ or college intro to econ? Companies are one half the circle, just as crucial (but no more so) than the other half, the household(the government sits in the middle, leeching resources from both). I swear, the communist Chinese are better capitalists these days than the average Westerner.
Reposting because you got rated down. This is good info whether you like it or not.


RE: Sounds good
By tastyratz on 11/6/2008 5:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
How about we hold companies responsible for the country wide fiber optic network that we PAID for out of tax money? They let them slide through a few mergers with oodles of money forgotten about. How about we just have some damn accountability here for once.


By themengsk176 on 11/6/2008 5:17:12 PM , Rating: 1
.. when he cuts that massively bloated and disgustingly wasteful military budget, something that 'fiscal conservative' John McCain would soil himself to even think about doing.




By bodar on 11/6/2008 6:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
You mean it isn't fiscally responsible to can the soldier you trained to do a job, and hire a contractor at 3 times the salary? You may be onto something there...


By Quijonsith on 11/6/2008 9:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
Some bases have been forced to go as far as close down their dining facilities (which I've seen happen first hand), cut manning by tens of thousands of active duty, and force those still active to at times work 12hrs a day 7days a week (which I've personally had to do) even when they aren't deployed to make up for the lack of manning, and you call the military budget "massively bloated and disgustingly wasteful".

Then again I guess it's pretty easy to criticize from the outside looking in.


By FITCamaro on 11/6/2008 11:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
We don't try to be the world's sheriff. We are it. Why? Because the rest of the world is too f*cking lazy, passive, or afraid to do it. We ARE the UN forces. If it weren't for America, the UN wouldn't be sh*t. Was true when it was first founded (because we weren't in it and look how effective it was). Is true today.


By themengsk176 on 11/6/2008 11:56:00 PM , Rating: 3
Can always count on the early morning jingoism here.

570 billion dollars well spent though, right? I've never understood how people (like McCain and the Neocons) can attempt to play themselves off as fiscally conservative (while shunning Ron Paul and the electorate he represents) while gunning for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and be chomping at the bit for yet another war in Iran.


By FITCamaro on 11/7/2008 7:17:39 AM , Rating: 2
You act like we want war. We'd be perfectly happy if people all got along. But that isn't reality. And no amount of singing in a circle while smoking pot will change that.


By andrinoaa on 11/7/2008 2:31:48 AM , Rating: 1
How many wars would have ended years ago if not for arrogant medling. Fit, why is your country's name mud in the rest of the world. One or two may be wrong, but when everbody says you are shite, it says something about you!!
South America is a good case in question. Were do we start now, Allende maybe? Iran, the Shah ( another flop ). The list goes on and on. Have you guys not learned anything??Come on now, admit you guys screwed up and we can start again.


By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 7:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
Problem is, when you are fat and lazy and control anything of consequence, you take it on yourself to be judge and jury. You then assume you are infallible! If the hat fits....


By Quijonsith on 11/6/2008 11:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
When I said "from the outside", I was talking about non-active duty american citizens criticizing the military budget. You think "our" focus is only overseas, for your information there aren't even 20 air force bases overseas. There are over 100 stateside. As far as my base being deserted, not with over 1000 personnel working every duty day.


By andrinoaa on 11/7/2008 1:58:45 AM , Rating: 3
Well you answered your own question. You are not as big as you think you are, lol. Even the mighty american military machine has a finite budget.
As to fit's Dr Stranglove response. You are sick, aren't you? You have a big army over seas to defend your country from its stupid foreign policy. Who else would Build up Saddam Husein then spend a trllion dollars in getting rid of him. Who else would arm Osama Bin Laden to the hilt then spend a decade trying to elimnate him? Its a self fullfilling prophecy, lol. And your proud to show your ignorance?


By Quijonsith on 11/7/2008 6:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...you answered your own question.


*scrolls up*... at no point did I ever ask a question. I merely pointed out that the military budget isn't as big as everyone seems to think it is. Noone ever said that the "american military machine" has an infinite budget.


By themengsk176 on 11/7/2008 1:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, our military budget only accounts for 48% of what the entire world spends on its military.

Only 48%! I mean, there are much better places to be spending 700,000,000,000 this year.

Because deep budgets and endless bureaucracy always work when preventing terrorism.


By Spuke on 11/7/2008 4:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
Some people don't see the forest until they hit a tree. My replies here are for the people that are reading and don't post not necessarily for the posters.


By Spuke on 11/7/2008 4:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
IOW, don't bother trying to convince people that don't want to be convinced.


By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 8:15:32 AM , Rating: 2
Oh , because you can't see the stupidity in things , means you are always right, ha?


By themengsk176 on 11/6/2008 2:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
.. that actually has a realistic understanding of the internet. Sooner we get flush the 'series of tubes' generation out of our governing institutions, the better.




By mmntech on 11/6/2008 3:04:21 PM , Rating: 3
I don't like a lot of Obama's policies but this is something that's needed. Download caps and speed limits prevent the internet from evolving. They effectively render new services such as HD video streaming (Netflix, Apple TV) useless. Countries like Japan and South Korea are leaving us in the dust when it comes to online innovation and evolution.

Privacy is another huge thing with countries such as Australia and organizations such as the RIAA/MPAA threatening to turn the net into a police state. Consumers have lost a lot of their rights in the new digital age. Hopefully we can see some reforms to the DMCA too.


By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 3:28:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
They effectively render new services such as HD video streaming (Netflix, Apple TV) useless.


I think Apple TV does a fine job of rendering itself useless on it's own.


By Staples on 11/6/2008 4:36:15 PM , Rating: 1
The vast majority of people who do not like his policies do so for one reason and one reason only, they believe they are socialist. Odds are that you are one of these pro capitalist people and I have news for you, this is type of populist/socialist policy too. So you are supposed to hate this sticking up for the consumer mentality and stand up for big business screwing you over ever chance they get.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/6/2008 5:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
Japan and South Korea are TINY TINY countries compared to the US. Look I want better bandwidth too, but our situations aren't even remotely comparable.


By zxern on 11/7/2008 12:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you happen to live in say NYC.

Why isn't there comparable service in NYC?


By Jack Ripoff on 11/7/2008 8:47:09 AM , Rating: 2
Barack me, Obamadeus!


I see..
By v1001 on 11/6/2008 3:06:02 PM , Rating: 5
So the first thing a Black man does in Office is Take over the White Space.




RE: I see..
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2008 3:57:06 PM , Rating: 1
Classic.

The White House will also be renamed "Ma B*tches Crib".

The presidential limo will roll on gold 24"s.

Air Force One will be like the plane from Soul Plane and yes, actually be flown by Snoop Dog (he's in pilot training as we speak).

At public appearances, Obama will enter to Movin' On Up from The Jeffersons.

And the new presidential dog will be a big bad@ss Rottweiler with a diamond studded gold collar and a KFC bucket for a food bowl.

And if you didn't even at least smile, leave now.


RE: I see..
By Suntan on 11/6/2008 4:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
While stereotyping is fun… …I have to admit the “Movin’ on Up” bit made me chuckle.

-Suntan


RE: I see..
By drebo on 11/6/2008 4:23:43 PM , Rating: 5
It's an "obamination", imo.


Doesn't make sense...
By Tacoloft on 11/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't make sense...
By deadrats on 11/6/2008 4:29:06 PM , Rating: 5
actually it's logically consistent with itself: the term "big government" is a catchphrase used by big corporations that don't like being regulated, what big corporations, and the republicans that support them, do is frame the concept as a "big brother" type of government intrusion into the lives of private citizens, as a way of getting the masses to reject politicians that support such initiatives and thus ensuring the big business does whatever it feels like doing.

some government regulation is not a bad thing, so long as it doesn't go overboard, but often times it's the only thing preventing big business from fucking the general public.


RE: Doesn't make sense...
By tdawg on 11/6/2008 5:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'd imagine that the government would work to protect people's privacy online by disallowing existing information from being used against someone, say their IP or MAC address being used to sue them for downloading a song or tv show. The government wouldn't actually be stepping in to regulate information, they'd just keep others from infringing on your privacy.

That's how I read it. Feel free to correct me if I missed something.


Obama is IN!
By boobot on 11/6/2008 4:40:39 PM , Rating: 4
Can someone tell me where the money line is?




GG Republicans
By ZimZum on 11/6/2008 2:49:18 PM , Rating: 3
We have some lovely parting gifts for you.




By Guttersnipe on 11/6/2008 3:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
at&t is "experimenting" with bandwidth caps. its absurd. the pipes we have in this country are tiny compared to what is offered in others and they want to cap what little we have? bandwidth gets cheaper by the year and they have conflicts of interest. comcast is a media company, and at&t no shock is pushing hidef tv over ip service called u-verse.




If he does this!
By tdktank59 on 11/6/2008 4:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
Its annoying that ISPs such as comcast, at&t and all the other ones have crappy service...

I have been stuck with comcast for the past 8 years and every day I hate it...

Crappy speeds.. Over populated lines and so on. And now a data cap...

I can use 250GB in 2 weekends (fri - sun)... I have nothing better to do so I watch movies, and tv shows on sites such as netflix, hulu, fox, cbs and so on...

Its really annoying...

If Obama can pull this off I will be happy! Heck thats really all I want in life is my fast internet at a cheap reliable price...




Well this makes perfect sense to me.
By Hulk on 11/6/2008 5:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore invented the internet.

Barrack Obama will improve it.




no taxes and no regulation
By jmunjr on 11/6/2008 7:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
As long as no taxes nor regulation in his Agenda then go for it. Private enterprise in a highly competitive environment is the best solution for America.




By invaderzim07 on 11/6/2008 8:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
Does anybody here REALLY understand what Net Neutrality is? Perhaps you might want to take a closer look at places like http://www.savetheinternet.com/

This is an asinine move. The government will have control over the internet (in the US at least). I hope everyone likes slow Wikipedia etc... Maybe this country will realize its mistakes after it has been destroyed. Good job voting America, especially all of you techies, good choice! (NOT)




OMG LOL
By MrPoletski on 11/8/2008 11:50:37 AM , Rating: 2
at the obama lightsabre pic ROFL!!!




And to pay for it all...?
By therealnickdanger on 11/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: And to pay for it all...?
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/6/2008 2:09:49 PM , Rating: 5
I don't see how privacy legislation will cost the taxpayer any money. In fact it should save them money by eliminating cases where citizens have defend themselves against false RIAA/MPAA/etc. accusations with little recourse to recover their legal expenses even if they win.

Obviously the elimination of bandwidth caps will cost ISPs money, but it won't cost tax money.

Really none of these are government programs so I don't think your article is terribly applicable to the topic at hand.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By othercents on 11/6/2008 2:47:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
elimination of bandwidth caps will cost ISPs money

Which in turn costs the customer money. Companies will have to recoop their costs somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if they remove bandwidth caps and institute a pay-per-gig fee structure. This would take care of charging the top 10% of people who use 90% of the bandwidth for excessive usage.

Other


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/6/2008 2:56:53 PM , Rating: 5
If they charge more, they are going to lose customers. The majority of customers can't afford more than $30-50/month for internet. They will simply have to cut into their profits and accept smaller profit margins.

If one of the companies -- say Comcast, Time Warner, or AT&T -- refuses to offer their uncapped internet at a reasonable price, somebody else will and will put them out of business. That's the great thing about living in a free economy.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By clovell on 11/6/2008 3:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa - uncapped or unthrottled? If we're talking about bandwidth caps, and not transfer caps or throttling, I would think it would radically change the current business model of comms companies - given the logistics of it all.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By ebakke on 11/6/2008 3:17:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If one of the companies -- say Comcast, Time Warner, or AT&T -- refuses to offer their uncapped internet at a reasonable price, somebody else will and will put them out of business. That's the great thing about living in a free economy.
The scenario you described doesn't require any government regulation.

However, it also assumes that a consumer has the choice between Comcast, Time Warner, or AT&T. In reality, we each likely have only one of those and possibly one company offering non-cable internet. When companies have a monopoly over the entire regional market, customers have no choice, and don't get to exercise their power in switching companies.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By inighthawki on 11/6/2008 3:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Part of the point of this article was to make ISPs offer better internet at the same or lower price. If they raised the price of the internet, nobody would buy it, and they;'d just lose out on business.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By rcc on 11/6/2008 5:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't see how privacy legislation will cost the taxpayer any money


You're kidding right?? All legislation costs the taxpayers money, with no exceptions. It may not be the "here's 500 million" kind of money, but anything that is regulated must be monitored, maintained, etc.

Even failed legislation costs money. We do pay all these people after all.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/6/2008 2:11:28 PM , Rating: 5
Uh oh, you've just turned on the "FITcamaro Signal".

We shall be graced with his presence in 3...2...1...


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By ebakke on 11/6/2008 3:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
+1 for that comment
+1 for FIT as well


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2008 3:51:11 PM , Rating: 3
Do you really have a signal? Because that would be awesome.

What's it look like? Make it look like Beaker from the muppets.

http://www.fanetworks.net/alstair/Pics/beaker-smal...


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Mitch101 on 11/6/2008 4:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
Fit are you bandwidth capped? That has to be one of the smallest images of beaker on the web.

Warning the following image is 39k. - Click at your own bandwidth cost. You have been warned.
http://www.toymania.com/columns/spotlight/images/m...


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2008 11:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
Nah its just the one I have for my avatar on forums I go on.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Regs on 11/6/2008 2:13:52 PM , Rating: 4
Money has to come from somewhere. The billions of dollars (tax payers)sunk into Iraq over the last few years, we could of built new schools in every state. While paying American contractors to do it!

Maybe a little socialism is what we need now.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By arazok on 11/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: And to pay for it all...?
By vapore0n on 11/6/2008 2:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
that is more an example of political corruption

$1000 toilet seats anyone?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By geddarkstorm on 11/6/2008 2:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the red tape of bureaucracy - nigh impossible to get anything done in a timely, efficient, and cheap manner when talking about the government.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By arazok on 11/6/2008 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. There is nothing corrupt about bureaucracy. It’s just the natural outcome of government trying to be all things to all people.

The people need power? Setup a national energy board.
The people want clean power? Require environmental assessments.
Some anti-poverty group says you’re exploiting your employees? Mandate a ‘living wage’ policy.
Don’t know what the ‘living wage’ should be? Create a department to calculate and oversee it….

Before you know it, the government can’t make a pancake for under a million dollars. And yet, people scream for more bureaucracy!


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By bjacobson on 11/6/2008 2:28:03 PM , Rating: 5
Don't talk about schools, talk about the parents. Studies have proven over and over funding doesn't motivate students. Parental involvement is what you need to focus on. It's much cheaper, too.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Parhel on 11/6/2008 3:14:10 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, school funding is one of those political hot-button issues that nobody can speak out against and remain in office, despite the fact that many of the newer high schools in my area could probably compete with the Bellagio and seem to perform no better than the older and smaller schools they replaced.

I wish that all public schools were given a standard, per student, budget. The current system of funding schools with local property taxes causes the children of poor people to receive poor educations, continuing the poverty cycle and damaging our long-term competetiveness. To me, that's un-American.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 3:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, glad to see I'm not the only one who has that idea. Per student budget, federally paid rather than local.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2008 4:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why should I pay to educate others kids (even more than I already do) when I'm not even married? And don't say "because others paid for your education" because it isn't true. My parents scrimped and saved to put me, my brother, and my sister through private school.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By MadMan007 on 11/6/2008 4:24:35 PM , Rating: 3
It's called 'society.'


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Parhel on 11/6/2008 4:30:14 PM , Rating: 3
If your objection is to paying more in taxes to fund schools, I think you are missing our point. You're already funding public schools through your property tax. Even if you rent, that property tax is included in your monthly cost. Moving that burden from the local to the federal government would simply move the tax from a monthly bill to your paycheck. Your total out of pocket wouldn't change much.

If, however, you are objecting to the mere existence of tax-funded public schools, then I don't know what to say to that. I, also, will be sending my two children to private schools. But, I will gladly pay for public schools, if only to not have the streets filled with 10 year old criminals selling drugs and shooting at me, such as you have in Brazil.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 4:30:45 PM , Rating: 1
I see where you are coming from here, but I'm so sick of dumb shits in this country, this is about 1 of 5 things I would be OK with being government funded.

Unfortunately if we made everyone pay individually, it would mean kids would have to pay for their dumbass parent's mistakes if their parents were dumb and have piss poor jobs. This would effectively mean the one time that they could bitch about being kept down and be right. I'm tired of talking to people who don't even have basic high school skills. Now this means they need to get tough on kids. If they don't want to go, fine with me, you can't force them to learn.

Since they won't allow me to ice pick stupid people, or my euthanize anyone under a 120 IQ plan, this would be my favorite of the options.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By MadMan007 on 11/6/2008 5:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that if you did 'euthanize anyone under a 120 IQ' that the IQ scale would be shifted and then you'd have to kill more people, then it would shift again, ad infinitum. The IQ scale is not absolute.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 7:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
Right, but you do it once, clean sweep. From there, the stupid should be easily weeded out. Obviously you can't get rid of them all, but it sure would clear things up.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By GaryJohnson on 11/6/2008 8:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think his point was that once you get rid of the people under 120, suddenly the people under 130 are the 'new' stupid.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/6/2008 10:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
there wouldn't be anyone to flame then! all work and no play makes johnny a bad boy, lol


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By MadMan007 on 11/7/2008 8:29:39 AM , Rating: 2
No my point was that the IQ scale is not absolute, it's a relative measure adjusted to fit a normal ditribution. By definition 100 is always the average IQ so if one were to remove low IQ people from the population IQs would, by definition, shift downward.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 10:06:06 AM , Rating: 2
Right, but who cares if they are the lowest? If they can put together sentences in person and actually have the capacity to learn unlike the 100 and below IQ people, the reasonably intelligent would become the majority. That's like saying the worst car you have is a Viper, means even your worst is awesome.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By MadMan007 on 11/7/2008 12:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
Putting the obvious silliness of intelligence cleansing aside we can look at the flip-sde of it. Improving education for all and making the general population more intelligent and more capable of creative, independent, critical thought will improve things for everyone. 'A rising tide raises all ships.'

And yes, my previous reply was a bit of a nitpick about what the IQ scale actually represents.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 12:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Improving education for all and making the general population more intelligent and more capable of creative, independent, critical thought will improve things for everyone. 'A rising tide raises all ships.'


We truly agree here my friend. I am all for better education spread equally among all. Level playing field, then no one has an excuse other than their own lazy or stupid self to blame for their failure.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By deadrats on 11/6/2008 5:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
actually "others" did pay for your education, first and for most your parents (you didn't pay for the private school yourself), but this also leads us to the following realities:

1) your parents put you and your siblings through private school because they realized that the public schools were inadequate.

2) your parents benefited from the public school system, unless they too went to private school, in which case their parents benefited, at some point someone in your family benefited from our public schools.

3) even if your parents "scrimped and saved", private school for one child is pretty expensive, for 3 kids it must be astronomical, which tells me your parents probably had pretty good jobs and earned higher than average livings, which means you benefited by getting a head start that a guy who's dad worked washing dishes in a diner didn't have.

see, i have no problem if you and i both start with same financial backing, both have access to the same schools and you achieve more than me, without any slight of hand cheating, then i support you all the way, good for you.

the problem is that the playing field is nowhere near level and the sad reality is that most people born into poverty can expect to spend most of their lives in the same circumstances.

think of it this way: you go apply for a job but no one will higher you because you have no experience, if no one is willing to give you that first shot, then how can you ever get the experience you need to qualify for a better job?

that's why the gap between the poor and the rich is widening every day: the rich have the money to send their kids to better schools which allows their kids to get the better schools which allows their kids to get the better jobs which allows the kids to combine their earnings with the money their parents leave them so that they can build up even more wealth.

it's like the story of donald trump, in an interview he was saying how he was a self made man, what he didn't tell you is that his dad left him 50 million dollars in his will. it's a lot easier to turn 50 million dollars into 1 billion dollars than it is to turn 50 bucks into 10 grand.

bill gates is another one, he borrowed 50 grand from his family to buy dos, without that 50 grand and the numerous shady deals he worked out to ensure that his OS would be the only one offered with new pc's, he never would have done shit with his life. perhaps he realizes this and that's why he has donated so much of the dough he made, he realizes what an unfair advantage he had.

lastly, the question of why you should pay for the schools even though you don't have kids is like saying why should you have to pay for the police and fire departments since you never had to use them (the property taxes pay for those services also) or why your taxes should have to pay for ems, or the upkeep of roads, etc.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2008 11:31:06 PM , Rating: 1
I went to a private Catholic school run by the diocese my parents church belonged to. Middle school was about $3000 a year. High school was about $5000 a year. So yes it was a tidy sum. But nothing like you're probably thinking. the most expensive year was when me and my sister were in high school and my brother was in middle. So $13,000 a year. My parents had decent jobs. They struggled to pay all the bills and were typically a payment or two behind on tuition.

The teachers at both schools were there because they loved to teach, not to get paid a lot of money. At my high school, the highest paid teacher was a lady who'd been there 30 years and she made $30,000. But they didn't have to worry about putting up with kids shit like in the public schools or getting shot.

By comparison the next cheapest private school in the area was $10,000 a year. We had better grades.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/7/2008 2:05:14 AM , Rating: 2
Pity they didn't teach clear thinking Fit, lol. Were your "teachers of the cloth" pshycos like mine? I think back and remmember them as bullies and thugs. The good old catholic school system sure has changed since then. We weren't allowed to think. Just copy and follow.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/7/2008 2:15:17 AM , Rating: 2
Tell me Fit, why are you now playing the politics of envy? Shouldn't you show some empathy and try to right the injustice of the situation instead of saying we had it hard so you can too?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By FITCamaro on 11/7/2008 7:33:36 AM , Rating: 2
I had one teacher who was a nun. That's it. As far as thinking for myself, why do you think I'm not Catholic anymore?

quote:
Tell me Fit, why are you now playing the politics of envy? Shouldn't you show some empathy and try to right the injustice of the situation instead of saying we had it hard so you can too?


I don't see an injustice. Please explain to me what it is. The problem with you liberal idiots is that you, not conservatives, are the racists. You see the black man still as a victim to the system. You see the poor as victims. I see people with potential. Whether or not they choose to use that potential is up to them. Are all schools as good as mine? No. But anyone can learn if they put their mind to it. The problem with schools today is in the parenting. Parents are lazy. They think the school is supposed to do everything for them (yet get mad when the school tries to discipline their kid...). And many don't drive their kids to have it better than them as mine did.

And yes. The government didn't step in for my parents and say "well you're barely able to pay your bills so here's some money". Why should anyone else get that? Yes my parents chose to send us to private school. But is that something that should be punished? Even when I went to college I wasn't eligible for any government assistance except loans because it was decided by them that my parents made too much money and should be able to contribute $30,000 a year to my education. I paid for college pretty much on my own. And am paying still.

I believe exactly what the constitution says. That we have the right towards the PURSUIT of happiness. You do not have the right to be happy though. You have to make your own way towards being happy, not depend on the government to make you more happy. If you choose to sit on your butt growing up and not study or pay attention in school, well then the rest of your life you're probably not going to be as successful and not as happy. That does not mean that you then get to suck off those who did work hard as a kid. I knew from an early age what kind of life I wanted and did what I needed to do to get it.

I've met plenty of people who grew up worse off than me and managed to make it in the world. So to wrap up, no injustice, just people feeding on other's emotions and acting like they're victims.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 10:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
I had to wipe a small tear from my eye on this one, I am amazed someone actually believes in the constitution and understands all the parts of it as written. They really need to at least read the original Constitution once a week in the senate, congress, house, etc. Maybe remind them what we're supposed to be about.

Honestly, either way we did education, my idea or your idea would probably work, but as I stated previously, I have my worries of the dumb people abounding because of crappy parents.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 7:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yes you are playing the politics of envy. If your system is so perfect and everyone is able to climb the "golden" ladder, why then do 10% of the population control more than 50% of the wealth. It seems to me you are implying that 90% are lazy and stupid etc. Do you ever stop to think, maybe, there is something wrong in the kitchen. Thats all I am saying. I am not saying become a socialist, but to question the status quo. Is there another solution because quite frankly, the current approach isn't exactly hitting lots of home runs.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By deadrats on 11/11/2008 10:23:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't see an injustice. Please explain to me what it is. The problem with you liberal idiots is that you, not conservatives, are the racists. You see the black man still as a victim to the system. You see the poor as victims. I see people with potential. Whether or not they choose to use that potential is up to them. Are all schools as good as mine? No. But anyone can learn if they put their mind to it. The problem with schools today is in the parenting. Parents are lazy. They think the school is supposed to do everything for them (yet get mad when the school tries to discipline their kid...). And many don't drive their kids to have it better than them as mine did.


let me guess, you are a rush limbaugh fan, aren't you? how do i know? because this is the same idiotic line of shit he says on a daily basis.

the poor are victims of the system, all the potential and desire in the world don't do you a lick of good if you don't have access to the tools required to make use of them.

i worked as a mechanic for 5 years, i have the potential to fix a broken car, if you take away my tool box i can't fix squat no matter how badly i may want to.

the fact remains that no matter how badly a person may want to succeed, no matter how smart you are, if you don't have a pot to piss in, if you can't afford the education to get the skill set you need to make yourself marketable, it's extremely hard to get ahead.

as i said, give me 100 grand and i can open up my own business, i can buy tools, i can invest the money, i can get an education and within 5 years be living high on the hog, take away all my money and the best i can hope for is a menial job paying minimum wage.

at 7 bucks an hour, 240 bucks a week before taxes, you can barely afford to put a roof over your head, you can't get ahead if you are busy treading water.

now why not just honest with us and simply say: "i don't give a flying fuck about my fellow man, fuck them" and at least i could respect your honesty.

but when you try and feed us that limbaugh-esq line of shit, that rationalizing of your selfishness, it just serves to paint a picture of how uncaring, self serving and dishonest you really are.

join the race, the human race.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By drebo on 11/6/2008 4:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The current system of funding schools with local property taxes causes the children of poor people to receive poor educations, continuing the poverty cycle and damaging our long-term competetiveness.


Typical liberal tripe.

My fiancée teaches at a school with only one English-only class at each grade level. Virtually all of the kids in the school are from Mexico, India, or the Middle East. Very few speak English. Despite that, there are some in there who are good students. It's quite possibly the poorest neighborhood in the county, and for sure is the poorest in the school district. Yet, for all that, there are a number of students who are good students.

The students who are bad students are bad not because they go to a poor school. They're bad students because of their upbringing. There are students whose parents never tell them "No!" and thus they cannot cope with being told "no" in school. There are students who are never disciplined at home, and have problems in school.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 4:52:04 PM , Rating: 1
Well, you have some reasonable points, but remember in high school when you would go to class and get books that were 10-15 years old? Many of them the information was completely wrong, yet they still taught it. This stems from them not having enough money to update the books at least every few years if not yearly. I went to a shit bag high school and ended up having to learn most things on my own. If you haven't gone to a poor school, then you don't really know what it is like.

Imagine if they didn't fund schools, we would have people even dumber than they are now. I don't think I would be able to take it. See my above post for my plans that I can't institute, otherwise things would be swell.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Parhel on 11/7/2008 3:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Typical liberal tripe.


I really don't understand how the question of which level of government provides funding for schools fits on the liberal-conservative spectrum, but for the record I'm thoroughly a conservative.

Of course their are exceptional people who will do well no matter what cards life has dealt them, but in general it's people who go to the best high-schools that get in to the best colleges, and then get the best jobs.

And, while your fiancée's experiences might be valid within the context of the school where she teaches, we don't know how those "good students" would fare if put into a big-money school with a entirely different level of competition.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2008 3:59:21 PM , Rating: 4
But then parents have to actually pay attention to their kids. You sir, are insane.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By sgw2n5 on 11/6/2008 2:29:40 PM , Rating: 5
Well, no, not socialism... I think it will be entirely possible to fix the things that need to be fixed without turning us into Sweden.

I'll be glad when the government isn't ran by warmongering, no bid contract awarding, profiteering, whacko religious fundamentalists anymore. That alone would do a world of good.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Ammohunt on 11/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: And to pay for it all...?
By sgw2n5 on 11/6/2008 3:42:19 PM , Rating: 5
So I take it you have been asleep for the last 8 years? What about my original statement is not true?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Ananke on 11/6/2008 5:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, if you ever lived in Sweden, you would never come back to the States. It is fantasticly way better there :). You Swedish example is really off


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By sgw2n5 on 11/8/2008 9:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
True, Sweden is a beautiful country and a really nice place to live. If the USA bites the carrot... a nordic country might be nice.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Shig on 11/6/2008 2:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
This is one of the reasons I voted for Obama. He really understands how technology will play a role in the future and how digital infrastructure will be just as important as physical infrastructure for the economy and standard of living over the next 10-20 years.

No matter where the money comes from, it will be a large benefit to everyone, even if most people cannot see that now.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Regs on 11/6/2008 2:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I agree more domestic programs should be put into place. Government spending has gone runamuk on areas that I don't agree with.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/6/2008 2:46:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
No matter where the money comes from

That's the part I have a problem with. It will be money I work hard for, to benefit people who don't work hard. Kind of sucks eh?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By themadmilkman on 11/6/2008 3:50:52 PM , Rating: 5
Who says they don't work hard? I know plenty of people with substantial wages who have never put in an honest day's work, and I know plenty of people that work exceptionally hard for minimum wage.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/6/2008 6:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
Hard work, generally entails ambition and the desire to get ahead. Cooking at Mcdonalds every day might indeed be hard, but if your not trying to better yourself, then no complaining.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 7:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I have no pity for a guy who works some worthless job then complains while they do nothing to better themselves.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By NullSubroutine on 11/6/2008 8:13:57 PM , Rating: 3
And where are all these magical high paying jobs going poof into existence? How about the schooling and training to go along with it? If you study class mobility you will find that the majority of lower and middle lower class people stay there and upper and high middle class rarely fall into any lower category. There is not much class mobility in the United States, for every 'success' story of some poor guy becoming a self-made millionaire, you have millions of story's of people putting 80 hour work weeks doing the most labor intensive jobs that exist and can barely pay rent.

The rich will do anything for the poor; except get off their backs.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/6/2008 11:07:50 PM , Rating: 3
Yea the mantra, anyone can if they work/try harder. I don't know what planet these people come from. But my general observations suggest there is something wrong in the kitchen. Lies damn lies and more damn lies. That 10 to one ratio must be in the ball park. If it was so true, howcome 30 million americans don't have adequate health insurance? Are they all sponging on the system?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 10:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
Why does America owe you health care? It didn't exist up until a few decades ago. Last I checked, the library is a free service for anyone to go in and read, learn and grow. School is also free in this country up until college. If you don't get somewhere in life, it is your own fault.

I wonder why the guy digging ditches for a living has poor health care? Oh that's right, he has a job anyone with a shovel can do.

This is one thing that is perfectly true, ANYONE can make it in this country if they try hard, but they really have to do it. That means no matter how much you fail, you keep trying. Most just give up at the first sign of failure.

For some reason everyone forgets we are animals and survival of the fittest is still very real. Not everyone can succeed, that is just how it is. This is coming from a guy that is actually a supporter of REAL communism, one where you don't let the slackers take advantage and everyone contributes or leaves. But, I live in America and if done correctly, I know this country would do just fine with capitalism.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By NullSubroutine on 11/7/2008 11:55:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does America owe you health care?

Why do the people of America owe themselves health care? It is important to have individual and community responsibility. We are all part of a community and society; to exist and be strong we must take care of each other and everyone.
quote:
I wonder why the guy digging ditches for a living has poor health care? Oh that's right, he has a job anyone with a shovel can do.

Yes, his job is no different than the serf that worked the land. Let's treat this person the same as they did in feudalism. It is not like he has that much of a chance to move up in the world.
quote:
This is one thing that is perfectly true, ANYONE can make it in this country if they try hard, but they really have to do it. That means no matter how much you fail, you keep trying. Most just give up at the first sign of failure.

Class mobility doesn't exist in the US, the people at the top either stay there or at most move to upper middle class while the people at the bottom either stay the same or some move to lower middle.
quote:
For some reason everyone forgets we are animals and survival of the fittest is still very real. Not everyone can succeed, that is just how it is. This is coming from a guy that is actually a supporter of REAL communism, one where you don't let the slackers take advantage and everyone contributes or leaves. But, I live in America and if done correctly, I know this country would do just fine with capitalism.

It's not about letting slackers take advantage of the 'system' there are several problems. One of which, there isn't enough jobs for everyone to be employed. Capitalism is about maintaining status quo just as feudalism was. The only difference is you are now tied to the business instead of the land and you can choose your feudal lord. Capitalism does not care about people and are nothing more than another part of the equation of supply/demand.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 12:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
Then don't live here. It is pretty well known America is a capitalism. Society doesn't mean we give everyone hand outs from government, it means you help our your neighbor, or you donate time or money to people in need if you have the means and desire to. This is a choice, but shouldn't be required by taking everyone's money, then pushing it where they feel it should be.

He chose to dig ditches, no one forces him to dig. If you have a crap job, you have no one to blame but yourself. He could get scholarships and grants as it stands to go to college and better himself. If he didn't pay attention in high school and slacked everywhere else, that is his own fault.

Class mobility doesn't exist because people give up to easily. The moment something gets hard, they give up and blame everyone else for their plight. Example, they had a guy on PBS that was a CEO for a Fortune 500 company. The man grew up in a ghetto near LA and went to a low end school. He stated at times his teachers kept telling him to buckle down and he had real potential. He finally decided to quit screwing around and worked hard. He got a scholarship to college and went on to become a millionaire running a successful company. It happens, it just isn't going to happen to everyone, cause most people are lazy or stupid.

Even coming from a ghetto, the man was well spoken and clearly intelligent. He made something of himself, he worked hard to better himself and was rewarded. Working hard isn't digging ditches, that is the easy way out, cause you don't have to take responsibility for what you are. They will just yell I'm being oppressed by the rich.

So, talk all you want about this plight, but this is one of the few countries in the world you can actually move up with hard work.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By NullSubroutine on 11/7/2008 1:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then don't live here.

I was born here and if I am not mistaken we live in a constitutional republic that allows for us to change how society is organized. My vote is worth just as much as yours.
quote:
Society doesn't mean we give everyone hand outs from government, it means you help our your neighbor, or you donate time or money to people in need if you have the means and desire to.

I am still of the belief that our government is supposed to be for the people, of the people, and by the people; not by the economic elite, of the corporation, and by lobbyist.

If the government is of the people, giving assistance to anyone that is needing of it and we are capable of doing is not only the purpose of a government for the people, but is the essence needed to strengthen the community.

If corporations and big business can be bailed out in multi-billion dollar packages, there is no reason that people cannot be given the necessities to live and for our communities to prosper. If resource and wealth were not hoarded by the few, there would be plenty for everyone and still plenty of opportunity for business to prosper.
quote:
Class mobility doesn't exist because people give up to easily.

The best indicator of what class you will be is your parents. This is not evidence of people simply 'not trying'. The truth is those in the low and lower middle class have the decks stacked against them. Your assertion they simply aren't trying hard enough is simply a value judgment you are making based on one anecdotal scenario you apparently have witnessed.

Yes people can work hard to get ahead, but those at the top have to work less hard to succeed and those at the bottom have to work harder to get not nearly as far. If our society was setup to reward those simply based on the merit of effort and skill many at the top would be at the bottom and many at the bottom would be the top. The fact this is not the case in our society is part of the revelation that class mobility is an exception to the rule. Just because you saw the Jefferson's 'movin on up' doesn't mean all poor people could do the same.
quote:
They will just yell I'm being oppressed by the rich.

Yes, poor people must be lying when they say that their opportunities to get ahead are lower than everyone else. So must the lower middle and middle classes. And any evidence such as studies and facts must be some conspiracy theory concocted by Marxist poor people that make bad name for rich people so the poor people can revolt and take over.

And by the way, the class that needs health care the most aren't just the low or underclass, it is lower middle and some of the middle class. They don't qualify for free health care and can't afford insurance premiums. Then, if they have insurance they often get bumped off because the insurance company doesn't want to pay out.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 2:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
You are assuming I am for bailing out corporations or any business. I have no desire to bail anyone out, if a business fails, let it go down. That is capitalism.

quote:
The best indicator of what class you will be is your parents.


That's funny, most people that first come here started out as farmers and laborers, my family is a fine example. They were poor as dirt when they came a few generations ago. My father's side farmed, my mother's side grandfather was a navy man and died from alcoholism at around 31, leaving my grandmother to fend for herself with 5 kids.

Large portions of my family on her side are pitiful excuses for humans. One uncle is in jail all the time, other is scraping by. Aunt is worthless. Mother has it somewhat together, but never really worked hard. One uncle on the other hand makes very good money. He worked hard doing manual labor and went to college at night. Now does quite well for himself and has a nice life and is far above the poverty line from where he came from.

Father grew up with around the same number of brothers and sisters. They had a farm and ate off the farm. Rather broke and lived in a small town. Most every one of his siblings, including himself read all the time and went out of their way to do well in school. Father graduated valedictorian while playing 3 sports and excelling well at them. This was with working on a farm on top of that.

Most of his siblings ended up with college degrees and do quite well for themselves. Pretty much all of my father's side is middle to upper middle class now coming from being flat broke farmers. No one gave them crap, they worked for what they have.

This is the American dream my friend, this is working hard for what you get, but eventually getting there. There were no social programs for my family, we never got a dime from the government. I don't care how poor you are, or how unfair you think it is, complaining fixes nothing, working for something does.

quote:
And by the way, the class that needs health care the most aren't just the low or underclass, it is lower middle and some of the middle class.


Didn't realize health care was one of the 3 essential needs. Health care isn't a right, it is a service. Health insurance is just as much a service, not a right. You have way too much self entitlement in your beliefs, rather than actual responsibility. Water is essential to life, yet we still have to pay for it. Get over it.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By MadMan007 on 11/7/2008 3:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
Farm subsidies count as being given crap now huh?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 3:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Farm subsidies count as being given crap now huh?


You are assuming they were a large farm. They worked to feed themselves and sold small amounts to afford other things needed. They were quite a small farm.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 3:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and even better, the poor have the same rights to those subsidies. They could just as easily have done the same thing, broke immigrant families did do it and still do all the time.

Funny how poor Asian and Russians, etc. can come over here with absolutely nothing and make something out of themselves, yet people with the benefits of this country their whole life can sit and waste away.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By MadMan007 on 11/7/2008 4:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't assume anything other than that, as farmers, they used the subsidy program which was meant to help them. It doesn't matter whether it was a large or small farm, unless they were doing nothing more than substinence farming. Do you know for a fact whether they took subsidies or not? It would be interesting for you to find out.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 5:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
As I stated, would it matter? The government funds farmers so they will feed people. Who would have guessed. Subsidies are given for so many businesses, a farm is a business anyway. They weren't handed anything, they were given the same thing everyone gets when they start any particular business. If it applies across the board, then they had no particular benefit over anyone else with the ambition to do the same.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By NullSubroutine on 11/8/2008 1:20:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is the American dream my friend, this is working hard for what you get, but eventually getting there. There were no social programs for my family, we never got a dime from the government. I don't care how poor you are, or how unfair you think it is, complaining fixes nothing, working for something does.

Yeah, quite the same for my fathers family. Being mixed of German immigrants on one side and Irish/Scottish on the other, all came over dirt poor and became laborers and farmers here in the midwest. They worked very hard for several generations until my fathers generation (8 brothers/sisters) was able to move up.

Even my grand-father who was a farmer and my father who farmed his whole life until I was born were still quite poor farmers. When my father quit farming he worked and provided for me as a new born child and so my mother wouldn't have to work. (as a waitress she was treated like crap) He worked at a GE store in Sioux City, IA and made 3.15/hour, in the early 80s. He worked his way up into Terra Chemical and later into IPS (now MidAmerican) power plant, he has always worked in jobs that were very labor intensive and had long hours. He was able to provide for my mother, sister, and myself; while we grew up very poor we never felt unloved or needing something else. Now my father makes a very good wage for that area and is quite successful. But what is the point of all this heartful story?

My father got where he did based on two things. Hard work and help from others. There were several people that helped my father when I was a baby by letting him do side farm work here and there, anything to put food on the table. He was also able to get and find new jobs with the help of others, but he was able to succeed because of his hard work. My father is the most anti-socialism person around but he will be the first to tell anyone that he wouldn't have been able to succeed without the help of other people.

This is the exact premise of the role of government for the people. Help people so that they can succeed with their own hard work. Not everyone is looking for a handout, most people just want to have an opportunity for a good paying job that has benefits to take care of their family. Yet, part of society champions excess and greed. Those in charge of 'business' is allowed to take everything from it as it is their 'right' of ownership, while the workers who provide the product are skimmed out of the fruits of their labor.
quote:
Didn't realize health care was one of the 3 essential needs. Health care isn't a right, it is a service. Health insurance is just as much a service, not a right. You have way too much self entitlement in your beliefs, rather than actual responsibility. Water is essential to life, yet we still have to pay for it. Get over it.

I have something for you to read, perhaps you missed it.
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is the foundation of our country, the very principle that every person has right to and is inherent.

The principle of health care (not insurance) is that everyone in society works to better it (even if by improving themselves), being part of the society there are many things provided to you by the rest of society. Such as roads, water, protection, education, justice, security, trash pickup, communication, emergency services, and etc. Do you get these things for free? Do you get them even if they aren't considered 'rights'?

You get things provided to you by society all the time and you earn it by being a member of society. Health care is an essential right to life, but not all people simply want a hand out. They just want a little help as they can't do it all themselves.

And not to get side tracked but health care is currently an industry. One that cares about profit first and patient care second. It is backed by the Insurance industry, that again is driven by profit. They take the profit while leaving tax payers with the bill to help those who are denied coverage or denied legitimate claims. Until such a time that the entire health care and health insurance industry is nationalized it will be a drain on the economy. And I am not talking just doctors or hospitals but I am talking equipment and everything else. While nationalize is a dirty word and carries a stigma, I am sure in this day and age we can have something nationalized and limit the bureaucracy of government.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 6:27:22 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are right, but some people on this site have this weird utopian outlook on life. They see no problems with capitalism as its is and thus have no sense that changes are required. I think if these guys went overseas and saw that there are many other approaches that work, they might lighten up a bit.
No one can make any sensible suggestion here because you get accused of being socialist or reduculous extrapolations are presented as your end result: ie they put words in your mouth. The lack of empathy is also disturbing. What else are they desensitised about? Are they human? Do they have any human emotions?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 8:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
So what you are saying is that 30 million americans are lazy and stupid and so should fend for themselves no matter what illness they have?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By NullSubroutine on 11/8/2008 2:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
I got lost in the mass of responses, are you talking to me andrinoaa?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 11:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
Na, I got lost in the "tree of junk". I was refering to Gzus and co. I wonder if they have red blood?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Ammohunt on 11/6/2008 3:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
Since when has the government been good at running anything? Government internet access? NO THANKS! Have the governemnet offer incentives to private business sure and watch consumers and the free market do its magic.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 11:21:44 PM , Rating: 1
Since about 10,000bc. Humans worked out a long time ago that private endeavour doesn't necessarily equate with what is good for society as a whole. Why do you think religion has such a strong hold? Religion tends to reinforce our natural leanings. Thats why I think you need GOOD government not less government. You have experienced shite governments for a long time and thus have lost all confidence. The last batch have hit lots of home runs - not!, lol


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By elessar1 on 11/6/2008 2:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The billions of dollars (tax payers)sunk into Iraq over the last few years, we could of built new schools in every state


And thats money you will never see again, money that have done you no good, money spent on death...


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Tacoloft on 11/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: And to pay for it all...?
By cornelius785 on 11/6/2008 3:00:55 PM , Rating: 1
I also don't think socialism is the answer, but europe doesn't seem to be failing with socialized services.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Ammohunt on 11/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: And to pay for it all...?
By themadmilkman on 11/6/2008 3:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
Um, we have the same problem, you know. Baby boomers are retiring, and we don't necessarily have a large enough working population to support social security.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Suntan on 11/6/2008 4:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
But social security is a socialist program... didn't you see the "social" in the beginning of the name?

If your argument is that we should be more like the socialist leaning countries because our main socialist program is not working… …I fail to see how you are connecting those dots.

-Suntan


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Tacoloft on 11/6/2008 5:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
"But social security is a socialist program... didn't you see the "social" in the beginning of the name?"

ROFLOL!!! sweet...


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/6/2008 4:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
Social Security was never going to work, anyone who thought it would was an idiot. You can't fund an increasing population society with current people, it just doesn't work. Here is a crazy idea, save your money so you can retire. Otherwise, die like you are supposed to.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By inighthawki on 11/6/2008 3:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if i'm wrong, but by socialism i don't think he means converting the entire country to it, but rather bits and pieces could use socialistic ideas.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Ammohunt on 11/6/2008 3:17:12 PM , Rating: 1
So which pieces? Perhaps the redistribution of wealth piece? Maybe we can start with your income and give 30% of it to the lazy ass in the trailer part that refuses to get a job. You will jsut have to work 30% percent harder.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By inighthawki on 11/6/2008 3:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
well first of all, if i made over 200,000 per year, i'd be more than happy to give a little more away than if i was struggling in poverty making 15k a year. Secon of all, it was his post, so i don't know specifically what he was referring to, it was just my guess that he didnt mean the entire system


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Suntan on 11/6/2008 4:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
well first of all, if i made over 200,000 per year, i'd be more than happy to give a little more away


Oh you would, would you? So if you made over $200,000 would you be happy to hand over an additional $40,000?

Instead of using that money to allow your child to go to a better school or college than you had the opportunity to go to, you’d be happy to give that to Cleatus over on the other end of town so that he could finally afford health insurance (without having to give up his premium cable television with the additional $70 a month SUPER NASCAR PACKAGE and cell phone plan with $60 internet and unlimited text messaging) because he just couldn’t find money in his budget before?

-Suntan


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By GaryJohnson on 11/6/2008 4:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
There are people in the US who really are destitute. If Cleetus didn't have the cable television and the cell phone, would you still not want to help him?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By TomZ on 11/6/2008 5:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
The point really is that charity should be an individual choice, not the role of the government to take money from some people and give it to others.

In other words, if a person works hard to earn their living, it should basically be their choice as to how it gets spent. Sure, taxes are necessary - there's no getting around that - but there are a lot of us that believe that the government should only be supporting essential services (e.g., military, police, maybe schools) and totally out of the wealth redistribution business.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By GaryJohnson on 11/6/2008 8:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's really the argument then is what services are essential. I was under the impression that humankind required food, water and shelter from the elements. But your right, I guess what the starving and homeless need is more military, police, and maybe schools.

Those things are wealth redistribution. Bill Gates could buy his own army, why should he pay for your national defense?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 10:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
Because it is in the Constitution, have you even read the damn thing?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By GaryJohnson on 11/10/2008 5:35:52 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it kind of suggests that each State should have a private Militia...

We went out of spec a long time ago. Someone needs to revise the specs.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Suntan on 11/7/2008 11:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
First off, there *are* a lot of people that have *some* things, but choose to spend their money in a way that I find foolish (like having cable when your child does not have medical insurance – yeah, I know people that live like this.) The problem is that no political hack I have ever heard has called them out for this.

quote:
You want handouts, shape up and act the way we tell you to!


You know why? Its fascism to instruct those poor people how to live their lives and no politician is going to withstand the barrage of horrifying rebuttles that would come of it. Yet, it seems completely acceptable for a lot of people here to go ahead and tell individuals better off than themselves,

quote:
Give your money to other people because you are being selfish by keeping it for yourself. You’re being completely unreasonable in working hard so you can give your own children a better life than you had. Your child already has a “good enough” life so stop that and start working hard for that lazy bum down the street that you don’t even know!


How’s that any less fascist? Where’s the logic in that?

Now, as for the people that really are destitute, I’ll be completely honest with you. If they have nothing *and* are not willing to bust their asses off if given the chance, I feel no pitty for them. I will not willingly give them a handout. That said, I do agree with institutions that are setup to help people that truly want to improve their own situations. That’s why I volunteer with habitat for humanity and I donate to Kiva.org .

Here’s one for you to ponder. After Katrina, how many years did we see people sitting on their curb waiting for the government to come by and make everything right for them? Just sit in their FEMA donated trailer and complain to every TV camera in sight about how badly the government treated them and how horrible they feel that the “system” let them down? And how you heard every political hack point to it and proclaim how bad our system is that these people are made to suffer. Now in all those years how many Mexicans risked their lives to make an illegal boarder crossing, cross a deadly desert, make their way thousands of miles to find work in an area without being able to speak the language, hold down a job while evading the authorities, and not only providing for themselves but managing to send money back to their families in Mexico so they could have a better life?

Sorry, I don’t have a lot of pity for lazy slobs.

-Suntan


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By inighthawki on 11/6/2008 5:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, whether you believe me or not, i would. I was raised in a household with very little money, and i know how to survive on my own without bathing in cash. If someone really needs it more than i do, i'm happy to give him some. Whatever taxes are taken out of a $200,000/year job add up to, its definitely not going to affect my life or any of my kids' educations. I will have far more than enough money to work all of that out. Sorry but, some people just arent extremely greedy people.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Suntan on 11/7/2008 11:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
What is greed?

Is it greedy to want your child to get a better education than you, even if it means costing much more than your education did? Is it greedy to send them to a more expensive childcare location that has a markedly better record of safety and an established roster of activities that are designed to stimulate them and help them develop (as opposed to a cheaper childcare facility that plunks them down in front of a DVD player for a couple hours a day and feeds them snack food?)

That is what most people in this +$200,000 a year range spend the majority of their money on. Is that wrong?

Is it not greedy for you to try and tell them that they should act more like you? It is just your greed showing that you would spend their money the way *you* want it spent.

You talk in hypotheticals. “If you earned that much..” my guess is you earn more than enough to scrape by as it is, but you probably don’t give a penny to anything. It’s always much easier and very cavalier to say “well if I did make that much, then I would do all these wonderful things…” but it doesn’t amount to squat. Yeah, you can write back and lie to us that you already give half your paycheck to the orphanage down the street and you volunteer at the soup kitchen on weekends, but the reality is you probably don’t do a thing right now other than armchair quarterback about how people with “more than enough” should solve the problem instead of yourself having to actually do anything because you are not one of the ones with “more than enough.”

-Suntan


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By JoshuaBuss on 11/6/2008 5:24:22 PM , Rating: 1
people who make more than $250,000 should be happy to give back to the society that helped them get where they are. that's how a civilized society can bring an entire nation into a higher economic bracket.. when someone succeeds, they share their success so others can succeed as well.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By TomZ on 11/6/2008 5:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. The person who is earning $250K/year should not bring others up by giving them handouts. Instead, they should invest that money so that the capital can be used to create more business opportunities for others. That's an approach I can get behind because it is win-win. Handouts are lose-lose.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By inighthawki on 11/6/2008 7:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to get technical, by the definition you seem to be implying by hand-outs, its a win-lose, more money is never a lose ;)

But in any case, i can see where you're coming from, but it's not always that easy. One of the most important things is, just because you own a company (we're implying that ppl making 250k/year are business owners) that makes that much a year, doesn't mean you have a company that people want to work for. Also, in order for things to truly be as equal as they should, businesses really need to pay the people more for what they do. Minimum wage is a good thing, and should be much higher, and to those opposing who say businesses should pay what they feel, that is the problem in itself. Businesses don't care about you, and they will give you as LITTLE as humanly possible just to keep you there and nothing more. If people deman too much, what do they do? They outsource to places like china who will do more for less. So it's not always about competing for the lowest price and letting the market regulate itself, the foreign market, while helping, is killing us in the same way.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Tamale on 11/7/2008 10:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
I never meant to imply that creating jobs would be a bad way to give back, just that they should do SOMETHING, not just horde their money and spend it lavishly.

if you're a business owner, it makes sense to invest and create a larger business. if you're just a rich celebrity you should give to charities or pay higher taxes (or both)

in any case, being greedy as an individual simply does nothing to help a society... in fact, it hurts it.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Regs on 11/6/2008 4:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
Look around bud, people have been abusing our own democratic system for years with the help of socialism.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Regs on 11/6/2008 4:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
*without socialism


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By deadrats on 11/6/2008 4:50:03 PM , Rating: 1
actually with socialism, big business has always been in favor of socialism, just the right kind: privatizing profits but socializing risk, but God help anyone that makes any mention of socializing profits, then all hell breaks loose and we get bombarded with tons of bullshit about how un-american it is.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Regs on 11/6/2008 10:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
Listen, I'm not here to sell socialism, I'm here to sell a balanced economy and free market. What makes a free market work? The people's willingness to exchange goods and services. What is money without the exchange of goods and services? ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS. What happens when a government of a democracy, republic, monarchy, socialist, or even communism fail to stimulate a balanced exchange of goods and services; a catastrophic failure.

The motto is, don't bight the hand that feeds you. Apparently that motto is not working anymore. I'm fed up with this system of greed and abuse because the weak are to afraid to stand up for themselves. We all play a part in today's economy,and we all effect the outcome of our society.

For example, I know a lot of people who work for pharmaceutical companies who are afraid of Obama's new plan to make drugs more available and affordable by bringing cheaper generic drugs to the market.

So why are they worried? Generic drugs will put a lot of large corporations who employ thousands out of profit. The wealthy men running these huge conglomerates will still keep their fortunes by moving business over seas or by cutting cost by laying off the "soldiers" . But you have to look at it this way, more competition brings more higher paying jobs. A lot of people live pay check by pay check and are scared to death about losing their jobs. Why should it be that way?

If we keep allowing companies to merge into conglomerates and threaten the middle class and working class, they will not only be able to control the price of the products they sell to the consumer, but how much they can offer in terms of compensation to new hires (job market). People are willing to work for 5 dollars an hour over seas, so they can sell us cheaper product. Think about that, because they need us as much as we need them. This is when balance becomes important. The only reason why people are willing to work 5 dollars an hour over seas is because people can live for 5 dollars an hour there, though we obviously cant. Our money pays their low wages and without us, they can't sell their cheaper products.

It's inevitable to balance such a scale so off balance, that there will be suffering and turmoil ahead for everybody. Everybody is deathly scared of it.
But I have to ask, how much are we willing to pay until we balance the system? Aren't we paining for it enough now with houses that dropped half their value from what they were bought for? ISP's that have to cap costumers because they themselves can't afford the infrastructure because they are too busy paying for other inflated expenditures? We all know what happens when there is no competition; yeah, that's right, EA Games. In all seriousness, recession is all ready here and the balance is all ready off. It will come no matter how much debt we can forgive or pass on, because debt itself now has took on a new meaning. Debt is that stock market crashing, that job you just lost, or that house you just bought that has lost its resale value. Debt is no longer your neighbors burden, it is now yours to share.

A government will fail, any government, if the confidence of the people are lowered enough that they think they'll no longer receive an equal exchange of goods and services. Right now there is no confidence in the job market, stock market, house market, and our own employer.

Who is to blame? Some say the republicans and some say the greedy, but I have a different person in mind to demonize and that someone is myself. The exchange starts with me, you, and the faces you see each day. We elect a government of the people - for the people to trust and to hold are best interest . What are your interests?

It's time for a change all right, Obama or our government can't do it without you.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 7:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
From what I can read, the only people advocating socialism are the ones who think inside the box.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By MadMan007 on 11/6/2008 5:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
And here I thought DT readers might be marginally more informed than the rubbish that's spewed in political commercials. Repealing the Bush tax cuts is deemed a tax hike by those who support the cuts (like McCain who had to flip and sell out on this issue in order to get his party's nomination)...yea...and taxes under Obama's plan would be no higher for the wealthy than they were under...wait...Reagan! Capital gains were also higher pre-GW.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By omnicronx on 11/6/2008 4:02:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I can't believe you call yourself an American... -but maybe you're not. Socialism has NEVER worked for the benefit of a people in past- why would it now?
Typical response, I am sure that all us Canadians have been regretting universal health care from day one, as who on earth does that benefit? We pay more taxes and in return we get many government services for free.. what a revelation..

Socialism can and does work, it all depends on the situation in which it is being implemented.

It just seems like as soon as the word socialism mentioned in the US, it is automatically perceived as evil COMMUNISM and this just has to change.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Chaser on 11/6/2008 4:15:23 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder how many Americans move to Canada to embrace all those "free services" you love.

Besides Canada's world model of healthcare excellence do you have any other examples of services that are superior due to Canada's implemented socialism?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Suntan on 11/6/2008 4:25:10 PM , Rating: 1
I don’t know if *all* of you feel that way, but I’ve met quite a few of them that have temporarily moved down here due to a loved on needing advanced medical treatment (I travel to Rochester, MN periodically and you get a lot of that around the Mayo Clinic.) Seems when their medical conditions really get advanced, the universal healthcare benefits couldn’t hold a candle to the reality that the treatment they needed was only available down here. Haven’t met a whole lot of Canadians that still prefer to claim moral superiority when husbands’ or wives’ lives are dependant on it…

…Maybe there are benefits to the government not telling the medical companies how much money they can make off their new advancements.

-Suntan


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By omnicronx on 11/6/2008 7:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
…Maybe there are benefits to the government not telling the medical companies how much money they can make off their new advancements.
Drug prices are government regulated (as a result of government run health care), drug companies still make a lot of money, because a larger percentage of the population has access to their products.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Suntan on 11/7/2008 12:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the total ROI based on region for a drug and it will quickly become apparent where the money is made.

As I don’t have a convent wiki-link (which is taken as gospel in these situations) to prove the point, I’ll put it another way. If America followed suit and hid behind government mandated price caps, do you think Canada would see as many new drugs that do new and wonderful things in future years?

How about you just sit back down and quietly thank America for continuing to fund the research that results in you getting to freeload lower priced drugs.

-Suntan


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By rcc on 11/6/2008 5:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We pay more taxes and in return we get many government services for free.. what a revelation..


Ok, did you even read/understand what you just wrote??? If you paid more in taxes for it, it wasn't free.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Tacoloft on 11/6/2008 5:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
LOLOLOLOL!
sweet...


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By mars777 on 11/6/2008 10:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
Transaction taxes are paid for the sake of the advancement and self maintaining of the country in most countries of the world, but not in the USA. You have special taxes for everything, not a global tax for all of that.

Country owes you nothing and everything it gives out of the government legal bond (defense, law enforcement) is basically free.

You pay to live in the country, and the government decides how much you pay and how much service you get over their obligations.

For example: in Sweden you get a house if you are young and get married and plan to have a child. But in Sweden you cant drink alcohol.

Some social aspects can improve the country, some other don't have to. Some republican thinking can improve the country some other can damage it.

You are choosing the government most similarly you are choosing the brand of motherboard for your new computer.

If you are unsatisfied with it, just go live somewhere else if you can or wait for new elections.

Tax money is not intended to payback to you, it's to pay back to your children and future generations.

Thinking tax money should directly benefit current generations lead to this economic crisis that's currently happening.

Not everything is black or white.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By MadMan007 on 11/6/2008 11:05:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Not everything is black or white.


Correct, sometimes thye're half and half...like the current president-elect!


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Tacoloft on 11/7/2008 4:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
But I thought he was black...


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By croc on 11/6/2008 4:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe I just read an American call another American un-American simply for having a different opinion. Perhaps you think that the Constitution is a document you can cut'n paste just the bits that you agree with and throw out the rest? Or you aren't really an American....


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Tacoloft on 11/7/2008 5:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
Hey I simply have a differing opinion too! It is my opinion that socialism is un-American. You got a problem with that? It's called freedom of speech biotch- something that the "Fairness Doctrine" seeks to nullify.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By TomZ on 11/6/2008 4:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe a little socialism is what we need now.

No thanks - we have too much already. If we continue down the current path, we're going to turn ourselves into Europe. The government now has controlling interest in banks and insurance companies...what is next? Airlines and automakers? Let's stop the madness!

After all, the government is in the best position to be able to allocate resources in our economy ... NOT!

In fact, your logic is a bit screwed up. You rip the government for their actions in Iraq, and then advocate giving the government more authority (socialism). Makes no sense.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/6/2008 10:28:36 PM , Rating: 1
No it does make sense. Your cherry picking of things you don't like clouds your judgement. Socialism works to some degree. Capitalism works to some degree, hell even christianity works to some degree. We have to learn to pick the best of all worlds. Its not fucking socialism, its called using your brain.
Capitalism works well for the economy. Socialism works well in supporting basic human needs. Why not combine the best of both worlds?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 10:43:03 AM , Rating: 2
Probably cause most people don't like supporting the lazy, weak or stupid. Didn't realize a pulse was enough to entitle you to everything.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 7:41:40 AM , Rating: 2
I could understand the attitude if I said, wanker. But if I told you to wipe your nose cause no girl is going to date a guy with a booga hanging, you hit me over the head. What am I suppose to thing? Wanker? lol


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 7:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
Its think, I was trying so hard to get WANKER out.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By deadrats on 11/6/2008 4:37:02 PM , Rating: 1
actually socialism is not such a bad concept, it's just that in this country the term is used to vilify anyone that wants to improve the quality of life for the average person.

one of the fundamental flaws of pure capitalism is that it assumes the decency of man, but history has shown time and time again that left to their own devises; there is always a segment of the population that is willing to do anything to fuck over their fellow human being.

you see it in this country time and time again, people make millions by exploiting other people down on their luck, by manipulating the system to ensure that the playing field isn't level, by bribing officials and then when someone shows up and says they think every should get a slice of the pie, these same pricks slap the guy with a label of "socialist" as a means of discrediting his ideas and then they spend their money on misinformation campaigns aimed at the general public to convince the every day man that these cheats deserve to keep their ill gotten gains, because we are a "free country".

you just have to love the bullshit...


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By rcc on 11/6/2008 5:34:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
one of the fundamental flaws of pure capitalism is that it assumes the decency of man, but history has shown time and time again that left to their own devises; there is always a segment of the population that is willing to do anything to fuck over their fellow human being.


Hmmm, maybe yes, maybe no. Regardless, I'd rather trust to the decency of an individual, than a group.

Don't forget the formula.

(IQofGroup) = [LowestIQinGroup] / [#ofPeopleinGroup]

It pretty much applies to morals as well as IQ.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/6/2008 5:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
LOL oh boy, if only the real world worked that way. If only...

George Bush lowered taxes across the board. Contrary to what you libs keep pushing, the middle class under George Bush has paid less taxes then ever before in recent history. I sure as HELL paid less taxes then I did under Clinton.

Most people on the Internet raging about taxes under Bush, don't even pay taxes themselves. You just heard it on the news, kiddo.

So as a taxpayer I don't feel that I'm being saddled under the weight of the Iraq war. In fact, I know I'm not. I also know I will pay far more under Obama. To be honest I rather my taxes go to defense spending and national security then going to hand out all his government cheese everyones anticipating.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By MadMan007 on 11/6/2008 6:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Not saddled under the weight of the Iraq war...sure, for now, but do the words 'record deficit' mean anything to you? In fact that's a problem with the Iraq war, it was pain-free for the vast majority of people...'keep shopping' they said. All Bush did was 'debt and spend' as opposed to the old line about 'tax and spend.'


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By TSS on 11/6/2008 6:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.debtclock.com/

you haven't got the money for socialism. you don't even have the money for capitalism anymore.

the wallstreet bailout is another 850+ billion in borrowed money, and obama is poised to increase the debt another 3,5 trillion over the next 4 years (all according to CNN. they also calculated that Mccain's plans made 5 trillion extra debt, so it could be worse).

lets talk money. according to wiki, the US national 2008 budget was 2,9 trillion. a bit less 500 billion of that is borrowed so 2,2 trillion. a little under 300 billion, or 9,2% of the 2,9 trillion, is needed to pay interest on debt. subtract that, that leaves an 1,9 billion economy.

so, with the bailout that's an 11 trillion +, with less then 2 billion a year to pay it off. that's what capitalism has done to the US. to make the severity of the issue clear, to pay off that debt means around 6 years of

no healthcare for anybody, no military, no money for anybody employed by the government, no NASA, no public transportation, no subsidies, nothing but paying off money that's already spent and that's 6 years if the economy stays the same, which it can't because of so many people losing their income.

on the other hand socialism in the US, or medicare, is set to drop another 53 trillion USD bomb in liability's on the economy within 20 years as the baby boomers retire. i also read that recently, the first baby boomer to retire and collect her social security check, had already passed. so it's only going to get worse.

your economy is based on there beeing so many workers. birthrates between 1941 and 1964 have consistently been above 20 per 1000 people. between 1980 and 2000 it hasn't even come above 17. in 2000 it was 14.4

what you need to do, and fast, is stop living well beyond your means and start paying off debt. nobody wants to pay more tax but your *all* going to have to if there is to even be an US within 30 years.

oh, iraq cost just 600 billion. that means, if you didn't go to iraq you could afford the interest on your nations debt for 2 years. this is not paying off the debt, this is purely the interest *on* the debt.

or ignore all of the above like both obama and mccain have been doing during the entire campain and watch it all blow up within a decade or 2. personally, i'll enjoy seeing it. is it morbid? yes. will people die over all of this? oh hell yes. am i evil? no, i'm just prepared for the days ahead. i'm debt-free, got cash saved up, ready for the storm. anybody would be a fool not to at this point. and i'm not even american so the blow i'll suffer is even smaller.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Suntan on 11/7/2008 12:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
And your Ivory Pedestal is located in which country???... (Just so we can quickly pull up some statistics on it and rip it all to hell too.) Yeah, its really that simple.

-Suntan


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By inperfectdarkness on 11/6/2008 2:23:48 PM , Rating: 1
awesome. so we're going to have great internets. but something tells me then he's going to try and stop all pR00n & censor everything.

thanks. no thanks.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By bplewis24 on 11/6/2008 2:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
What is that thing telling you this stuff? Is it a little birdie?

Brandon


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By sgw2n5 on 11/6/2008 2:32:19 PM , Rating: 1
Umm... pretty sure the republicans would be faaaaar more likely to censor pron than the dems.

Realistically though, censoring pron is political suicide. Everyone, regardless of who you are or what you personally believe, appreciates a little pron every now and again.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By tdawg on 11/6/2008 2:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, because that wouldn't be against the constitution. Yeah, I'm sure he'll be looking to do this on day 1.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Ananke on 11/6/2008 2:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
We need to have competitive ISP market. What we have now is ripping off for the privilegy to browse faster. However, it is not what Internet should be. Especially with the current caps from Comcast, ATT etc.

Google and Microsoft played their cards very very well. Now, they will finally have access to the last mile, through White Holes frequencies, and Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, ATT will finally have regional competition.

Unlimited 100G wireless internet, this is what we need to have, as customers and as oportunity for high tech development in this country. We do NOT need 20Gb miserable DSL cap on 50 dollar monthly bill.

So, we all should cheer up any government iniciative into the Internet future


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Spivonious on 11/6/2008 3:02:50 PM , Rating: 1
Based on the grammar and spelling in your post, we need more focus on education and not faster internet connections.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By inighthawki on 11/6/2008 3:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
responding in a comments section of an article of a website without proper grammar doesn't mean he's retarded. Making any comments on his grammar in the first place means you either don't understand the point of comments or you're a grammar nazi


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Ananke on 11/6/2008 5:42:46 PM , Rating: 3
Considering English is not my native language, I think I spell pretty well. Is you Chinese or Russian perfect?

I just offer everybody here a point from an outside.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 7:31:08 AM , Rating: 2
Just keep posting , pal. We know what you mean.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By clovell on 11/6/2008 2:58:58 PM , Rating: 1
I think you actually need a game plan and not just a roster before you start worrying about budgets.

Don't tell me yes you can; show me yes you did.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By omnicronx on 11/6/2008 3:44:10 PM , Rating: 1
The Iraq war costs 341 million per day, but people like you complain when someone wants to do something good with your tax dollars...


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By FredEx on 11/6/2008 5:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you.

Some things won't cost a thing, just laws that ISPs must abide to, like stop them (Comcast) from gouging us. Give us less, but no cost reductions. We have a cap now, they just took away USENet access, they screwed with P2P and still are in some areas until their new bandwidth control gets in an area. You use too much speed you pay for and you may get slowed down if others on your node are doing the same thing. Then I pay more for the same speed in the "Chicago Market" (I'm 90+ miles away in Michigan) that others with Comcast get for $17.00 less. Only because we don't have the competition yet. To me, that is unfair, I live in a lower cost area than cities that get it cheaper and have a cost of living double and triple or more of where I am. The labor costs for installing infrastructure is a lot lower here yet we're the ones that get screwed.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Ananke on 11/6/2008 5:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
The thin line here is that from a legal standpoint Comcast is not monopolist. Nationwide there are many other competitors and no restrictions to enter the market. Locally, however, that is not completely the reality. So yes, we have very oligopolistic ISP market, and yes we are scr...d as customers. One of the purpose of state to exist is to regulate market insufficiencies. Having Microsoft, Google, Sony and others able to provide entertainment and high-bandwith Internet services to their PS3, Xbox, PC users would be fundamnetally beneficiary for all of us. Even Comcast's shareholders could sell their stocks and buy something else, so they are not losing either. The only losing group would be Comcast higher management, who relies on performance comission :):)

You can substitute Comcast name with almost any other ISP provider now.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Hulk on 11/6/2008 5:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but the Iraq war has drawn those that want to kill us to Iraq to die and hence no US attacks in 7 years. Can Clinton say that? Nooooo. What good is a fast internet experience if you are dead ;)

Oh yeah and there was that little thing about violating the cease fire and the 17 UN Resolutions but I should realize knee jerk liberals don't think, they just feel.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By MadMan007 on 11/6/2008 6:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
Absence of an attack only proves one thing....that there hasn't been an attack.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/6/2008 11:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
why did they attack in the first place, doh?


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Suntan on 11/7/2008 12:27:29 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but that argument has no bearing on this discussion. They hate all of us. By *all* I mean all Americans (liberal and conservative) all Europeans (Socialist and otherwise) basically anyone that doesn’t hold their extreme views (including other Muslims.) As can be plainly seen in that they have carried out bombings on all of these types of peoples in the past. To be clear, I am talking about extreme fundamentalists only, not Muslims in general.

They hate us because they hate our society and its morals. More to the point they hate that a lot of regular Muslim people are being “infected” by our society. Things like their women wanting to drive a car. Or a man wanting to work at a good paying job to support his family… …even if it means working for a Jew. They do not want to see these kinds of changes take hold in their society and they are prepared to manipulate weak minded young men with a lot of rage (due to the fact that their lives are so unhappy and unfulfilled) into killing themselves for their cause.

Sorry, but the issue of today’s fundamentalists goes back many, many years. Long before GW (either one.) And it has no distinction between elephants and donkeys.

-Suntan


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By MadMan007 on 11/7/2008 12:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
You're right it goes back well before GW and well before neo-cons too. It goes back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire which kept the area in check through a combination of being an Islamic caliphate and applying sometimes brutal policies. They started hating 'us' (the West) after that when the British went in and tried to 'fix' everything to match Western ideals, the discovery of and importance of oil in the 20th century played a huge role, that was what it was all ultimately for. If it wasn't for oil no one would care much about the Middle East. So it is because of intervention and meddling it's just been going on for quite a while. The same general principles, just with different details, applies to South America.

Basically, if people didn't try so hard to take advantage of others, do things more fairly, and not be so concerned with controlling what others choose the world as a whole could be much friendlier.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Gzus666 on 11/7/2008 10:52:01 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, they went to Iraq cause they wanted to control it again, as Sudam went rogue on us. They could have killed Bin Laden before the attacks on the towers, they had a clear shot of him when the CIA was in Saudi Arabia. They were told not to, because he was being funded by the Emerit and we are friends with the royal family. Another reason they just can't seem to find him, even though we can find damn near anyone.

At one point, they tried to get some of the rebels in that area that hated Bin Laden to kill him for money so we didn't look like we were involved, but unfortunately they failed.

But, the major reason they want to attack us is because we needlessly support Israel, a country that has contributed nothing to us in the history of the alliance. If we go back to leaving the world to it's stupidity, and worry about America again, we wouldn't have these problems to begin with.

Rather than Fox News, try watching The History Channel, less political spin, more actual facts.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By Noliving on 11/7/2008 8:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hey it gave us the core 2 duo processors and instant messengers.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By TerranMagistrate on 11/7/2008 9:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But, the major reason they want to attack us is because we needlessly support Israel, a country that has contributed nothing to us in the history of the alliance.


Actually the main reason why they want to attack us is because we are a western non-muslim country, the most powerful and influential. And not just us but any nation not under Islamic authority. Even if Israel wouldn't exist, nations governed by fundamentalist Islamic doctrine would be at odds with the West.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 7:48:30 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, its because your country fucked them over, and people from the middle east have long memories.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By deadrats on 11/12/2008 10:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
wrong, it's because they are religious extremists, with a very strict interpretation of the Qur'an. in the Qur'an Allah (God) commanded 3 things:

1) love Allah.

2) love the believers (other muslims).

3) hate the unbelievers (non-muslims).

their religion commands them to hate anyone that isn't a muslim, we could be the most peaceful loving pussies in the world and they would still hate us, all you have to do is look at the problems with muslim extremists that the indians are having and they are mostly hindus.

islam is not a peaceful religion, and as long as we are saddled with political correctness that prevents us from acknowledging that fact, we will still keep having problems.


RE: And to pay for it all...?
By deadrats on 11/12/2008 10:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah but the Iraq war has drawn those that want to kill us to Iraq to die and hence no US attacks in 7 years. Can Clinton say that? Nooooo. What good is a fast internet experience if you are


you have it all wrong, as do all bush supporters: prior to 9/11 the last attack on the u.s. mainland from a foreign source was in 1993, the bombing of the world trade center. that's an 8 year lull in attacks from foreign terrorists on our soil, based on this reality the bush administration could have done absolutely nothing and it's very likely we still would not have been attacked. if the attack pattern holds, it stands to reason that the next attack on u.s. soil will be sometime in 2009 and quite frankly it would have occurred no matter who was in the white house.

furthermore, if we wanted to give the terrorists a foreign land on which to focus their energy, afghanistan was more than adequate enough.

and lastly, it can be conclusively proven that the iraq war not only did nothing to quell terrorism, but in fact made it even worse. how? by pointing out that after 9/11 there was the bombing in bali, the attack on england and the attack on spain, all major terrorist events, england and spain especially were on a par with 9/11.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki