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

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...


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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