backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by NellyFromMA.. on Jul 31 at 4:37 PM


  (Source: Sodahead)
Tax and expand the federal gov't says Texas Rep. Lamar Smith (R)

"When there's copyright infringement / In your neighborhood / Who you gonna call? / The U.S. federal taxpayer funded IP task-force!"

I. SOPA Returns, Renamed and Pared Down

It sounds like a joke, but that's precisely what the The Intellectual Property Attaché Act [PDF], hopes to implement.  The goal is to fight "global" piracy, but the proposal admittedly acknowledges that the taskforce -- a sub-agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce -- could be used in the homeland, as well.

In fact, it seems more than likely that the task-force created by the IP Attaché Act, would operate mostly in the U.S., given difficulties in sending IP "cops" overseas to quasi-hostile infringement-prone regions like China. (What would they do in China, "arrest" street merchants selling knockoff DVDs?)

Overseas complaints are already well-policed -- or about as well policed as is possible -- by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

So the new Commerce Department copyrights cops are essentially redundant, unless their policing happens to primarily focus on the U.S.  And you can bet it does.

The bill is essentially a repackaging of the heart and soul of the fortunately deceased "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) (H.R. 3261) and the U.S. Senate's Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) (S.968).  In fact, it's authored by the same fellow -- Rep. Lamar Smith (R- Tex.) -- who wrote SOPA.

Rep. Smith surely was sweating a bit under the collar when SOPA went down in flames. After all, big media wrote him a check for $85,000 USD during the last campaign cycle [source] and lawyers, many of whom represent big media clients, chipped in another $58,000 USD. [source

Lamar Smith
Rep. Lamar Smith feels he's above the laws he's looking to subject his lowly proles to.
[Image Source: Lamar Smith]

Together these contributions gave him about 10 percent of the money he needed to crush Lainey Melnick 69-to-28 percent voting margin (Mr. Melnick only raised $34,000 USD lacking sufficient big media sponsors).  To be fair, many of Rep. Smith's colleagues received similar payouts from big media.

That kind of money doesn't come for free or cheap.  It comes with big favors.  In this case the cost of the donations was likely a commitment to tirelessly push "anti-piracy" legislation even if it ignores big media corporations' own flagrant copyright theft, wastes taxpayer money, and likely tramples on civil liberties.

Clearly Rep. Smith doesn't truly take his rhetoric to heart, given the fact that he ripped off an independent artist's work for his homepage art, and reportedly initially refused requests from the artist for acknowledgement.

II. Will it Pass?

So does the IP Attaché Act stand any more of a chance of surviving than Rep. Smith's last monstrosity, SOPA?

Perhaps.  

The largely politically apathetic public burned through a great deal of energy killing the last bill.  And this revised version will likely draw less corporate opposition in that it appears to remove its provisions for sweeping website takedowns in its draft.

Further, the SOPA v. 2.0 (of sorts) has the support of House Oversight Chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) -- who initially supported SOPA as well, but later became a critic who helped sink the measure.  

TechCrunch has obtained a statement from Rep. Issa's office, commenting:

Rep. Issa is set to support the legislation, with small modifications. The Intellectual Property Attaché Act is written to help American individuals and companies that are experiencing intellectual property infringement in certain foreign countries. The legislation will place USPTO trained IP attaches in countries around the world, focusing on areas where American job creators and innovators are experiencing especially high levels of IP-theft. These attaches will work with the foreign governments to help eliminate in-country IP theft that is occurring. This is a net benefit to all Americans both IP holders and consumers. Also, the training and other programs that the attaches may provide can also help local law enforcement to deal with IP-infringement that is occurring. The cost for these attaches will come from collected PTO fees, meaning that the bill is revenue neutral. Additionally, we expect that an amendment will be made to the legislation before it is marked up that will instruct the attaches to promote clear IP exceptions ­ like fair use – already codified in U.S. Law.

The biggest hope for killing the measure perhaps lies in its likely substantial costs and sweeping expansion of the federal government.  Ballooning federal government and burdening taxpayers with the expense of large new federal programs certainly sounds outside the line of traditional fiscal conservative rhetoric that's in vogue these days.

zombie crawling
SOPA v. 2.0 has crawled back onto the scene, but might be killed yet.
[Image Source: DeviantArt;~k1ow3]

Some Republicans may balk at essentially voting for "a tax" in order to scratch the back of big media.  Although, the fact that big media donated generously to a great many members of Congress may allow them to look past their own political beasts and shove this copyright debt on the shoulders of the masses.

At least overseas there are signs of a break in the storm of big media trolling.  Denmark has turned off its warning letters program.  And Canada has implemented strong protections/permissions for user-generated content (e.g. montages) and capped non-commercial infringement at $5,000 USD.

In other words, the U.S. is one of the last places where big media can hope to sue individual citizens for millions of dollars for pirating a few songs.  It also looks to become one of the few nations to install a special redundant "copyright police" agency at the federal level, financed by its citizens' tax burden.

Sources: House of Representatives [PDF], TechCrunch



Comments     Threshold


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

Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/2012 4:34:43 PM , Rating: -1
quote:
The biggest hope for killing the measure perhaps lies in its likely substantial costs and sweeping expansion of the federal government. Ballooning federal government and burdening taxpayers with the expense of large new federal programs certainly sounds outside the line of traditional fiscal conservative rhetoric that's in vogue these days.


Obamacare and most of what the Democrats have rammed through the past 3+ years does this in spades! Where are those articles?

But nope, we need to have the same old GOP bashing on DT with the same slant that only Republicans bend to special interests groups and lobbying.

The Tea Party will take care of Smith, he's done. But I would like to know who's going to take care of these fascists from the Left spending us into the ground and pissing on the Constitution.




RE: Oookay
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/12/2012 4:49:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The Tea Party will take care of Smith, he's done. But I would like to know who's going to take care of these fascists from the Left spending us into the ground and pissing on the Constitution.
You are going to take care of them, right? :)

But seriously, if you have anything juicy of "liberal pork" in the tech space, you have my email, send it my way. I'm personally not much of a fan of either party these days, so I'm more than happy to listen.


RE: Oookay
By Samus on 7/12/2012 5:44:44 PM , Rating: 3
Choosing a political party is like choosing a telecom company. All you can do is choose the lesser of evil's, and everybody has different experience with each of them so it's hard to get the facts on who is actually 'better' at serving their customers/citizens.


RE: Oookay
By TheRequiem on 7/12/2012 5:54:29 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, there is a 3rd option. Don't support either of them.


RE: Oookay
By knutjb on 7/13/2012 2:02:11 AM , Rating: 3
Or participate and affect legislation the way you want it.


RE: Oookay
By StevoLincolnite on 7/13/2012 2:35:17 AM , Rating: 3
I always vote for Penis.
But somehow an ass always gets into power. :(

Maybe no Penis's are in the Australian Government... Hmmm.


RE: Oookay
By Omega215D on 7/13/2012 9:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
It seems as if we're choosing between corporate control or welfare.


RE: Oookay
By ritualm on 7/12/2012 4:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
All those countless days of Tea Party and neo-conservative people accusing the Democrats of expanding the government, when their own kin - Republicans - are doing the exact same thing on an even larger scale.

Of course, when they do it it's marketed as moral righteousness...


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: Oookay
By WalksTheWalk on 7/12/2012 5:27:04 PM , Rating: 4
In this day and age here's how it works:

Republicans = Tax and spend trillions of dollars.

Democrats = Tax and spend as much as the Republicans, except add a trillion, give or take a few hundred billion.

Both spend like drunken sailors after winning the lottery. They are mostly all in the pockets of either huge corporations, organized labor, trial lawyers or other groups with millions of dollars to spend.


RE: Oookay
By ritualm on 7/12/2012 5:30:48 PM , Rating: 1
Republicans and conservative radio hosts/pundits have long accused Democrats of being fiscally irresponsible.

Yet, if you ignore the Obama presidency for a second and re-read your own nation's history of national finances, you can spot a pattern. Republicans, elected under the platform "Hello, I am a fiscally responsible conservative.", were the biggest offenders of the ballooning national debt.

Every. Republican. Administration. Going back to at least the 1900's.

Meanwhile, Democrats, long decried as "tax and spend liberals!", tried their best in reducing the national debt.

Republicans under the Bush Administration were the reason why there was rampant, unchecked electoral voting fraud at the state and national levels. The president of Diebold even claimed he can deliver winning districts to Republicans. Yeah, cry how big a bogeyman Democrat-led voting fraud is, then do absolutely nothing when Republicans themselves do it.

Closing DMV offices, deliberately changing voting days for majority-Democrat voters, voter intimidation, and all sorts of inexcusable cheating to prevent a Democrat from crossing the finish line.

Republicans, in a nutshell - all talk, no walk, except when the topic is reducing taxes for the top 1%.


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: Oookay
By retrospooty on 7/12/2012 5:59:36 PM , Rating: 1
What he is reffering to, prior to Obama and the current housing crisis that caused a major meltdown ofhte economy...

1. Reagan. Record deficits
2. Bush1. Record deficits (higher than Reagans)
3. Clinton. Managed to balance budget by end of term
4. Bush2. Record deficits.(higher than Reagan and Bush1's)

Don't bother to try and 'splain that away. these are facts.


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/2012 9:43:16 PM , Rating: 1
LOL so you're just leaving out the ENTIRE cause of the actual housing crisis? Brilliant Retro, just stunning.

And you repeat the favorite lie of the Left, the "balanced Clinton Budget". Which I've disproved too many times here to do it again. Clinton robbed Social Security with "I owe you's" and then pretended that wasn't actually debt. Plus national debt grew under Clinton, like every President, but you cannot have a "balanced budget" if you're spending more than you take in. Hello?

Retro you get a lot right, but when it comes to politics, you're out of your element.

quote:
1. Reagan. Record deficits


And record private sector growth, prosperity, and job creation. Numbers we haven't seen since. He also slashed inflation from Carters outrageous 10% to 3.5%!

Oh and I love that we're using a "prior to Obama" premise, how convenient. Let's just focus on the Republicans and ignore the 800 pound pink elephant in the room shall we.

quote:
Don't bother to try and 'splain that away. these are facts.


Obama and the Democrats have spent more than all of those Presidents combined, racked up larger deficits than all combined, and added more to the national debt then EVERY PRESIDENT combined before him. 'Splain that away, you ass.


RE: Oookay
By retrospooty on 7/12/2012 11:00:17 PM , Rating: 3
I am not out of my element on politics, not at all. I really think that you are and I really think you need to listen. You keep wanting to assert that the democrats are the problem and the republicans are the answer. You couldn't be more wrong. The problem is the democrats and the republicans. It's all of them if you just stand on 1 side and blame the other you'll never get anywhere. We as a country will never get anywhere as long as 1 half is fighting the other. It shouldn't be republicans versus democrats it seriously needs to be people verses all of these god damn politicians that have been selling us out for years... all of them do it both sides are full of shit and if you cant see that then you're full of shit. LOL


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2012 1:03:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You keep wanting to assert that the democrats are the problem and the republicans are the answer.


*sigh*

How many times must I say it? "Progressives" are the problem regardless of party. And yes, the Republican party has their share of them. But Democrats are simply choked full of them, especially at the highest levels, and the entire party has moved RADICALLY left.

So whatever, nice speech about how both are "the same". Moral relativism is a bullshit argument and you know it.


RE: Oookay
By retrospooty on 7/13/2012 8:17:50 AM , Rating: 2
"How many times must I say it? "Progressives" are the problem regardless of party. And yes, the Republican party has their share of them."

If you want to say that politicians spending our money to the point of criminal negligence, we can agree on that. IF you want to say it's "progressives" fine, whatever. But if we are talking about the USA, it IS a 2 party system and the 2 parties in power are the subject matter that the fact is that both of those parties are full of politicians that spending our money to the point of criminal negligence. WTF difference does it make to blame Bosh over Obama, or lament about what McCain could have done or Romney may do. They are are the friggin same and if you dont see that you are blind.


RE: Oookay
By Invane on 7/13/2012 12:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
You nailed that. What we have now are two corrupt parties that are both in the pockets of corporations and serve as little more than expensive sock puppets. Neither party is going to swoop in and save us from the other, because both are in bed with the same people.

Leaving the American public to fight it out over left or right or red or blue is just a nice convenient machine to allow them to feel like they're influencing something. They can focus their anger on the right hand or the left hand...but both are attached to the same guy behind the curtain.

At this point I will not be voting for any member of either party (with an exception for senator Wyden in my state as I actually like the guy thus far). The 'I have to vote for the lesser evil so the greater does not win' mentality will leave us right where we are for as long as we're willing to buy into it.


RE: Oookay
By retrospooty on 7/13/2012 1:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
" Neither party is going to swoop in and save us from the other, because both are in bed with the same people.
"


Exactly... As a country, we are "divided and conquered" by our own govt.


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2012 12:42:49 PM , Rating: 1
Again, moral relativism. It's just as weak today at it was last night.

We have a two party system. OH well, deal with it. Grow some balls, educate yourself, and pick a side that best represents your beliefs.

Is the Republican party perfect? God no. But at least with Republicans there is a CHANCE of getting Conservatives into office. When most Democrats think Obama is a "centrist", there is obviously NO chance of that happening with that party.

This is America, we've proven that the people CAN change the Government. We've just forgotten. If everyone thought like you, throwing your hands up in some pathetic apathetic "oh well everyone is the same", then how the f#ck is anything going to change?

"Parties" didn't get us to this point. WE got us to this point.


RE: Oookay
By retrospooty on 7/13/2012 1:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
"We have a two party system. OH well, deal with it. Grow some balls, educate yourself, and pick a side that best represents your beliefs."

Neither does... But at least I can see that both are robbing us blind . You are so far to the right you can't even comprehend what the middle looks like and cant take anything that happens politically with an open mind. I still am quite sure a liberal dropped you on your head when you were young causing great resentment ;)

"Is the Republican party perfect? God no. But at least with Republicans there is a CHANCE of getting Conservatives into office."

No, there isnt. They spend just as badly and are feeding the same masters.


"This is America, we've proven that the people CAN change the Government. We've just forgotten."


I totally agree with you there... But its not going to happen with 2 appx. equal sized sides blaming everything on the other side. It's going to take an awakening that it isnt the dems or the reps its Washington in general... You believe we can change it? Then WAKE UP!


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2012 2:51:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Neither does...


Well then stop posting because you have nothing to add apparently. I guess it's time for you to pack up and move to a country that has a better political system that better represents your beliefs. And doesn't rob you blind.

In other words, I hear Mars is nice this time of year :)

quote:
It's going to take an awakening that it isnt the dems or the reps its Washington in general... You believe we can change it? Then WAKE UP!


And you miss the target. It's not Washington, it's the American people. Washington, for the most part, reflects the views and wants of the electorate.

I can't fix a two party system, or change Washington, but I can sit here on my computer and tell people how fucking stupid and wrong they are. And I can vote better than 99.9% of the mouthbreathers out there. Hey, I'm doing my part.


RE: Oookay
By retrospooty on 7/13/2012 3:14:21 PM , Rating: 1
"I can't fix a two party system, or change Washington, but I can sit here on my computer and tell people how fucking stupid and wrong they are."

You and me both buddy ;)


RE: Oookay
By Samus on 7/12/2012 11:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
Clinton also had low unemployment and didn't destroy social services. However, it's highly plausable he (and Bush Jr) had a negative impact on education. No Child Left Behind was especially a disaster and basically fueled outsourcing because schools were so busy focusing on math and reading to continue getting government funding that vocational programs (woodshop/metalshop/autoshop/drafting/architecture/ advanced science) were torn apart.

My old highschool turned its woodshop into a storage room, drafting lab into detention, and autoshop into a parking garage.

Where are we going to get skilled American carpenters, CAD/CAM operators and mechanics from if they don't inspire kids before they get to college, IF they go to college?


RE: Oookay
By Solandri on 7/13/2012 12:37:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
1. Reagan. Record deficits
2. Bush1. Record deficits (higher than Reagans)
3. Clinton. Managed to balance budget by end of term
4. Bush2. Record deficits.(higher than Reagan and Bush1's)

Unfortunately, presidential administration isn't really a good metric to use. A budget is merely suggested by the President. Congress hashes over the nuts and bolts of it before sending it in one lump sum to the President.

e.g. The budget surplus during the tail end of Clinton's administration can largely be attributed to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress post-1994 insisting on budget austerity. Clinton, to his credit, played along. (The exact opposite happened in the 1980s - Reagan suggested huge deficit budgets, and the Democratic Congress played along.)

The tech bubble also played an integral part - spending during Clinton's administration was still above the historical average for revenue, it's just that tax revenue skyrocketed far above normal. As % of GDP, average spending during Bush2's 8 years is nearly the same as during Clinton's 8 years. It's just that revenue was way, way down during Bush's years (partly due to the tech bubble bursting, partly due to 9/11, partly due to his tax cuts).
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/busine...

Anyhow, if you compare deficits with party which controls all three branches involved in the budget - House, Senate, Presidency - there really isn't much of a pattern. Both parties seem hell-bent on getting away with whatever they can.
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2012 1:43:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A budget is merely suggested by the President. Congress hashes over the nuts and bolts of it before sending it in one lump sum to the President.


Oh Obama found a better way. Just don't actually submit one that has a hope in hell of passing, all while spending money to your hearts content. What are we on, year 3 without a budget now?


RE: Oookay
By knutjb on 7/13/2012 2:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What he is reffering to, prior to Obama and the current housing crisis that caused a major meltdown ofhte economy...

1. Reagan. Record deficits
2. Bush1. Record deficits (higher than Reagans)
3. Clinton. Managed to balance budget by end of term
4. Bush2. Record deficits.(higher than Reagan and Bush1's)

Don't bother to try and 'splain that away. these are facts.quote>

The problem is the fallacious manner in which you use "facts." Reagan negotiated a tax reduction and spending cuts. The later was never brought up in legislation by Tip O'neal. So yes there was record spending because of the record revenues from the tax cuts.

Bush1 was never a fiscal conservative and look where it got him. In the primary against Reagan in 1979, he labeled Reagan's plan for the economy as "voodoo economics." Bush1 was wrong on economics and a promise not to raise taxes.

Clinton was only successful because of his political survival skills and Gingrich's stubbornness, from his Promise with America, to cut spending.

Bush2, was distracted by 911 and war. Also, like his dad he isn't all that fiscally conservative.

What do the four above have, particularly Reagan who had a worse economy (stagflation) than Obama inherited, they all had functioning economies.

Obama has spent more than any other president period. Read about stagflation, the "luxury tax" and other wonderful government meddling. The more they regulate the worse they make it. Look at all Obama has regulated and the cost to the economy.

As for Smith, the legislation will go the way of the Dodo if people do what they did last time. But don't forget to look up the treaty Obama is negotiating on the internet with that bastion of fairness and sensibility, the UN. This bill can go away, treaties are forever...

Now what was that you said?

quote:
Don't bother to try and 'splain that away. these are facts


RE: Oookay
By Ringold on 7/13/2012 2:41:26 AM , Rating: 2
Knutjb, history and liberalism doesn't go together. :P

I wish I had it bookmarked, but someone on here actually said once something to the effect of "You know what the problem with you Republican's is, it's how you always bring up history." We apologize for the silly notion of using history as a guide?


RE: Oookay
By knutjb on 7/13/2012 2:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
History always has a very bad habit of repeating when ignored. Know your history. Those who don't want history known are the ones attempting to repeat it.

A quote for you:

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"

-- Winston Churchill

Churchill is correct, and Obama is repeating it.


RE: Oookay
By FITCamaro on 7/13/2012 7:56:07 AM , Rating: 4
Reagan's deficits had to do with the fact that he had Democrats in charge of the House and Senate at the time. He tried 3-4 times to slash the budget. He shut down the government multiple times to force them to reduce their spending. He wanted to eliminate the Department of Education so that STATES could decide what children learn rather than the far left organization that is the Department of Education now. His tax cuts spurred the things that were possible to get us to today. His spending on defense resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union which was a victory.

Bush 1 - still Democrats in charge. And sacrificed any chance at a second term by agreeing to raise taxes.

Clinton - 8 years of Republican oversight on the budget with a strong leader in the House for much of it under Newt Gingrich. Not to mention at a time of great technological innovation and growth spurred in large part by Reagan. He still managed to slash the military though (requiring Bush 2 to rebuild after being attacked on 9/11) and set us up for the Housing crisis by having Janet Reno threaten banks that if they didn't lend to minorities more, the government would revoke their FDIC insurance, putting them out of business. Don't act like Clinton had anything to do with what our deficits were. He was too busy getting his knob polished by a fat whore.

Bush 2 - Even bringing the wars into the budget, his deficits were relatively low year over year. His first term was marred by the aftershock of the Dotcom bust and 9/11 only further hurt the economy. His tax cuts helped ALL Americans, not just the rich. The poor the most since it eliminated the 10% bracket. But hey just ignore that. Personally I support keeping all the tax cuts except re-adding the 10% bracket since as Obama says, everyone needs some "skin in the game".

Obama didn't have to massively jack up our spending. He choose to. He could have let the economy correct itself. Would times have been tough? Yes. Instead we've gotten as much debt in 3 1/2 years as Bush gave us in 8. And a whole lot more unfunded liabilities to boot. Every projection of Obamacare continues to go up (originally ~$900 billion, now $2.6 trillion). Massive growth of the federal government payroll meaning more salaries, benefits, and pensions we can't afford now or in the long term. Fewer industries, more expensive energy going into the future if nothing changes, and government involvement or essentially complete ownership of the two largest sectors of the economy, health care and finance(If the government can tell you what you can sell, how much you can charge for it, and who you can or have to sell it to, how are they not running it again?).

Don't try to splain this away, these are facts.


RE: Oookay
By FITCamaro on 7/13/2012 8:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
And yes I will add, in Bush's first term, Republicans spent a lot. Far more than they should have. Not on the war. On domestic legislation such as crap like No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D(which massively ballooned the deficit due to its cost).

They've paid for that mistake. And I support the defeat of any Republican who is a RINO. But don't pretend that Democrats want to spend less than Republicans. Their attitude is that you can always tax more to pay for more. Carter's presidency proved that doesn't work.


RE: Oookay
By retrospooty on 7/13/2012 8:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
bah... both parties are full of shit and spend our $SS to the point of criminal negligence. The raps have had plenty of the power in the past 30 years and are feeding the same coffers.


RE: Oookay
By EnzoFX on 7/12/2012 6:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
Just like a Republican. Dismiss whatever doesn't expand your nonsense. He has it more right than a lot of comments on here. To say that there is symmetry right now between parties is retarded. The GOP-Hijacked Right wing is led by more extremists. But keep putting your head up your ass. Calling the moderate left fascists is infantile. The problem right wing nuts fail to see is that we've tried it their way for most of the last decade, and every-single-part of it has failed. Taxes couldn't be lower for the rich, government jobs are at an all time low, yet they scream at every instance of expanding either, because chanting that government is too big will eventually make it true. It defies reasoning to me how someone who can be a tech enthusiast and not see simple logic in the current fail system that is the Republican party.


RE: Oookay
By KCjoker on 7/12/2012 6:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
What you fail to acknowlege is that for a good part of Bush jr term the congress was controlled by the Dems so don't put our fiscal problems only on the R's. It's both sides...problem is the R's want to spend like crazy and the D's want to doubel that. Back when the economy was great was when Clinton was in office and the congress was controlled by the Repubs. Remember the famous phrase by Clinton "The era of big government is OVER".


RE: Oookay
By retrospooty on 7/12/2012 11:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
the democrats in congress for 2 of bush JR's 8 years... but I totally agree its all of them. that is exactly the point I was trying to make. you cant sit there and blame democrats or republicans because it's both of them


RE: Oookay
By Ringold on 7/13/2012 2:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
So you can call the far-right extremists, but calling the far-left fascists, that's infantile. So by extension, you're calling yourself infantile too. Got it. Thanks.

You know, at least in Europe, some countries have leftist parties that are honest. They'll outright admit what they are. Socialist Party of <Insert country here>. Communist Party. Green Party. Or, in Denmark I think it is, the latest honesty in terms of global political trends: The Red-Green Alliance, which is what Republican's have known all along; communism, environmentalism, same thing different decade.

quote:
government jobs are at an all time low, yet they scream at every instance of expanding either, because chanting that government is too big will eventually make it true.


quote:
It defies reasoning to me how someone who can be a tech enthusiast and not see simple logic


Got your data wrong. Tell you what, lefty. I'll take a return to Clinton-era tax rates if we return to Clinton-era levels of government spending as a percentage of GDP, how about that? Clinton left us at around 18%, Obama's got us around 25%. Sound fair to you? Tax the rich (and middle class) a little bit more, and in return, take a shotgun to 1/4 of the government which, in your strange mind, hasn't grown?


RE: Oookay
By nick2000 on 7/13/2012 2:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
You keep mixing them up. Communist=left and fascism=right
You could go talk to actual fascists and suggest that they have common cause with communists and that would be entertaining. (fascists are anti-unions...)


RE: Oookay
By Ringold on 7/13/2012 5:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
I was just referencing the OP


RE: Oookay
By ritualm on 7/12/2012 10:11:55 PM , Rating: 1
How about this one?

Too many Republicans claim to be honest, down-to-earth, pro-family-values politicians. And how many of them have found themselves under the spotlight for sucking dick at airports, whoring for guys on Craigslist, and having sex with female staffers? All the things that would find these guys banned from the church floor.

Even former House speaker Newt Gingrich committed adultery on his wife.

Keep it coming, kid.


RE: Oookay
By knutjb on 7/13/2012 2:44:58 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, Romney is lambasted by Pelosi and the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for having Swiss bank accounts. Funny they both have Swiss accounts too. Hypocrites?

Sadly the Democrats are expected to behave poorly and are rarely held accountable for their actions.


RE: Oookay
By thurston2 on 7/13/2012 12:21:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Your entire post is a lie, and I refuse to legitimize it with rebuttals.


Excellent debating skills.


RE: Oookay
By knutjb on 7/13/2012 2:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Meanwhile, Democrats, long decried as "tax and spend liberals!", tried their best in reducing the national debt.


When and whom?.... I'm waiting, but not holding my breath.

Woodrow Wilson 1912-1920 spent us into a depression. Coolidge and Harding cut the government by about 50% leading to the best economy the US ever experienced. Wilson Democrat, Coolidge and Harding Republicans.

I'm still waiting...


RE: Oookay
By icemansims on 7/12/2012 4:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is the acknowledgement that the left is for more social programs and for more government oversight. The Republican party is the one pushing this. More government control coming from them is news. More control from the left is business as usual.


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: Oookay
By ClownPuncher on 7/12/2012 7:20:39 PM , Rating: 4
I think the point is that this is tech news and Obamacare isn't.


RE: Oookay
By knutjb on 7/13/2012 2:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
How about the computerized, online medical records Obamacare mandates, or is that taxes?

Tech is every where.


RE: Oookay
By ClownPuncher on 7/13/2012 2:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, that would be an article.


RE: Oookay
By tigz1218 on 7/12/2012 5:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Hi Reclaimer,

First I would like to state I agree with you on many things. However, like in Jason's comment, this really isn't a party issue anymore. Both parties are spending our money and taking liberties away, just in different ways.

The reason I believe GOP gets more spotlight from Jason is because GOP spending is generally aimed towards military or technology which is related to this website. Democrat spending is usually social programs which is nt related to technology, the ones that do get reported on here are generally related to the EPA and Global Warming which Tiffany Kaiser and Brandon Hill generally cover.

I hope this clown is voted out, he is a disgrace to Texas and America. And as a side note Ron Paul is my favorite person in Washington.

Cheers,
John


RE: Oookay
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/12/2012 5:08:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The reason I believe GOP gets more spotlight from Jason is because GOP spending is generally aimed towards military or technology which is related to this website. Democrat spending is usually social programs which is nt related to technology, the ones that do get reported on here are generally related to the EPA and Global Warming which Tiffany Kaiser and Brandon Hill generally cover.
Yes, exactly.

A couple dem. critical pieces in the past:
http://www.dailytech.com/Impeachable+Offense+Obama...
http://www.dailytech.com/Solyndra+CEO+Resigns+Clip...

Sure I call out faux-conservatives taking practical bribes to push pork barrel projects. But am I supporting the Democrats? I suggested it might be impeachable for President Obama to take similar contributions and push ACTA through, essentially creating an international treaty without Congressional approval, an act that is unconstitutional in not one, but two ways.

I'm equal opportunity, and personally think there's a few good men and women on each side, accompanied by a whole bunch of free loaders who are perfectly happy to sell their souls and our freedoms for special interest dollars. Sadly the independent-minded folks are in the minority these days.
quote:
And as a side note Ron Paul is my favorite person in Washington
True, he would never vote to increase gov't spending like this.

Say what you will about him, but at least has morals and is consistent when it comes to spending, unlike 90+ percent of other folks in Congress on both sides of the aisle.


RE: Oookay
By tigz1218 on 7/12/2012 5:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
Jason can you remove my duplicate posts? I was having a network problem (AT&T surprise).


RE: Oookay
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/12/2012 5:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jason can you remove my duplicate posts? I was having a network problem (AT&T surprise).
Done! :)


RE: Oookay
By nick2000 on 7/12/2012 10:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
Technically, communists are on the left (they don't seem to exist in the US with Dennis Kucinich being maybe the closest thing) while fascists are on the right (pro-corporation Republicans typically although tea party people do not seem to belong to that group). Democrats tend to be cover center to center-right mostly leaving the extreme right to Republicans. Both sides are authoritarian in nature but that is a US trait which maybe the tea party should fight or the libertarians should counter.

Anyway, at least get your exagerations straight unless you meant these words as insults...


RE: Oookay
By Ringold on 7/13/2012 2:37:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Democrats tend to be cover center to center-right mostly leaving the extreme right to Republicans.


If you are talking about the Democrat party of the 1950s, you're absolutely right, they were a dead-center to slightly center-left party.

If you're talking about today, then, well, LOL. The party run by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can only be described as centrist if you take the goal post delineating the political center and toss it way to the left.

The proof is most obvious in the 70s and 80s, when many former Democrats registered themselves for the first time as Republicans, and in places like West Virginia that still register Democrat almost 3 to 1 or 3 to 2 'cause thats what grand-daddy was, but grand-daddy believed in personal responsibility, hard work and the death penalty, but they vote Republican because they see the Democrats expanding welfare, foodstamps and unemployment, and have barely concealed contempt for guns much less capital punishment.

And don't even compare the Democrat party to the countries founding political ideas. Democrats are pretty open about the whole "living constitution" notion they have. John Roberts can rule however he likes, no one with two neurons to rub together can intellectually believe that a federal mandate to do almost anything, asides from pay income taxes as provided by a constitutional amendment, is constitutional. They're so far to the left of the founding fathers as to be on another planet.


RE: Oookay
By Ringold on 7/13/2012 2:43:40 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and if the Dem's aren't moving left, then wtf happened to Joe Lieberman? It couldn't possibly be that he was a moderate and his party had left him behind in a mad dash to the left? No!

Give me a break. What's really sad is you managed to get out of some sort of higher education probably and still have that distorted a view of history.


RE: Oookay
By nick2000 on 7/13/2012 9:18:49 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, you are confusing some things. There are more than 2 dimensions but many people want to reduce it to left or right which really does not help. Of course, having a 2 parties system (as opposed to many) does not help because many views cannot be discussed. For an objective comparison of political positions, check out http://politicalcompass.org/ as this places politicians on a scale comparing countries and historical figures. It is a good idea to visit other systems once in a while to check that we are still better. (and no, the news don't do it for you. It is better to experience it) We could be drifting and never know it without landmarks aroung us!

Btw, neither party is better or worse at defending the constitution so that is really not an argument. Since you mentionned it, i am pretty certain that the founding fathers were taking a very dim view of corporations, having had to deal with the tea corporation... (that tea party was also a fight against corporation subsidies in a way...) Anyway, anybody can cherry pick what they like out of history while ignoring the rest, that way you can claim to have knowledge when others are ignorant, lol. Besides, parties are evolving things and the democrats or republicans of today are not the same as 100 years ago or more.


RE: Oookay
By Ringold on 7/13/2012 5:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Deal with the tea corporation? What? It was the taxes or duties on said tea that was the real problem and, if you know your history (obviously dont), you'd know that the British empire was chuck full of what we now call state-owned enterprises or government-sponsored enterprises. East India Company was the Fannie Mae GSE equivalent of it day, hardly a free market actor but rather a political extension of White Hall.

Hell, the empires GSE's pretty much helped staff the government; the GSE's took in the best and brightest, trained them in running the GSE's pseudo-empire (East India Company had a standing army!), then passed them on to the government-proper as needed.

Final point on the founding fathers and corporations: Again, if you knew your history AT ALL, you'd know a huge influence was Adam Smith (they had probably all read his Theory of Modern Sentiments, and most had probably read his seminal work by the time the constitution itself was written in 1788), David Hume and the other precursors of modern free-market capitalism or 'liberal' economic thought. The founding fathers were as libertarian and free-market as was philosophically possible at the time. So, you're wrong, Apple would probably awe them.

quote:
Besides, parties are evolving things and the democrats or republicans of today are not the same as 100 years ago or more.


You went in to full back-pedal mode there, I could almost hear Captain Picard going "Full reverse!" We're drifting politically? Political parties change? Obviously, but you're making it so fuzzy that your original comments are impossible to defend -- or attack, 'cause everybody can pick their own definitions in this fuzzy world of yours instead of sticking with the ones that have existed classically for centuries.


RE: Oookay
By nick2000 on 7/13/2012 8:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
I did not back-pedal but maybe you can stop insulting people for a second and actually understand what I am writing.

The East India Company got subsidies from the UK government in the form of tax-free access to the American market. Why? Because it was in trouble and was greasing the palms of many people. No, it was not government owned or even established.
It was more the other way around: the corporation owned the government.
And yes, the founding fathers were libertarian and obviously fighting a corporation.

As for parties changing, it simply means that the Civil rights act pretty much swapped the Democratic party with the Republican Party with much of the south going Republican and much of the north now going Democratic. Yes, racism has something to do with it but not only.
This is VERY relevant when people try to claim continuity.

That is my last point since you are not capable of writing without insulting people.


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2012 9:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
He's not insulting you. You're just wrong, that's all.

Anyone claiming any corporation ever owned a government is an idiot. I'm looking at you. And, oh yeah, THAT was an insult.


RE: Oookay
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2012 9:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
By the way a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. The classic stereotype of Republicans being the party of racists doesn't actually hold up to objective analysis.


RE: Oookay
By Ringold on 7/15/2012 5:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
My last post as well, since you'd rather rewrite history then accept defeat on a point. Insane to think the founding father were fighting a corporation; if you could back up their anti-capitalism with references you would. The Declaration wasn't sent to EIC or any company, but the royal crown.

As for back pedaling, yes it was, at warp speed. Now even more nonsense about continuity; I'm just sticking to definitions established during the Enlightenment and held to ever since in academia, god only knows what you're talking about since apparently it can change every day.

Further, every economist and historian I know personally understands the EIC was, for all intents and purposes, no different than Fannie Mae style GSE's in the US today or many Russian companies today; theoretically private owned, but state-controlled, staffed, financed and backed. The EIC even had a standing army for a while!

I get short and insulting with people that stick their head in the sand on history and facts while pretending to be the enlightened ones.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














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