DailyTech - President Obama Orders Gov't Agencies to Make Broadband Cheaper

Submit News

Internet President Obama Orders Gov't Agencies to Make Broadband Cheaper
Jason Mick (Blog) - June 14, 2012 1:08 PM

115 comment(s) - last by Paj.. on Jun 18 at 6:05 AM

The POTUS claims effort to reduce gov't broadband spending will stimulate growth, jobs

As much as U.S. citizens decry "socialism", many are either unaware of, or perfectly comfortable with the U.S.'s vastly socialistic national highway system. Stretching out like weeds across the country, the federal highway system pumps the lifeblood of the union and provides for its defense, but is mostly government owned, as is the land that lies directly adjacent to the highway.

This arguably successful socialist institution has not been without its problems, though -- for one thing of late it has interfered with broadband deployment. The government often charges steep fees to "rent" federal land and pipe fiber optic backbone cable beneath a highway. These costs represent yet another barrier for entry in a market already devoid of competition due to high costs of entry, and a collusive coalition of service providers who look to literally outlaw small competitors via lobbying efforts.

I. Making Federal Lands Cheaper to Route Through, Provide Service to

President Barack Obama (D) announced this week that he would be signing and executive order that he claims will cut the cost of licensing these and other federal lands for broadband routing by up to 90 percent.

He comments, "Building a nationwide broadband network will strengthen our economy and put more Americans back to work. By connecting every corner of our country to the digital age, we can help our businesses become more competitive, our students become more informed and our citizens become more engaged."

_{The U.S. Highway system has been one of the most successful socialist projects of the American federal government, but it has raised broadband costs, due to the federal government owning vast tracts of land. [Image Source: Wikimedia Commons]}

The project also aims to enforce transparency by adding a list of current projects to the Federal Infrastructure Projects Dashboard (permits.performance.gov). The departments that will be developing a single uniform, lower-cost licensing strategy will be the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs as well as the US Postal Service.

Seemingly this development will please both large and small service providers alike as it could cut their costs. That said, it may lead to decreased government revenue, which in turn may further tip President Obama's already unbalanced budget. (For the record, the President claims the changes will cut the deficit.)

_{President Obama wants to force federal agencies to cut the cost of licensing land and adopt one uniform standard for broadband development projects. [Image Source: U.S. Aid]}

This is a tricky issue for strong fiscal conservatives as on the one hand there is little public interest in scrapping the public highway system or privatizing it. Many even believe this socialist institution may even be Constitutionally endorsed as the Constitution includes provisions tasking the federal government with safe trade between states (and roads are essential to trade). Further, the highway system helps provide a means of moving troops -- another Consitutional duty of the federal government (defense of the nation).

On the other hand, lower revenue collection via more affordable public-private rental agreements may lead to higher deficit spending -- something fiscal conservatives bemoan.

Along with connecting conduits, some of the connecting cables will also be routed to the federal government's 10,000+ buildings, so the feds may seem some cost reduction on that side of the equation

II. Obama Looks to "Ignite" Broadband Efforts

Along with the new federal land efforts to support broadband deployment, Hewlett-Packard Comp. (HPQ), Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO), and other networking firms have volunteered for a new initiative called U.S. Ignite, which aims to deploy faster broadband networks.

The program will provide grants to experimental high-speed communities and to laboratory research into faster data transmission. The program is a joint effort with many non-profits who will help to shoulder its costs.

_{U.S. Ignite is a jumble of broadband development projects.}

Among the proposed goals of U.S. Ignite is to provide faster broadband service to U.S. veterans and active troops. It sounds like some of the money will be put towards using high-speed connections to serve troops stationed in remote regions like Afghanistan who have been injured. Writes the White House:

[The] Department of Defense is connecting military families on base with new US Ignite services, while creating new research opportunities to students at West Point. HHS’s Beacon Community Program, starting with the Mayo Clinic, and the Federal Communications Commission’s Rural Healthcare Pilot Program are partnering with US Ignite to provide new healthcare applications, such as remote surgical theatre and patient monitoring.

The Obama administration has funneled a large amount of the $3B USD Recovery Act's funding into broadband deployment, with much of the funds going to service providers. The Obama administration also worked to redirect funding for rural landline phone service towards building out mobile voice and data efforts.

The relative success of these efforts depends on whom you ask. The White House claims these efforts are "increasing broadband access in communities across the country" and that it is "ensuring that rural communities and anchor institutions are connected to high-speed broadband networks." The President's political rivals would likely disagree with that glowing assessment of his success.

Source: The White House [press release]

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/14/2012 1:35:35 PM , Rating: 2

As much as I want to see broadband and media prices go down, and availability go up, we will not see improvements when the government sticks their nose in it. If there is ANY role that the government has, it is to make damn sure the geographic monopolies and dirty business practices are eliminated. If you don't start there, then you have already failed. End of story.

I'm so sick of: "oh, you don't like our prices and service? Then just switch to another provi.... HA! jokes on you! we bought out the politicians in this area so that we have total control over the market! suckerrrrr!"

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By FITCamaro on 6/14/2012 1:55:12 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
If there is ANY role that the government has, it is to make damn sure the geographic monopolies and dirty business practices are eliminated.

The monopolies exist precisely because of government involvement in the first place. More government isn't the solution. Holding government accountable and not electing officials that would give such monopolies in the first place is the solution. But it's largely too late for that.

All you can do is elect politicians who would pledge to revoke the monopolies in the first place. But there may be legal blocks to doing that at all. If there is a legal agreement, the government can't just change its mind (unless you're talking about Obama who has shown legal contracts mean nothing to him when they stand in the way of what he wants to do). Both sides have to come to a new agreement.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/14/2012 2:07:18 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
The monopolies exist precisely because of government involvement in the first place.

I pretty much said that, but maybe not so clear. The big keyword was "if" government had a role. If they kept within their founding checks and balances, their only role would be to prevent telcos from forming their own lobbying super machine. And we all see how that has turned out.

Telco's win, government officials win, and consumers lose. Also, the majority of society is pretty much oblivious too.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By EnzoFX on 6/14/12, Rating: -1

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By StanO360 on 6/14/2012 4:47:32 PM , Rating: 2

It's with each individual city, they CHOOSE to make it a monopoly because they don't want to hassle with permitting construction, tearing up sidewalks etc.

In the case of Fios, our well run city (in most cases anyway) took two years before they could start work.

In most cases there is no backroom deal, just care less ness, as in "I could care less".

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By toyotabedzrock on 6/17/2012 9:47:00 PM , Rating: 2

Monopolies exist when the adversarial relationship between private business and government is broken down.

Monopolies also form from the lack of regulation/government. The kings in history where essentially monopolies.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Kurz on 6/18/2012 3:59:23 AM , Rating: 2

Kings Owned the Land and everyone who lived on them.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By tayb on 6/14/2012 2:33:43 PM , Rating: 4

quote:
As much as I want to see broadband and media prices go down, and availability go up, we will not see improvements when the government sticks their nose in it.

Did you even read the article?? The order is to REMOVE government interference and involvement and reduce the prices for broadband planners. It's the exact opposite of government interference. The government already is interfering, this is supposed to reduce that interference.

Seriously, people just read that Obama has done something and just automatically assume it's horrible.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/12, Rating: -1

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/14/2012 5:36:23 PM , Rating: 4

Speaking of stimulus... wasn't a significant chunk of that supposed to directly go towards increasing internet infrastructure?

A few years ago (about 10 years, i think), my state was given several hundred million dollars to push broadband to more rural areas and to improve existing structure. I'm still waiting to see the results of that one LOL

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/12, Rating: -1

By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2012 5:58:24 PM , Rating: -1

Obama is certainly doing nothing to dispel the Democrat "tax and spend" stereotype. Like you said, he sounds like a broken record. He keeps using things that the last spending bill or the one before that was supposed to fix, as reasoning for even more spending bills.

quote:
A few years ago (about 10 years, i think), my state was given several hundred million dollars to push broadband to more rural areas and to improve existing structure. I'm still waiting to see the results of that one LOL

Exactly, and we all have similar stories.

Someone was killed in Charlotte (near to me) a few months ago at a dangerous intersection. When asked why there was no sidewalk/crosswalk there, the city responded that they didn't have the money for one.

Last week Charlotte officials announced a multi-million dollar deal to build a new stadium for the Charlotte Knights, a minor league baseball team.

This week the Charlotte mayor was "disgusted" that his plan to hike property taxes (yet again), was defeated by a near 5-4 vote.

Anyone notice a familiar theme here?

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By TSS on 6/14/2012 7:10:11 PM , Rating: 2

That all your politicians are bought and paid for?

Just remember this election who you had before Obama. And what he did, and why everybody ridiculed him for it. There's litteraly was no difference between Bush's pick of people for his administration and Obama's pick. And Clinton already had ex goldman sachs employees in his administration.

And now your choices are obama, and a hedge funds manager.

Can you honestly with a straight face still say that "this time will be different"? Can anybody?

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/14/2012 7:11:37 PM , Rating: 4

I think the most popular phrase to describe modern elections is "Lesser of the two evils".

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/12, Rating: -1

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Paj on 6/15/2012 7:53:28 AM , Rating: 4

quote:
Yes I can. I can stomach a moderate Republican if I have to. But make no mistake, we have a Marxist in the White House. That I cannot abide.

I really dont understand the US hatred of socialist policies. It's like you guys still live in the 1950s, with McCarthy running around saying 'Communism will kill your babies!' You need to get over it.

Like the article says, some elements of socialism exist in the US already. The government spends billions on subsidies across all industries, not just the nasty green ones.

Government partnership with private industry has been very successful in other countries. Particularly France, which has developed one of the most robust high speed train networks in the world. This has also carried through to aerospace (Airbus), nuclear power (Areva) and automotive (Renault), all internationally successful companies and industries that the French state has had varying degrees of ownership over the years, along with other European companies in some cases.

China also has strong elements of state sponsored capitalism. This system is one of the reasons why its economic growth is skyrocketing, and has one of the largest foreign currency reserves in the world, including billions of US government bonds.

Its not a magic bullet, but in a lot of cases, when properly managed it works very well. The US would do best to get over its ideological opposition to it.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By KoS on 6/15/12, Rating: -1

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By praktik on 6/15/2012 8:34:52 AM , Rating: 5

Ya, cause you know, America and Americans are always so tight-lipped about the way other countries run their business, so the USA deserves the same respect!!

<chortles>

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Paj on 6/15/2012 8:46:21 AM , Rating: 3

rofl... thats pretty rich coming from an American!

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/15/2012 9:53:07 AM , Rating: 1

Yeah, F*** America! .... until you need a ton of money, food, materials, or soldiers etc....

I'm not the type to be an over the top nationalist, but I am a patriot of my nation. I don't know where you come from, but I bet our two countries are mutually beneficial, so why the petty bickering? Sure this nation isn't perfect, but who is?

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By praktik on 6/15/2012 10:04:20 AM , Rating: 3

I think we were reacting to the idea that we shouldn't comment on how America conducts its business - if we are indeed in mutually beneficial relationships (as Canada surely is - where I live) then we SHOULD be able to comment on how they do business...Also I think given say, the American ambassador under Dubya's tendency to comment on Canadian affairs with some degree of arrogance - and America's general propensity to involve itself in the internal affairs of everyone in the Western hemisphere, there should be some clear ground for us to comment on how it does business in return.

Also, implicit in this "EWWW Socialism!!" reaction in the American polity is an insult to other western countries, who don't share this particular bugaboo...

Let me ground it in an example at the individual level...

If you were wearing a Tommy Hilfiger shirt, and someone said "EWW I WOULD NEVER WEAR THAT!", wouldn't you think that implicit in that statement is a value statement on how YOU conduct YOURSELF? That someone thinks less of you for wearing that particular brand?

In this sense I think there is a reaction in places like Europe and Canada that even in internal debates on socialism in America, there is an implicit criticism of the rest of the Western world. Europe and Canada are "one step closer to communism", (in the most tawdry formulations)SO -> "thank God we live in America!"

So there is I think, a natural tendency for Europeans and Canadians to respond to that implicit value judgment and point to areas inside America that are already normalized AND socialist and the ways we successfully incorporate socialist policies into our social democracies without endless bickering over where a particular policy sits in terms of category... Which is really what a lot of this boils down to in America - the category of a policy becomes grounds for its dismissal, not the merits of its actual policy implications.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/15/2012 10:39:47 AM , Rating: 2

Our government was founded to be a free market constitutional republic. The system works, but is not perfect; no system is. It is, however, vastly superior to socialism and communism because it is the primary drive for economic and social growth. Socialism/communism breeds laziness and entitlements.

Let's take healthcare for example. Health care is a luxury of life. What can I say that? Because we are ALL going to die one day, and no amount of medical insurance is going to fix that. Now, don't misunderstand me; I am not at all against providing an environment for low cost benefits for those who pay into the system, and for those who actually take care of their body. It should be an optional and private service (like it has always been for thousands of years)

And yes, it totally depends on the level or category that you apply a socialistic principal because it's obvious that fire/rescue services are somewhat socialistic in nature and they do provide a very useful function for society. I am mainly saying that socialism as a total governance body is unsustainable and downright unjust in most cases. Forcing someone to buy government insurance? The founders of this nation are rolling over in their graves.

If you want to do it that way in your country, fine. But as soon as you start trashing mine, we have a problem. Everyone wants to talk junk about America until they need us. Then it's all smiles and stretched out hands waiting for the dollars.

I have been saying for many years that we need focus about 95% on our nation, and continue free trade but not engage in entangling foreign alliances. Win for everyone. We avoid the "American is in everyone business" fiasco, and improve our nation at the same time. But then you know what would happen? "America is such a selfish nation!! They never help out other countries when they are in need".

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Success brings forth jealousy.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By tayb on 6/15/2012 11:36:53 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
Our government was founded to be a free market constitutional republic. The system works, but is not perfect; no system is. It is, however, vastly superior to socialism and communism because it is the primary drive for economic and social growth. Socialism/communism breeds laziness and entitlements.

Do you think that Germany, Japan, UK, and South Korea are socialist countries?

quote:
Let's take healthcare for example. Health care is a luxury of life. What can I say that? Because we are ALL going to die one day, and no amount of medical insurance is going to fix that. Now, don't misunderstand me; I am not at all against providing an environment for low cost benefits for those who pay into the system, and for those who actually take care of their body. It should be an optional and private service (like it has always been for thousands of years)

I can't believe people actually think health care is a luxury. You have a right to buy guns but you don't have a right to live. How pathetic. Can't afford insurance at your minimum wage job? That's unfortunate, I guess you'll just die when you get sick. The American Dream!

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/15/2012 12:20:38 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
You have a right to buy guns but you don't have a right to live.

What a truly faulty argument. Are you trying to say that a mass amount of people will drop dead if they don't have healthcare tomorrow?

quote:
How pathetic. Can't afford insurance at your minimum wage job?

Wow.. ok... I don't make minimum wage, but thanks. I have't been to the doctor in years because I am fortunate and I take care of my body way better than the average person. But hey, check this out... did you know less than 100 years ago, doctors were very few and far between? And the field of medicine was still very new. People still lived long and healthy lives. You know what happened? They eventually died. Health insurance or not, we are all going to die one day. Insurance is a luxury and a CHOICE that should be made by the individual. How stupid is it for a government to control your health? Do you really life in freedom? No, you don't.

quote:
I guess you'll just die when you get sick. The American Dream!

LOL, and I guess waiting in line for only 6 months to get an infected appendix removed is the Canadian dream. I have heard hundreds of stories about your beloved health care system over the years (I work in the health care industry, by the way)

from: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_hea...

quote:
My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

There are countless examples like the one above. And God forbid it's not a dental problem; you would have to wait even longer or go without treatment all together. There is a wealth of information available on this topic, including how many people cross the boarder every year to get proper and prompt treatment. Yeah, that's exactly what I want for my nation! I definitely want to subsidize the healthcare treatment of fatties and druggies. Brilliant plan!

The American health care system may not be perfect, but it's damn sure the best in the world. A lot better than your system, and to say otherwise would be downright dishonest and naive.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By praktik on 6/15/2012 12:24:36 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
The American health care system may not be perfect, but it's damn sure the best in the world. A lot better than your system, and to say otherwise would be downright dishonest and naive.

Right, cause there's no horror stories from America to be found, amirite?

Arguing from anecdote does not a convincing case make... impugning the honesty of people who disagree with you doesn't do you any favours.

Most disagreements actually don't come down to honesty, but different starting points. In this case confirmation bias and cherry-picking have you starting with a biased view of the Canadian healthcare system, one that (conveniently) backs up your desired position that America's system is "the best in the world"

Funny how selective fact picking can make every turd smell a flower, innit?

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/15/2012 12:51:14 PM , Rating: 1

No, it's just a simple fact that, overall and on the whole, the American health care system is the best in the world. I never said there weren't horror stories, because there are. In fact, I specifically said that no health care is perfect.

If you were to get up in front of any health care professionals or world leaders and say that there is a better health care system than America's, you would be laughed out of the room. We have the best healthcare in the world. Fact.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Paj on 6/18/2012 3:40:26 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
No, it's just a simple fact that, overall and on the whole, the American health care system is the best in the world.

Actually, you'd be thinking of France, which was ranked as the best in the world by the World Healh Organisation in 2000.

For the USA, it's one of the worst.

US life expectancy is 50th in the world.
US infant mortality rate is 174th in the world (5.98/1,000 live births).

Its also the most expensive in the world.

$7,146 spent on health per capita - 1st in the world
15.2% of GDP equivalent spent on health - 1st in world

So you're paying more than anyone else for a service thats up to 50 times worse.

And not even everyone gets that. Nearly all OECD countries offer healthcare access to their population. The ones that don't? Turkey, Mexico and the USA.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By JediJeb on 6/15/2012 6:09:14 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I can't believe people actually think health care is a luxury. You have a right to buy guns but you don't have a right to live. How pathetic. Can't afford insurance at your minimum wage job? That's unfortunate, I guess you'll just die when you get sick. The American Dream!

Well that isn't quite a real comparison you are using there. We have the right to buy a gun, and we have the right to buy healthcare. But both require payment.

In your example if people are entitled to free health care, then they should also be entitled to free guns.

Health care is a service that someone like a doctor, nurse, medic ect provide, not for free but to make a living. I guess that people who work on an assembly line making cars should do that work for the good of the public so they could all own a car, instead of doing that work to make a car that will be sold for money of which some is given to the worker for them to make a living.

Anything that another person has to work to provide is not a "right" for other people to have, therefore healthcare is not a "right" to be guaranteed to anyone. Suppose you make healthcare a "right" and people stop wanting to be doctors, will we then force certain people to be doctors just to provide that "right"? There is no difference in healthcare and anything you would buy at Wal Mart, both are a consumer product that cost money to provide and provide money to those that produce the product.

As far as socialism goes, it only works correctly if every single person in the society gives an equal amount into the system. If any person refuses to contribute to the system they must be denied the benefits of that system or else it becomes unbalanced between what is taken in and what is given out. I have yet to see a single socialist government that is completely balanced, and in the end most begin to fail because the benefits going out exceed the contributions coming in. That is exactly what is happening in places like Greece right now.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By KoS on 6/15/2012 11:12:48 AM , Rating: 2

Here is a news flash. Most ordinary Americans could give a rats ass about other countries internal workings. Unless it directly affects the US.

If the UK or any other country wants to be socialized or other like minded philosohies, then so be it. Don't complain about the US not following suit. We were taught just becuase everyone else is jumping off the bridge, doesn't mean we have too.

Ask yourself, if the US pulled up it's mat and truely isolated it self from the world. What would happen? More bad than good?

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By BluntForceTrama on 6/15/2012 5:56:49 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I love it when a foreigner tells Americans how they should run thier own country. Worry about your own problems in your backyard.

There's about 6 billion foreigners out there who would tell you to practice what you preach.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By StormyKnight on 6/15/2012 10:21:02 AM , Rating: 2

Why do we hate socialism? Because it stomps on our Constitutional rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It takes away our private property rights (our ability to generate, keep and do what we want with wealth).

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By praktik on 6/15/2012 10:29:15 AM , Rating: 4

I live in Canada. I have a charter of rights and private property rights that have not been damaged by the presence of socialist policies amongst the myriad of policies that make up our system of government.

So what are you afraid of?

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/15/2012 10:49:35 AM , Rating: 2

Your government heavily restricts your ability to petition. No guns, no voice. Good luck with that charter of rights if your gov. ever feels like going tyrannical. And don't say it hasn't happened often, because I will point you to a history book.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By praktik on 6/15/2012 11:32:36 AM , Rating: 2

Ya but I can smoke weed at a cafe in Toronto no problem... what happens to me in Dallas if I get caught with a joint?

If I was gay I could marry here, what would happen to me in Georgia?

But go ahead and think about how much freer you are in a country that openly discriminates based on sexual orientation and jails more of its population than any other...

In my mind America is still a free country - as is Canada, but our freedoms differ in some areas and I like the mix we have here just fine thank you!

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/15/2012 12:25:33 PM , Rating: 2

The largest difference in our assorted freedoms is that all of our freedom is backed by the 2nd amendment. Your is not. If shat hits the fan in your country, the first thing that would happen is your country would round up what little bit of firearms the private citizens have, and it would be no contest then.

I'd rather pick a nation that has a built in citizen contingency plan. And yes, I understand our nation is a LOT less free now than during it's founding. Petty freedoms aside, my country has the God given right and ability to overthrow a tyrannical government; yours does not.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By praktik on 6/15/2012 12:27:43 PM , Rating: 2

Interesting fantasy.

So thought experiment: Dubya decides to follow through on the Alex Jones nightmare of FEMA concentratoin camps in 2006 - rounding up citizens everywhere...

Could the populace TRULY stand up against a President with the military and police at his command?

Maybe in 1793 - today? - I think this is just a fantasy. A tyrannical president could certainly deal with a few michigan militias and hillbillies with rifles...

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By KoS on 6/15/2012 12:30:00 PM , Rating: 2

Who is to say the the military or the police would follow those orders? People in those organizations are still free thinkers! Some would fall in line, for sure.

But, it's fantasy anyway...Alex Jones...hahah...FEMA camps...bah!

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By praktik on 6/15/2012 12:54:50 PM , Rating: 2

Thats the key - I think such a tyrannical President would need to have most of the country on-board through positioning of his policies in a "save the nation" light.

Legitimacy is the key - small arms aren't.

In Libya, small arms PLUS a crisis in legitimacy was what was required to get Quadaffi out... We can see that Assad in Syria remains despite the fact the opposition is armed. Reason being is he still has an adequate base of support and legitimacy within his country.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By KoS on 6/15/2012 1:45:38 PM , Rating: 2

BS!!

Libya wasn't quite like that. The opposition had help from NATO. If not for that, the Colonel would still be in power. They were getting their butts kicked until they called for NATO to institute a so called "no-fly zone". After that, it was all down hill for the Colonel.

Assad remains in power because of might, not legitimacy.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By praktik on 6/15/2012 2:02:59 PM , Rating: 2

He also has continued support from critical factions that aren't ready to dump him yet. There isn't a single reason he is in power still - there is a confluence of reasons...

More on this topic here (not subscribing to everything he says, but if genuinely interested in these matters its worth a read!)

http://jpsurvey.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/revisitin...

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By KoS on 6/15/2012 3:06:15 PM , Rating: 2

Thanks for the link. The author of the article, in part, stated the same thing I said about Syria and Libya. Now, some of his rational about the situations in those two countries. I don't agree with.

Legitimacy in Libya had nothing to do with why NATO got involved. UK and France had a axe to grind with the Colonel, especially the UK. The legitimacy arguement was a false justification.

Syria, those factions want to stay in favor with the power's that be. Doesn't mean they like the Assad regime. At the moment Assad is the big dog. When a new big dog steps forward, they will switch their support to the new guy.

For internal purposes in non-democratic countries, legitimacy has no meaning. It's the person with the biggest gun, the most power. Now, for external purposes, whether or not other countries recgonize the goverment in power. Then, yes, legitimacy can be a issue.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/15/2012 1:02:11 PM , Rating: 2

Yeah, it's real likely that the American military and police would kill or trample their own families, friends, and communities. *rolls eyes*

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By praktik on 6/15/2012 1:27:59 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Yeah, it's real likely that the American military and police would kill or trample their own families, friends, and communities. *rolls eyes*

Sounds like you don't really need a 2nd amendment then if it will never happen?

Maybe us here in Canada, sadly living outside the glorious protection of your God-given 2nd amendment are safe too cause "its real likely that the Canadian military and police would kill or trample their own families, friends, and communities. *rolls eyes*"

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/15/2012 1:40:44 PM , Rating: 2

What a foolish argument. I'll keep my guns, you keep your charters.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/15/2012 12:59:25 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Could the populace TRULY stand up against a President with the military and police at his command?

Since you are ignorant on the topic, I'll educate you a little bit. The military is not a detached super force that blindly follows orders like a dog. The vast majority of police and military have large and close families; and they never fight family. Do you honestly think they would slaughter them on command from a gov. official? That's laughable.

Furthermore, they take an oath to protect the US Constitution from enemies BOTH foreign and domestic .

quote:
A tyrannical president could certainly deal with a few michigan militias and hillbillies with rifles...

ROFL! Just like the yanks crushed the hillbillies in near the Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee areas? Oh wait... the hillbillies stomped them in the dirt repeated times.

The power of this nation still rests with the armed citizens. Have you ever studied history?

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By praktik on 6/15/2012 1:17:01 PM , Rating: 2

Yes actually I have studied history, with a focus on American history (particularly through the 19th century) and WWII Eastern Front...

See my later post on legitimacy and how that is necessary component of any discussion on this topic.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Paj on 6/18/2012 3:49:30 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
No guns, no voice. Good luck with that charter of rights if your gov. ever feels like going tyrannical

Yeah, thats working out great in Syria.

Gandhi helped liberate India from the British without firing a shot.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Ringold on 6/15/2012 5:38:48 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
Particularly France

Yes, high speed trains, and falling credit ratings and an uncompetitive economy on the brink. Nice example.

quote:
China also has strong elements of state sponsored capitalism.

How does China fit in at ALL with your other examples? China is not communist. It is not socialist. It's full-bore crony capitalism that has taken a country from dirt poor to merely poor and thus secured some public support from a mixture of growth and police brutality. Where did its growth come from, anyway? In 1986 it started, with what? Socialist reforms? No, Deng and his free market reforms.

quote:
when properly managed it works very well.

People often hold up the Swedish model. Those people don't know their history, though, as government spending as a % of GDP in Sweden peaked at around 70% in the early 90s. It was a disaster, so they back-tracked, integrated free market concepts.

Educated people and the majority of economists are opposed to socialist policies because the theoretical and historical examples we have are clear as day: Socialism fails, anywhere and everywhere it has been tried for any length of time. Careful lighter-touch free-market reforms, on the other hand, have created prosperity, almost every time, almost everywhere it has been done and done correctly.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Paj on 6/18/2012 6:05:47 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Yes, high speed trains, and falling credit ratings and an uncompetitive economy on the brink. Nice example.

Still better off than most of Europe is at the moment.

Dirigisme, or state sponsored capitalism, was hugely successful in restoring French infrastructure after the war. Between 1945 to 1975 the French economy was growing at around 4.5%. Many successful infrastructure, energy and transport projects were completed as a result of this co-operation between industry and government. The goal was to make a profit, but also direct long term goals and underwrite larger projects.

Is this pure socialism? Arguably not. But it is socialistic in its principles.

quote:
How does China fit in at ALL with your other examples? China is not communist. It is not socialist. It's full-bore crony capitalism that has taken a country from dirt poor to merely poor and thus secured some public support from a mixture of growth and police brutality. Where did its growth come from, anyway? In 1986 it started, with what? Socialist reforms? No, Deng and his free market reforms.

China is politically communist, but economically is closer to a state sponsored capitalist system. Like France, China incorporates many elements of dirigisme - state involvement in many primary industries, such as energy and industrial manufacturing, often as the primary shareholder in these companies.

quote:
Socialism fails, anywhere and everywhere it has been tried for any length of time. Careful lighter-touch free-market reforms, on the other hand, have created prosperity, almost every time, almost everywhere it has been done and done correctly.

I'm not advocating pure socialism, which like communism has proven to be largely ineffective - corrupt and wasteful. However, combining elements of socialism has proven to be effective, often mores so than either system in its purest form.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By FITCamaro on 6/18/2012 3:46:18 AM , Rating: 2

Bush did not put radical extremists in his administration that hate capitalism, openly talk about wanting to raise the cost of energy and then lie about it when taken to task, are proud that they don't enforce our laws, etc.

Oh yeah and don't forget Van Jones who was an admitted Communist.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Skywalker123 on 6/15/2012 1:34:49 AM , Rating: 2

Yeh, the familiar theme is that you make stupid posts. The baseball stadium will be paid by a hotel surtax paid mostly by visitors. The property tax was about a $6 per month increase.

Oh yeh, almost forgot. Don't ever mention that you live near me again, it's embarrassing

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By BluntForceTrama on 6/15/2012 8:04:10 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Someone was killed in Charlotte (near to me) a few months ago at a dangerous intersection. When asked why there was no sidewalk/crosswalk there, the city responded that they didn't have the money for one.

And if some dem had spent the money on this problem and added the crosswalk he would proclaim we all live in a nanny state. Flip flopper.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Quadrillity on 6/15/2012 10:00:41 AM , Rating: 2

I can't claim to know what he would have said, but I doubt very seriously that he would complain about spending money for safer crosswalks. That accusation is just ridiculous.

What's even more ridiculous is the governments blank check system for all of their failed and failing pet projects. Do you mean to tell me a freakin' minor league baseball stadium is somehow going to turn this economy around? No. But lets spend that multi-million dollar facility anyway because there are zero repercussions if it fails.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Skywalker123 on 6/15/2012 5:43:38 PM , Rating: 2

did u read the part about the stadium being funded by a hotel tax?

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By BluntForceTrama on 6/15/2012 5:48:57 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I can't claim to know what he would have said, but I doubt very seriously that he would complain about spending money for safer crosswalks. That accusation is just ridiculous.

So name anything the government has spent money on that is good for the general population that he's thought highly of. Talking about being ridiculous.

quote:
Do you mean to tell me a freakin' minor league baseball stadium is somehow going to turn this economy around?

Well if you read that from my post you've just confirmed who's ridiculous here, all by yourself. It'd be great seeing you talk in court as the poster child for facts not in evidence.

Try getting a grip a grip on your petty emotions, your assumptions need to be reclaimed. Try concentrating on the facts, like that hotel tax.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By tayb on 6/14/2012 7:44:14 PM , Rating: 2

More "blah blah blah" from Reclaimer.

Where does this executive order fit into your two categories? I'm convinced you didn't even read the article, because nothing you just said makes any sense. Not uncommon.

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Vim on 6/15/2012 10:13:19 AM , Rating: 2

Isn't it a step in the right direction though?

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

Parent

RE: SIGH... here we go again

By Jaybus on 6/15/2012 4:08:22 PM , Rating: 2

Well, lowering the rent for stretching cable along the highways has better potential than the last attempt. The last attempt was giving stimulus money to AT&T, Verizon, etc. to the tune of $3 billion. That got us nowhere, though I'm sure it must have allowed the Verizon and AT&T execs to get huge bonuses.

Parent

socialism

By nah on 6/14/2012 1:52:26 PM , Rating: 3

is unfortunately not the same as correcting market failure--which occurs when public goods like roads are not provided by the free market firms because they can't charge the marginal consumers--hence they have to be provided by the government

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

RE: socialism

By JasonMick

(blog) on 6/14/2012 1:57:21 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
is unfortunately not the same as correcting market failure--which occurs when public goods like roads are not provided by the free market firms because they can't charge the marginal consumers--hence they have to be provided by the government

You could make similar arguments about broadband and medical care.

Prior to the federal highway system, it's true, transportation was a mess, just like healthcare and broadband. But if you think there were no highways, you are wrong. There were. Privately provided roads have been done, in this nation in fact -- they just haven't been as affordable (ostensibly) or as connected.

But there were private offerings -- and there still are, albeit they've been marginalized (e.g. private toll bridges/roads).

Socialism often arises out of a need to provide some sort of good or service where the industry does a poor job and where the government think they can do a better job. That's exactly what happened here.

Whether that is a justifiable choice either constitutionally or politically is a philosophical and legal debate.

But clearly the U.S. decided that private offerings were insufficient for this public good and that vast, ubiquitous socialism, including the government taking ownership of vast amounts of land -- was the best solution.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have strongly disagreed with this example of socialized services of late, even though the debate on socializing other struggling services -- medical care and roads -- provokes much more debate.

Those aren't the only debates though. A new debate is emerging about high speed rail. China has already committed to this modern brand of transportation socialism. The U.S. is still making up its mind, though Obama supports a socialized gov't funded national high speed rail system.

Parent

RE: socialism

By EnzoFX on 6/14/2012 2:15:47 PM , Rating: 2

Keep your government hands off my welfare!

I never understood the argument of, oh socialism is good in this case, but not this exact analogous case. The basic principle and needs are the same. Medical care is just an entitlement issue.

Parent

RE: socialism

By tjcinnamon on 6/14/2012 3:22:51 PM , Rating: 2

Medical Care is a moral issue.

Parent

RE: socialism

By Schrag4 on 6/14/2012 5:42:03 PM , Rating: 2

I assume you're suggesting that since it's a moral issue, the govt shouldn't have anything to do with it, correct?

Parent

RE: socialism

By Uncle on 6/14/2012 4:23:24 PM , Rating: 2

Right and another name for welfare is corporate welfare(Drum roll please)Bailout, Incentives, Tax rightoffs, tax breaks, subsidies, tax credits, deductions, exemptions from regulations, financial guarantees, the federal government alone shells out $125 billion a year in corporate welfare, and that doesn't include the billions state and municipal governments hand the corporations. All that money is from individual taxpayers such as yourself. So out of the trillions in federal debt to help pay for corporate welfare, and your Wars,what are you getting out of it,other then a slave-wage job to continue the cycle. Go back to school and quit watching the Corporate agenda being spoon fed to you through the Corporate owned media.
"A TIME investigation uncovers how hundreds
of companies get on the dole--and why it
costs every working American the equivalent
of two weeks' pay every year
By DONALD L. BARLETT AND JAMES B. STEELE

How would you like to pay only a quarter of the
real estate taxes you owe on your home? And
buy everything for the next 10 years without
spending a single penny in sales tax? Keep a
chunk of your paycheck free of income taxes?
Have the city in which you live lend you money at
rates cheaper than any bank charges? Then have
the same city install free water and sewer lines
to your house, offer you a perpetual discount on
utility bills--and top it all off by landscaping your
front yard at no charge?
What was that, Corporate welfare bums that control the media haven't informed you.

Parent

RE: socialism

By NellyFromMA on 6/14/2012 3:10:39 PM , Rating: 2

Look no further than Massachusetts to discover how government healthcare does NOT hold down costs for consumers and does NOT provide higher standard of care. It only expands coverage, which in theory is great, but its at cost to every tax payer. and that's with a favorable demographics (there were, at the time, a low rate of uninsured); nevermind expanding that nationally.

There are things the government can do well. The problem is the government gets in the way of itself and tried to please everyone with approachs that acheive little to nothing or simply aren't reasonably sustainable.

Now, if constituents AND their representatives were a little more open to compromise, we might actually solutions that seemingly make sense and address actual issues. But in this political atmosphere... better off without them. Extreme ideology in either direction means poor planning and poor execution. Fact.

Parent

RE: socialism

By PresidentThomasJefferson on 6/14/2012 7:11:51 PM , Rating: 2

Massachusets & Obamacare are bad poor examples because it's actually REPUBLICAN plans of mandating that everyone have private insurance instead of universal healthcare like Japan/Singapore/Canada.. (also, the Federal gov creates money through federal deficit spending so as to not need to tax citizens for services.. that's why 33% of fed spending is money creation aka deficit spending)

RomneyCare/Obamare doesn't contain costs because it's a monopolist market (2 companies hold 80% marketshare in insurance) & mandating that the population go through the middle-man for-profit insurance companies doesn't contain costs (how could you when there's 3,000+ insurance companies in the US where they pay their executives $3 million to $12+ million per year?

Parent

RE: socialism

By NellyFromMA on 6/15/2012 7:55:46 AM , Rating: 2

I bring up Healthcare in Mass because:

A) I am from Mass so I know what I'm talking about first hand

B) You are right (sort of) in that they are poorly executed plans. It definitely wasn't a republican plan, yes Romney put it forth but it was presented to a largely democratic house. At the end of the day, the two sides were only willing to collaborate and compromise when they foudn common ground; not wanting to have to pay for their increasing medicaid costs themselves and both agreeing they need to push the cost to the consumer and what a better way than to mandate it...

Parent

RE: socialism

By BluntForceTrama on 6/15/2012 5:53:52 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
B) You are right (sort of) in that they are poorly executed plans.

Not from a lobbyists viewpoint they aren't.

Parent

RE: socialism

By PresidentThomasJefferson on 6/16/2012 1:20:05 AM , Rating: 2

Romneycare/ObamaCare were originally created by the Heritage Foundation & other conservative think tanks in the 1990s & championed by presidential nominee Republicans Bob Dole & other Republican senators in the mid-1990s.

It was revived by Romney for Mass. & Obama for the US.. as a giveaway to the insurance companies that own both Romney & Obama.. the finacial industry owns both of them since they are the largest campaign donors to both of them.

It's no coincidence that the people in the Treasury Dept under Obama are from the same 'rightwing' investment bankers from Chase, Goldman Sachs, etc as under Bush, Clinton, & Reagan! (no joke!), which is why legislation is made catering to them

Parent

RE: socialism

By FITCamaro on 6/14/2012 5:54:17 PM , Rating: 1

Beyond the interstate system, roads are the responsibility of state governments which absolutely have the authority to use the publics money for them. As much as the people are willing to bear without voting out the politicians spending it.

Doesn't mean the system hasn't been corrupted over decades of erosion of constitutional principles.

Parent

Broadband vs EPA

By SilentRunning on 6/14/2012 3:52:27 PM , Rating: 2

So he will make licensing easier but the EPA will have their say when they attempt to use wetlands for broadband lines. It's amazing what runoff from highways does to the adjacent land.

Also let's mention that the highways are paid for with a use tax via the gas tax. In fact they collect so much gas tax that the liberals in congress like to divert the tax to subsidize mass transit only to later decrie the crumbling infrastructure.

RE: Broadband vs EPA

By PresidentThomasJefferson on 6/14/2012 5:28:05 PM , Rating: 2

not true, google search shows that the federal gov funds highways & interstates with BILLIONS each year because gas taxes aren't enough to maintain/build highways --it's a huge myth that gas taxes alone are sufficient

it costs $8 million per mile in a rural area
it costs $16 million per mile in suburban area
it costs $24 million per mile in city area

to build/maintain a road-highway

most are also pretty ignorant that the gov DIRECTLY INVENTED/FUNDED
antibiotics,
nuclear power,
radar,
internet,
GPS,
MRI machines or
& funded development of the 1st computers (for census & artillery ballistics tables)
&
that only 5% could goto college before fed finacial aid/GI Bill
or
that 56% of the nation lived in poverty before FDR (it's now down to 11% to 15% ever since FDR's programs)

Official data from US Federal Reserve charts, brought to you by MBA or CEO's Mitchell & Norman (economist featured on Bloomberg & CNBC as well as FoxBusiness)

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/wh... --federal deficits DON'T cause inflation

http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/06/ev...

=========
1. Oil/energy prices cause inflation, NOT federal deficits -evidence/facts here: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/mo...
2. www.RodgerMitchell.com Daily Economics Verifiable EVIDENCE by CEO/MBA economist at http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/in... & http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/wh...

3. http://pragcap.com/the-most-destructive-monetary-m... PragmaticCapitalism.com's fact-based intro on how modern currency systems work -Modern Monetary Realism vs. the most destructive myths of false outdated gold-standard based theories most politicians/economists operate under

4. Seven Deadly Frauds of Economic Policy http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/... by Bank CEO/economist Warren Mosler or click for here for shorter summary of Modern Monetary Economics 101
5. http://MoslerEconomics.com -Daily Insightful & Most Accurate Verifiable Economics Analysis by bank CEO/economist Warren Mosler

6. http://MikeNormanEconomics.blogspot.com One of the BEST Daily Analysis by Chief Economist & FoxBusiness-Bloomberg contributor expert Mike Norman, formerly of S&P

Parent

RE: Broadband vs EPA

By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2012 5:50:40 PM , Rating: 2

It's not the deficit that's causing inflation. It's the policy of monetizing our debt by increasing the money supply via treasury "quantitative easing". This naturally reduces the value of the dollar. Fact.

You can Google up all the arguments you want, but it seems like you're just not looking for the actual truth.

quote:
not true, google search shows that the federal gov funds highways & interstates with BILLIONS each year because gas taxes aren't enough to maintain/build highways --it's a huge myth that gas taxes alone are sufficient

Except you're using the false premise that those numbers you quoted aren't WAY inflated past actual costs, and that all of the taxes collected for said purpose actually GO to the roads and highways. This is the main problem. The "highway fund" is the FIRST piggy bank that Government bureaucrats put their hand in for pet projects.

quote:
that 56% of the nation lived in poverty before FDR (it's now down to 11% to 15% ever since FDR's programs)

This one is just too easy. How can you in good conscious post such a half-truth and proclaim the New Deal is responsible for our low poverty levels today? We still had 8 million unemployed in 1940. If it wasn't for WWII the New Deal would have been exposed as the qualified failure that it most probably was. And the Great Depression wouldn't have ended when it did.

The one overarching theme of your post and links is that the Government can spend it's way to prosperity. This is obviously false.

Parent

RE: Broadband vs EPA

By PresidentThomasJefferson on 6/14/2012 6:21:07 PM , Rating: 2

The value of the dollar is actually higher than in 2008 so QE didn't reduce it's value (note that the dollar actually went up in value than in 2008) .. on a fiat money system, gov 'deficit' spending actually adds to the money supply of the private sector because there is NO 'crowding out' & increased demand increases increased production that increases supply of goods/services that offsets inflation (unless there is an artificial monopoly or strike such as in Weimar Germany where all industrial workers went on strike for 8+ months to protest war reparations & the French/Belgian invasion confiscating their coal/steel,etc & thus dropping production of industrial/manufactured goods by 90%
&
Zimbabwe where Mugabe expelled all the whites/educated/professionals & gave their land/farms to cronies that didn't know how to farm/produce, dropping production by 30%-57% in all their sectors)

...look at the charts of US inflation & money supply increases showing low inflation & NOT from gov spending...see from official data here:
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/06/ev...

http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/06/ra...

also, interest rates are at record lows on US gov bonds despite $16 trillion record 'debt' (aka as gov money creation)
1. Oil/energy prices cause inflation, NOT federal deficits -evidence/facts here: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/mo...
2. www.RodgerMitchell.com Daily Economics Verifiable EVIDENCE by CEO/MBA economist at http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/in...
& http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/wh...
==

Note also that the $1 trillion deficit aka gov money creation pales in comparison to the yearly $6-7 TRILLION in private sector bank money creation via 'fractional reserve' loans.. though in reality, private bank loans aren't constrained by bank reserves since banks can get any reserves they want after-the-fact by borrowing at lower interest from the Federal Reserve.

8 million unemployed in 1940 because the fed gov didn't create enough money/spend enough (only 9% of GDP) until Pearl Harbor pushed all the deficit-hawk morons in gov to increase massively deficit spending, MASSIVELY increasing spending to 25-30% of GDP

that hired 16 MILLION military on the gov payroll as soldiers & hundreds of billions MORE (the equivalent of $5 TRILLION in 2010 dollars) of gov spending on military contracts, which hired millions more people to build jeeps, tanks, planes, etc

Note that every single one of those 16 million military (33% of US households) got the GI Bill that gave 'free' university education when before only 5% could goto college, each also got gov guaranteed subsidized low-interest mortgages & business loans (which led to the 1950's/60s boom in suburban housing & construction/contracting businesses when before only the wealthy could afford to own homes in suburbia)

Parent

You're presuming the status quo is ideal

By Solandri on 6/14/2012 2:55:43 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Stretching out like weeds across the country, the federal highway system pumps the lifeblood of the union and provides for its defense, but is mostly government owned, as is the land that lies directly adjacent to the highway.

I'm not convinced that the Interstate Highway System "pumps the lifeblood of the union." By subsidizing highways, the government made truck cost-competitive with rail, to the point that most of the country's commerce is carried by truck rather than rail.

Now consider that rail can move cargo at about 300-350 ton-miles per gallon, while trucks sit just below 100 ton-miles per gallon.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/Comparative_Evalu...

Basically, by creating and subsidizing the IHS, the government has caused virtually all commerce to shift to a less efficient mode of transport. A more efficient system would use rail to transport cargo between major metropolitan areas, then transfer it to trucks for the final leg. We burn more fuel and (once you take into account taxes) spend/waste more money because of the IHS.

RE: You're presuming the status quo is ideal

By tjcinnamon on 6/14/2012 3:30:08 PM , Rating: 2

Agreed, but freight is not the only beneficiary of the IHS. Visiting family within a 6 hour driving distance is a nice comfortable (public) benefit that would take considerably longer without the IHS.

Using the logic of pure efficiency doesn't make sense in all cases. We could drill into every protected piece of land to efficiently scour for oil but we wouldn't have nature preserves for citizens to enjoy. There's gotta be more to a bottom line than the lowest possible cost.

Parent

RE: You're presuming the status quo is ideal

By StanO360 on 6/14/2012 4:52:34 PM , Rating: 2

Highways are generally not subsidized, they are paid for with gas taxes and other fees (semi-trucks pay huge fees). Plus, a ton of freight is shipped already by rail, it's what moves across those tracks everywhere and where a lot of our diesel goes.

Plus, why do you think trucks are inefficient, now trucking companies are run like UPS, very few wasted mile. Remember a truck still needs to go to and from the railyard anyway.

Parent

Bandwidth?

By Nyu on 6/14/2012 1:28:43 PM , Rating: 2

How about forbidding the ridiculous 3rd world bandwidth caps first?

RE: Bandwidth?

By quiksilvr on 6/14/2012 1:43:37 PM , Rating: 3

I honestly thought bandwidth caps would be a noticeable issue, but it isn't really. I get 300GB a month and even with my extensive YouTube, Netflix and unmentionables along with pretty consistent online gaming, I barely hit 150GB a month, and I consider myself a heavy user.

At that rate, it honestly would make sense to keep it unlimited, it doesn't deter unmentionable activity (unless there were five of me in an apartment doing the same thing at once through one single connection), it's just a waste of resources on the IP's part (need servers to do the counts and run the site online showing your usage), it pisses off consumers and is bad PR.

Parent

High cost for using Right of Way for Broadband?

By 225commander on 6/14/2012 3:59:17 PM , Rating: 2

Hmm, I work for a state DOT and we routinely let utility companies 'piggy back' in our Right of Way. In fact, we sometimes buy EXTRA land/space than we 'need' for the proposed roadway to allow for room for utilities to be placed within the ROW limits. To my knowledge most , if not all, these utility companies(public and private) do NOT pay for this land, nor do we charge 'rent' or anything for this service. Now, broadband *might* not be classified as a 'utility', but if it was I don't see what this article is talking about. Down here we have FIOS lines running in our ROW all over the place as well.

RE: High cost for using Right of Way for Broadband?

By StanO360 on 6/14/2012 4:54:03 PM , Rating: 2

FYI, many cities by default run fiber whenever they trench for sewer, water etc.

Most fiber is run along rail alignments though

Parent

US highway?

By StuckMojo on 6/14/2012 6:20:34 PM , Rating: 2

Why is the picture of a highway in the middle of the article not of a US highway? I think that's Kuala Lupur (sp?)...look at the twin buildings in the background, they're a famous hotel...and read the signs.

RE: US highway?

By drycrust3 on 6/15/2012 4:15:25 PM , Rating: 2

It looks like the emergency stopping strip is on the left hand side of the motorway too (according to one website, they drive on the left in Kuala Lupur).

Parent

I'll believe it when I see it.

By HoosierEngineer5 on 6/14/2012 2:27:56 PM , Rating: 2

Probably will take another 4 years?

Some strange assumptions

By StanO360 on 6/14/2012 4:36:23 PM , Rating: 2

First the biggest cost factor is almost always regulations, on the federal, state and local level, not leases. Added cost and time to install hubs and muxes, if they are allowed to at all. But, contrary to evidence in all other areas of life, why would we think that more Federal intervention will lower costs (real costs, not by subsidizing)?

But the local government created monopolies are the biggest problem. When we finally got Fios, quality went up and cost stayed the same. Give us one more choices and we'll see a drop and an increase in quality.

PAGING AMMOHUNT

By praktik on 6/15/2012 8:09:41 AM , Rating: 2

Does this story bring us closer to the impending Marxist revolution?

if so, would you recommend we bury a schoolbus and stock it up with canned food NOW or should we wait til Bill Ayers takes over as Comrade-in-Chief??

So this is the new cool thing to do as a right winger?

By Fidel1986 on 6/15/2012 4:35:15 PM , Rating: 2

Call any Obama Program socialist goverment intervention?

Well then funding for our military should be soley via private companies and none of us should be paying for that.

Well then SS retirement shold be stopped.

I guess highways as well should be closed and given to private companies to charge what they want.

I suppose police and firemen should be private owned bussiness and they should be able to charge you as well.

Socialism with Capitism works. It doesnt have to be one or the other, a combination of the best of both worlds is what we need.

The socialism continues

By overlandpark4me on 6/17/2012 1:46:05 AM , Rating: 2

when is this t a r d going to go away?

Dictatorship? Where's the competition to drive down consumer charges?

By GotThumbs on 6/18/2012 4:40:17 AM , Rating: 2

Unless Obama commands the broadband companies to actually charge you less....the idea that the consumer will be paying less due to the lower charges for land.....are a pipe-dream. This fantasy continues the practice of Obama reducing federal income...without cutting costs. I'm sure He's a nice guy...just like Carter, but He is NOT a leader. We need leadership please.

There is Zero guarantee that You or I will pay less....only that the cable companies will have lower costs and thus higher profits. I'm not against a company making money, but competition is what drives lower prices for consumers. I didn't see anything about giving consumers more choices. Obama seems to think He's a dictator and can just command how economics will work. He needs a reality check...and that's coming in November.

Again, nothing about providing consumers at least two choices for service....so no competition exists in your neighborhood. One cable provider and one DSL provider.

By FITCamaro on 6/14/12, Rating: -1

RE: BS

By FITCamaro on 6/14/12, Rating: 0

RE: BS

By JasonMick

(blog) on 6/14/2012 1:49:39 PM , Rating: 2

True, but lack of transportation is interpreted as a barrier for trade.

Constitutionality in its present meaning is largely about interpretation. For example does "provide for the common defence" or "promote the general Welfare" authorize the federal government taking ownership of vast tracts of land in order to provide citizens and military forces with a means of rapid interstate transportation?

It may. Nobody can know exactly what the founding fathers would make of that query.

But one thing's for sure. Such vast federal ownership of land and crucial infrastructure is socialism, as the article correctly labels it.

The downside is illustrated by the topic of this piece -- the high cost of licensing for cabling deployment along federal highways.

Parent

RE: BS

By FITCamaro on 6/14/2012 5:36:35 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
True, but lack of transportation is interpreted as a barrier for trade.

Yes but that is not one the states willingly put in place.

And there is only one interpretation about the Constitution. The one that those who helped write it meant. And there is plenty of existing documentation about what they said to have a very clear idea of what that opinion was.

But its ignored in favor of ideas that the Constitution "lives and breathes" or it is just ignored entirely in favor of foreign law.

And the "promote the General Welfare" part in no way meant "give the people whatever they want". Common defense? Absolutely. The fact that it benefits the public is irrelevant.

Ownership of land by the federal government is explicitly given as a right in the constitution as well for national defense purposes. Where I'll agree with you is the tactic that the government has been taking of seizing state land to create "nature preserves" whenever they don't like that resources in land will be utilized such as oil, coal, etc.

Parent

RE: BS

By Keeir on 6/14/2012 9:55:08 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
The one that those who helped write it meant.

Good one Fit!

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were part of writing the Constitution. Keep in mind that even the authors of the Constitution felt like the Constitution said differing things.

The National Bank is a good example. Alexander Hamilton felt it was justified by (inspite of) the Consititution and James Madison did not.

Parent

RE: BS

By tayb on 6/14/2012 2:31:17 PM , Rating: 1

The commerce clause and necessary and proper clause can easily and justifiably be interpreted to include a highway system or any system that connects multiple states together that enables goods or services to be exchanged.

quote:
The Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Parent

RE: BS

By FITCamaro on 6/14/2012 5:45:40 PM , Rating: 1

Originalist interpretations are the only interpretations that hold any weight.

http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm

Parent

RE: BS

By tayb on 6/14/2012 7:15:11 PM , Rating: 2

What, because you said so? There are plenty of people who believe in the idea of a living document. Federalists and anti-federalists even bickered over this.

Parent

RE: BS

By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/12, Rating: 0

RE: BS

By FITCamaro on 6/18/2012 5:06:46 AM , Rating: 2

If I write a book, does your opinion on the same subject matter when considering what I meant? No. Only those who wrote its opinion matters.

Liberals today don't even consider the founders opinions. They believe it says something and try to do it.

Parent

RE: BS

By JasonMick

(blog) on 6/14/2012 1:45:09 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
The highway system was built to allow easy movement of troops around the nation. While it has yet to be used for that purpose explicitly yet, it doesn't take away the need.

Great point, added that to the article. But your point just raises a second tier of Constitutional justification. Both trade and defense are two key justifications proponents of the federal highway system have raised over the past half decade in order to promote this ubiquitous brand of socialism.

Let's not candy coat it. Yes there are private highways, but most private efforts deal with bridges, not physical highways. With a few toll roads as the odd exception the vast majority of U.S. highways and the land they sit on are government owned.

That's socialism (the government owning key infrastructure).

You can like it, you can not like it, but you can't hide from the fact that it is socialism, no matter how uncomfortable that makes you.

Parent

RE: BS

By EnzoFX on 6/14/12, Rating: -1

RE: BS

By knutjb on 6/14/12, Rating: 0

RE: BS

By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/12, Rating: -1

RE: BS

By StanO360 on 6/14/2012 4:41:05 PM , Rating: 1

Nonsense, Socialism is owning key features of the economy, oil or gas production, automobile manufacturing, etc., not infrastructure of the nature of highways. There are not many pure Libertarians out there, but most Conservatives would say that the government should step in where it would be clearly impractical for the private sector to handle. This is simply not the case for broadband internet.

Yes the government should do what it can to not hinder free enterprise and thus reduce costs, but beyond that no. Next we will see government newspapers, TV, grocery stores ("There aren't enough in poor neighborhoods!") etc.

Parent

RE: BS

By PresidentThomasJefferson on 6/14/2012 6:31:04 PM , Rating: 5

Constitution also states the gov as being responsible for & issuing the currency.. note that founding fathers Benjamin Franklin & Thomas Jefferson both advocated fiat currency to grow the economy & better the nation

Additionally, the US Federal Reserve Act of 1913 makes the Federal Reserve defer to the Treasurer should there ever be a conflict between the gov or the Federal Reserve & makes the Federal Reserve board of governors replaceable every 4 years by the president

http://21stcenturycicero.wordpress.com/fraud/how-b... -nowhere does it say in the US Constitution that it must be on a gold standard (and it wasn't during colonial periods!)

Around 1750, this New England was very prosperous. Benjamin Franklin was able to write:
“There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace was reigning on every border. It was difficult, and even impossible, to find a happier and more prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe. Comfort was prevailing in every home. The people, in general, kept the highest moral standards, and education was widely spread.”

When Benjamin Franklin went over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, he saw a completely different situation: the working population of this country was gnawed by hunger and poverty. “The streets are covered with beggars and tramps,” he wrote. He asked his English friends how England, with all its wealth, could have so much poverty among its working classes.

His friends replied that England was a prey to a terrible condition: it had too many workers! The rich said they were already overburdened with taxes, and could not pay more to relieve the needs and poverty of this mass of workers.

Several rich Englishmen of that time actually believed, along with Mathus, that wars and plague were necessary to rid the country from man-power surpluses.

Franklin’s friends then asked him how the American Colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses, and how they could overcome this plague of pauperism. Franklin replied:

“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.”

Thanks To Free Money Issued By The Nation

His friends could not believe their ears, and even less understand this fact, since when the English poor houses and jails became too cluttered, England shipped these poor wretches and down-and- outs, like cattle, and discharged, on the quays of the Colonies, those who had survived the poverty, dirtiness and privations of the journey.

At that time, England was throwing into jail those who could not pay their debts. They therefore asked Franklin how he could explain the remarkable prosperity of the New England Colonies. Franklin replied:

“That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

The Bankers Impose Poverty

The information came to the knowledge of the English Bankers, and held their attention.

They immediately took the necessary steps to have the British Parliament to pass a law that prohibited the Colonies from using their scrip money,

and

then ordered them to use only the gold and silver money that was provided in sufficient quantity by the English bankers.

Then began in America the plague of debt-money, which has never since brought so many curses to the American people.

The first law was passed in 1751, and then completed by a more restrictive law in 1763. Franklin reported that one year after the implementation of this prohibition on Colonial money, the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployment and beggars, just like in England, because there was not enough money to pay for the goods and work.

The circulating medium of exchange had been reduced by half.

Franklin added that this was the original cause of the American Revolution – and not the tax on tea nor the Stamp Act, as it has been taught again and again in history books. The financiers always manage to have removed from school books all that can throw light on their own schemes, and damage the glow that protects their power.

Franklin, who was one of the chief architects of the American independence, wrote it clearly:

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War.”

This point of view of Franklin was confirmed by great statesmen of his era: John Adams, Jefferson, and several others. A remarkable English historian, John Twells, wrote, speaking of the money of the Colonies, the Colonial Scrip:

“It was the monetary system under which America’s Colonies flourished to such an extent that Edmund Burke was able to write about them: ‘Nothing in the history of the world resembles their progress. It was a sound and beneficial system, and its effects led to the happiness of the people.’”

John Twells adds:

“In a bad hour, the British Parliament took away from America its representative money, forbade any further issue of bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all taxes should be paid in coins. Consider now the consequences: this restriction of the medium of exchange paralyzed all the industrial energies of the people. Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies; most rigorous distress visited every family and every business, discontent became desperation, and reached a point, to use the words of Dr. Johnson, when human nature rises up and assets its rights.”

Another writer, Peter Cooper, expresses himself along the same lines. After having said how Franklin had explained to the London Parliament the cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, he wrote:

“After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, the Parliament exacted laws forbidding the use of this money in the payment of taxes. This decision brought so many drawbacks and so much poverty to the people that it was the main cause of the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much more important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp Act.”

Today, in America as well as in Europe, we are under the regime of the Scrip of the Bankers instead of the scrip of the nation. Hence the public debts, everlasting interest charges, taxes that plunder purchasing power, with the only result being a consolidation of the financial dictatorship.

also confirmed here & more details on the profiteering banks on what happened afterwards as banks took over politics & the money system in America here

Parent

RE: BS

By Uncle on 6/14/2012 1:58:22 PM , Rating: 3

The USA learned a lot from the Germans, maybe the politicians could spend some educational time there and learn more.

Parent

RE: BS

By knutjb on 6/14/2012 8:39:46 PM , Rating: 2

Woodrow Wilson did just that to set us down the progressive path. Look where that got us... Right now the Germans are behaving more like we are supposed to, reducing government and cutting social program spending.

Parent

RE: BS

By Boze on 6/14/2012 2:24:25 PM , Rating: 3

You, of course, correct FIT.

But remember that ARPANET was developed to facilitate communication in the event of a crippling nuclear attack from the Soviet Union.

Sometimes the intended purpose of a thing is transcended by the thing's own potential.

Parent

RE: BS

By FITCamaro on 6/14/2012 5:50:27 PM , Rating: 2

Much government research results in private sector goods and services. Nearly everything you are touching, using, wearing, and eating today comes as the result of government research 30-40 years ago. The computer, internet, synthetic fibers, packaged foods, etc.

Parent

RE: BS

By PresidentThomasJefferson on 6/14/2012 6:42:23 PM , Rating: 4

Exactly, Fit, gov works best like an investment bank funding high-risk, far-off science/technology/innovation..like it funded/invented nuclear power for the first 30 yrs until it became profitable (so why not green energy?)

Most people don't realize that anitibiotics was invented/funded by the gov.. Dr. Fleming was a research gov doctor/scientist working at gov university/hospital in the UK doing research when he discovered penicillin in 1928.. but the UK gov was in austerity mode & declined to further fund it's study.. it sat on the shelf for 12 yrs until the MASSIVE gov money creation (aka deficit spending) by the US gov during WW2 funded more research into mass producing penicillin

MRI machines were invented by docs/scientists at gov universities in Nottingham UK & University of Chicago-Champagne

NASA engineer invented QuikQlot that instantly clots wounds

Contrary to popular belief, gov spending does NOT crowd out the private sector --deficit spending aka money creation adds to the private sector to fund projects/jobs & stimulate demand

Official data/statistics charts here:
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/06/ra...

http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/06/ev...

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/wh...

Oil/energy prices cause inflation, NOT federal deficits -evidence/facts here:
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/mo...

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/in...
&
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/wh...

3. http://pragcap.com/the-most-destructive-monetary-m... PragmaticCapitalism.com's fact-based intro on how modern currency systems work -Modern Monetary Realism vs. the most destructive myths of false outdated gold-standard based theories most politicians/economists operate under

Parent

RE: BS

By knutjb on 6/14/2012 9:20:23 PM , Rating: 1

Beg to differ his arguments are half-truths. Placing data on a chart without out context means little.

If government printing money had no repercussions Obama, and Europe would have booming economies.

When government spends money it has to come from somewhere. If it is printed, flooding the market, the value of the dollar goes down and the cost of oil goes up. Gas costs more. The problem is the items that affect inflation the greatest are not included in inflation figures.

Printing money has serious negative problems directly associated with it. Eventually we would turn into Zimbabwe by printing and borrowing. Borrowing money has other problems. We will pay over $400B this year alone for the current debt. Servicing the debt DOES cost money.

The fatal flaw in all of these arguments is there is proof they don't work. California, Greece, Spain, Portugal...

What is missing is when government tries to fix normal economic cycles with the Fed Reserve, misplaced laws, etc...

Look back at the depression of 1920-21. Government was cut in half, that means spending too, and the strongest economy followed. This was the only time when unemployment rates were as low as war time rates of 1.5%.

War is what typically advances technology. The other ways we had huge leaps in technology was when private entities offered huge prizes for a specific outcome. The government has pushed much of the private money out. The problem with government is a bureaucrat starts picking favorites with no repercussion to failure. Think Solyndra and the like. Sure it is easy to point out government successes because they are pushing others out of the way.

To make the debt payments, let alone pay it off, it siphons money from investors of all types. That does negatively impact money available in the business sectors. Business then reduces its R&D investments. And so on...

So I believe you, and they, are historically wrong.

Parent

RE: BS

By PresidentThomasJefferson on 6/14/2012 10:33:02 PM , Rating: 3

The boom of the 1920s was caused by the private banking sector creating money left & right to fund cars, railroads, etc (even then, most of it went to the top 10% while most of the US still lived in poverty, 60% lived in rural areas & 90% of those had NO ELECTRICITY

-- 90% of people outside of cities had NO electricity until FDR created the REA to fund electrical generation (the equivalent of $440+ billion dollars) outside the cities

Even now, private bank money creation is about $6-7 TRILLION per year of loans/credit creating money out of thin air via 'fractional reserve' lending --that's about half of the US $14-15 trillion economy.. -data in charts as all banks must report their total loans/credit aka money creation to the Federal Reserve

when the private banks reduce the money supply by reducing credit/loans, the economy goes into recession & depends on the gov to create the missing money supply

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/in...
& http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/wh...

Also, you're confusing the US (along with Japan, China, Singapore, Canada, Australia) issue their own currencies & all their fed gov debt is denominated in their own currency whereas the EURO-using nations gave up the power to issue their own currency.

the EURO nations depend on a wholly independent EUROCentral Bank to issue currency they have no direct control over (just like US states & cities have NO control over the US Federal Reserve) & thus EURO countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc & the Austerity countries like the above & UK, Ireland, Latvia, Estonia suffer severe deeper recessions from 4+ yrs of austerity

Parent

RE: BS

By PresidentThomasJefferson on 6/14/2012 10:41:52 PM , Rating: 3

Zimbabwe hyperinflation was caused by Robert Mugabe’s stealing of land from farmers and giving it to people who didn’t know how to farm [Mugabe expelled almost all the white people, who made up almost all of the professionals, the educated,& the managers of Zimbabwe's factories/farms, which caused a 30%-57% drop in production in all their sectors with the lack of trained/educated professionals]

Weimar hyperinflation was caused by the onerous post-WWI conditions put on Germany by the Allies
[which caused a 90% drop in production when almost all German industrial(energy & manufacturing) workers went on strike for 8+ months to protest war reparations & discourage the confiscation of their coal,steel, & other goods by the invading French/Belgian army (the Allies accepted only gold or real hard goods as payment for war reparations).

The German gov did pay the striking workers to stay on strike & NOT produce (one the few instances where gov spending was intentionally done to NOT increase production to encourage the invading French/Belgian army to leave because there would be nothing to confiscate].

The stagflation of the 1973 was caused by OPEC jacking up oil prices by 400% by cutting oil production by 15 million barrels/day (the US uses 20 million & imports half of that) & their oil embargoes in 1973-74 & 1979-80

--it was alleviated when the US finally switched from burning oil for electrical generation to burning natural gas instead

.. before the 1980s, burning oil was the 2nd largest source of electrical generation, which is needed by all production as well as consumers

Official data charts here:
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/mo...

Parent

RE: BS

By knutjb on 6/15/2012 11:20:58 AM , Rating: 2

Zimbabwe started by printing money, yes as you point out its was more complex than just printing. Our problem is more complex but not hugely different.

Weimar was imposed mostly by the Brits and French and allowed by an inept Wilson administration. They left the Weimar no alternative but to print money and that caused hyperinflation. The current administration is preventing us from using our own natural resources by shutting down coal fired power plants. He encourages Unions, strikes go hand in hand with them, Lockheed Martin is having trouble with them right now. We are following a similar path through EPA and other lunatic policies and regulations.

Stagflation was enabled by foolish government policies, most of which were corrected by Regan. The one that wasn't was the energy policy. The reason oil prices came down was the success Shell and others were having with oil shale in Colorado. The Oil Cartel dumped oil on the market to kill that endeavor. They were successful and we were stupid.

The reason power plants used oil and not natural gas was GOVERNMENT REGULATION.

quote:
Official data charts here:

Those are not "official" just cobbled charts to muddy the waters. Remember Disraeli, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." As I said above,

quote:
When government spends money it has to come from somewhere. If it is printed, flooding the market, the value of the dollar goes down and the cost of oil goes up. Gas costs more. The problem is the items that affect inflation the greatest are not included in inflation figures.

When politicians and the fed reserve go for a low dollar value it automatically inflates oil prices. Oil is traded in dollars, and like gold, when the value of the dollar drops oil prices go up. Instant inflation.

I think the premise of your argument is based on convoluted facts. The graphs are fuzzy comparisons and not much more. The economy will fail following those ideas. His argument that just because Regan had huge deficits they're Ok is a fallacy. Short term deficits are costly but not terminal. Long term massive deficits will through the economy out of balance to the point of collapse. We will eventually hit a point where there is no one left who will buy the debt, interest rates go vertical and more printing will not solve it. Look at Spain's recent bond sales, interest rates are going up... Just like Margret Thatcher said about SOCIALISM, it works until you run out of other peoples money. Too big of deficit lenders lose confidence and no more money.

Parent

RE: BS

By TruthLiberty on 6/15/2012 6:27:43 PM , Rating: 2

1) the data is official data from the Federal Reserve which maintains such data (FRED logo on charts stands for Federal Reserve Economic Data)
You should realize that the economic model you learned in Econ 101 was based on gold-standard based theories.. the US (as well as Japan, China, Singapore, Australia,& Canada) are no longer on the gld-standard & issue their own fiat currencies on a floating exchange rate (not fixed to a 'foreign-currency' standard). Here's more details by actual bank CEOs in bank operations/Federal Reserve
http://pragcap.com/understand-the-modern-monetary-...
&
Seven Deadly Frauds of Economic Policy http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/... by Bank CEO/economist Warren Mosler

Here's official data on value of the dollar --it's gone UP since 2008 despite all the fearmongering & record money creation:
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/06/do...

You focusing on the supply of money while NEGLECTING THE OTHER HALF OF THE EQUATION.. the SUPPLY OF GOODS/SERVICES.

If money supply doubles but supply of goods doubles, then prices are relatively the same (thus the focus on increasing production).

If supply of goods/services is cut in half or 90% drop causing extreme shortages, then prices will hyerinflate no matter what the money supply

More official data here:
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/mo...

2) Hyperinflation & all inflation results from shortages... 90% drops in production in Weimar, 30%-57% drops in production in Zimbabwe. The Allies did NOT accept Weimar fiat money as payment for war reparations --they only accepted gold marks, actual gold, & hard goods (coal, steel, etc),which is why France & Belgium invaded Germany's industrial Ruhr Valley to confiscate all their industrial goods like coal, steel, etc), which crippled their economy & started the 8+ months of strikes by almost all of Germany's industrial & manufacturing workers

The resultant 90% drop in production caused severe shortages of energy (coal, oil, gasoline, manufactured goods) as prices for everything skyrocketed due to the extreme costs of getting fuel & electricity needed to make, bake, heat, cook, & generate electricity/steam. Energy is the lifeblood for an economy needed to make, cook, & heat, & travel.

The Weimar gov responded wrongly by paying the workers to stay on strike for 8+ months & importing almost all their energy sources (since domestic energy production was down 90%) by printing gobs of money to pay for the skyrocketing costs due to the extreme shortage

3) You mention Spain. Again, as said before, the EURO-using countries can NOT issue their own currency anymore & must rely on the EUROCentral Bank, which is in effect a foreign central bank they have no control over & their Maanstrict charter of the bank states they can NOT have deficits (money creation) over 3%.

The opposite of the US(and China,Japan & other countries that issue their own currency), Spain & the othe EURO-countries are like a personal households,cities, or states in that it actually has to borrow from the private market or tax for any gov spending.

On the other hand, the US Federal Reserve central bank is defers to the US fed gov --it's charter/law the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 specifically states
the Federal Reserve must defer to the Treasurer(who is replaceable at anytime by the President of the US) if there is a conflict & the Board of Governors & Chairman can be replaced every 4 years by the President of the US.

3) The opposite of Spain, the US issues it's own currrency (just like Japan, China, Australia, Singapore) & thus creates money to add the private sector income instead of having to compete with the private sector from the same limited 'gold supply'.

And normally, increased spending increases production & hiring UNLESS there is an artificial shortage/supply shock/monopoly (which is why we should be energy independent instead of at the mercy of OPEC cutting oil supplies by 5-15 million barrels/day as it always does every couple of years.

Japan & Singapore have debts of 120%-250% of GDP, twice the level of the US yet their interest rates are almost 0%, just like the interest rates of the US, which are also at almost 0% record lows.

US gov bonds always have enough buyers of bonds because by law/agreement, the US banks who serve as primary dealers have to buy all the bonds (there's actually on average at least 1.8 bids or more for each bond).

Additionally, US banks can use their reserves to buy US gov fed bonds, which is better than the 0% to 0.25% interest they get from having reserves so banks will use some of their reserves to buy US gov bonds since US gov bonds pay higher than 0%.

Thus, the greater the deficit spending, the more that interest are driven down to the interest rate floor set by the Federal Reserve since banks will bid down & compete to buy US gov bonds.

This the reason why banks & billionaires because both are the largest holders of bonds & thus hate deficit spending because it lowers interest rates & thus their income/profits

http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/06/ra...

Parent

RE: BS

By adiposity on 6/14/2012 2:59:42 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
The highway system was built to allow easy movement of troops around the nation. While it has yet to be used for that purpose explicitly yet, it doesn't take away the need.

True, but an awful lot of time is spent upgrading its capabilities just to deal with increases in traffic by private citizens. Obviously, it is seen as much more than just a troop transport system.

Of course, things can have more than one use. But clearly, the primary use of highways is no longer troop movements, and I'd argue it is not longer even the primary reason for their existence and maintenance.

Parent

"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg