Democrats May Promise Broadband for All 836
andyring writes "According to CNS News Service, the Democrat Party will have an agenda that guarantees every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years as part of their 2006 election year agenda, according to Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader. Absent, of course, are any details as to how they will accomplish it when they are the party out of power in Congress."
A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, the Republican Party says the Democrats' real agenda involves the censure and possible impeachment of President George W. Bush.
What an accusation! I thought the Democrats loved George W. Bush?!I don't want to start any political debates over this, but I admire the fact that Pelosi is trying to move away from that "John Kerry Democrat" (Republican) view and take a stand for what her party believes in.
While I think most (if not all) of this is just idealistic rant, I do respect the political distinction it is attempting to draw. Nancy Pelosi [wikipedia.org] is doing for the Democrats what Gee Dubya did for the Republicans: unifying and separating themselves from their opponents. This country has two parties for a reason, and they need to keep each other in check. People have different views so they should be given choices as to what party they will support to represent those views. I'm not gonna go in to how the bi-partisan system fails here (nothing is black and white, dammit!), but at least a line is being drawn.
The downside is that making promises that seem idealistic and impossible just to drum up support will usually come around and bite you in the ass... hence our president's 36% approval rating.
--
"Man Bites Dog
Then Bites Self"
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is to fool you into thinking you live in a democracy.
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:4, Funny)
Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said."
John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far."
Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."
-from gotfuturama.com
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:4, Insightful)
We have a system in the US with two parties huddled up in the middle and throwing the odd ideological scrap to one end or the other. This admittedly doesn't make for the kind of robust, nuanced, marketplace of ideas concept the framers envisioned, but it does have one important function in common with a truly democractic system. Given that you can't fool all of the people all of the time, if the government screws up long enough the people can and will throw the bums out and send in a fresh bums. Granted they only have one alternative, but it means the government can't ignore the anger of the people indefinitely.
Re:You have it all wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're an idiot. You don't have to choose a party. There's nothing about parties in the constitution. Shit, in his farewell address George Washington warned us not to fall into the trap of party politics.
Both parties are full of shit. It's time america realized it and found a real choice to make.
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really.
What we have in this country is the usual witches brew, a few of the ingredients being: fiscal conservatives/social liberals, religious social conservatives with leanings towards government paternalism, business types who tend libertarian except where there's money to be made, ultra-reactionary anarchists, ultra-leftists utopian anarchists, people who call themselves communists but are really socialists, people who call themsleves socialist but are really communists, people who will enthusiastically kiss the ass of anybody who wraps themselves in a flag, and people who will gladly put a match to the same.
You can't sell to a mess like that. So we have the time honored marketing technique of market segmentation and product positioning. You have "Red Brand", which encourages people to think of themselves as "conservatives", and "Blue Brand" that encourages people to think of themselves as "progressives". Since you only have two choices, you pretty much find yourself queueing up with people who, if you look at them carefully, aren't very much like you.
Re:You have it all wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
"better attitudes toward the US abroad"? I quote this twice because I disagree. Now, granted we've had 2 Democratic administrations (Clinton and Carter) and 5 Republican Administ
Re:You have it all wrong. (Score:3, Funny)
True. On the other hand, we didn't go invading Sweden either. I mean, hey, those guys look like Germans, kinda. Don't they?
Re:Time to rephrase.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because failure to provide these things would become "denying someone their Rights", right?
Re:Time to rephrase.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Under this proposal, she could get broadband if she wanted it. She probably doesn't want it, but she is selling her house and if a fa
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:5, Interesting)
We have no choices. There are only two parties, each of which has about 25% of a supportable platform, as far as I am concerned. What kind of a choice is that?
There seems to be an inverse relationship between importance and choice. I can select from literally hundreds of breakfast cereals, but only two presidential candidates? Where are the people who represent MY views?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm essentially kept out of being part of the solution, because I cannot agree with either of the two empowered sides who are *entirely* unable to create solutions for the problems we have.
Both major parties are full of incompetent boobs, but they are incompetent boobs who set all the rules for the rest of us. And this is self-reinforcing, because anyone who shows tendencies towards thoughtfulness or considered opinion these days is painted as indecisive, wishy-washy, or as a 'flip-flopper'. Imagine that: Someone who is capable of realizing they've made a mistake, someone who can change their mind to cope with new facts, realities or understanding, is attacked viciously by those who are so entrenched in their beliefs that they can never change.
The system is badly broken, and it's damned difficult to try and change it, either from within or without. That being said, I am trying to do my part. I must say: The form letters one gets back after contacting legislators tends to be very depressing. One is generally either thanked for supporting some position which one has never mentioned, or given a paragraph along the lines of 'thanks for your opinion, but mine won't change'.
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:3, Funny)
>
> sounds like capitulation to me.
Actually, that sounds more like precipitation to me. *tadabump*
Re:We need Proportional Representation (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_represen tation [wikipedia.org]
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I stand by my point. I've "thrown my vote away" numerous times voting for a "third party candidate", knowing each time that it was nothing more than an act of protest which would be drowned out by the bickering tribes of Reps and Dems.
And tribalism is precisely what we have here. What we see for the most part is not logical, reasoned positions but merely 'we vs. they'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't be selfish. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a very simple example, let's look at where the budget has gone under the Bush administration, assisted by a republican congress: Straight up into the stratosphere. Is that conservative in *any* way? I thought not.
Frankly, this is a false dichotomy when presented as it is in American politics. Financially I tend to agree with (TRUE) conservative principals: Let people take care of their own money, charge as little as possible, and don't let the government interfere any more than is necessary. Socially, I tend to agree more with the liberal side of things as presented, and I'm a great believer in people having the freedom to do pretty much what they want as long as they don't cross a line to hurting others.
So I reject your assertion that I must choose from 'conservative/liberal', translate that into 'republican/democrat' and vote against my conscience a big chunk of the time.
When did these become "Conservative" principles? (Score:3, Insightful)
These are Liberal principles. All those Liberals who designed the Constitution and wrote the Federalist Papers pretty much said the same thing. The only real difference between "Conservatives" and "Liberals" in the modern US political environment is disagreement on what government interference is necessary.
T
Libertarian (Score:3, Informative)
-limited government
-free markets
-personal freedom
-individual responsibility
According to your post you are a libertarian (lower case "L").
Don't believe me?
Take this test and find out:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html [theadvocates.org]
Re:Don't be selfish. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't be selfish. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is only remotely true if by "platform" you mean "the lies they tell idiots who are apparently incapable of telling the difference between what people say and what they do to convince them to keep voting against their own best interests.
The actual Republican platform meaning what they actually do stand for is pure Fascism, extreme authoratarianism and utter blind rabid hatred of "Liberals" by which they
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:4, Informative)
Impeached != Removed from office.
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:3, Interesting)
George Washington must have been a prophet, and must be reeling now:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong Wrong Wrong
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean it couldn't be free like amateur radio? You buy your equipment and you're online? All we need is a good chunk of the useful spectrum and a decent mesh protocol [wikipedia.org] and we could, in theory, have a completely wireless Internet.
Of course the current wireless carries would lobby with everything they could to prevent it, but is it possible?
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:3, Interesting)
Would you also to pay tolls for every road that you use?
How about paying a tax every time you cross state lines on each good that you purchase?
How about paying into a private militia to protect you and your family from rival factions?
You like to be in charge of collecting and purifying your own drinking water?
What will happen is that my tax dollars will be used for that and that my friend is just wrong.
What has ha
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:5, Insightful)
But I don't think that my tax dollars should be going to my neighbor's teenage son so that he can surf for pr0n. That is not a necessity. Besides, there is already "free-internet" at libraries, schools, social centers, retail stores, etc.
Plus, whenever you get the government involved, it ads layers of bureaucracy, complexity, censorship, and inflated cost. Not to mention the potential loss of privacy and liberty.
No thanks; I don't want any government anywhere near my connection.
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that my tax dollars should be subsidizing spreading this newfangled telephone service out to the desert so some housewife in B*mf*ck Nevada can gab all day to her neighbors.
Wait, you say the benefits to the nation as a whole might outweigh the misuses?
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:3, Insightful)
You said it. The high quality, low price, and unversal access of health care in the U.S. is due to the lack of government interference. Let's keep it that way.
Getting real: Prior to the corporate boondoggle prescription drug "benefit," the "inflated cost" due to the "bureaucracy" of Medicare was about 1/20th of the "low cost"
Re:Your tax dollars will be used regardless (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, your tax dollars are funding things from road construction, to educating children, to feeding lazy welfare persons, to corporate CEO's free lunch with a government contract, to a bridge to no where in some other state than yours, finding the cure for cancer, to a million dollar missle landing in a families home in the middle east, to sending a man to
Your tax dollars already paid for the internet! (Score:3, Interesting)
Your tax dollars already paid for the internet. They paid for its developement and continue to pay for the high-level infrastructure. Unfortunately, a bunch of monopolies (and duopolies) control the last few miles from the backbone to your house. How would you like it if there was a 'free' 12-lane interstate highway out there that your tax dollars paid for, but some local cartel charges you $50 per month to dr
Re:The Democrats have no vision. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been asking for some time for Dems to come up with something more coherent. I may not support it, but at least I can consider the ideas and debate the pros and cons. I don't buy into socialized medicine, but if they have ways of narrowing the insurance gap,
Re:The Democrats have no vision. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the problem that I have is that he is ruining our long term goals.
Don't get me wrong... I voted for Bush in 2000 and abstained in the 2004 electio
Re:A Chicken in Every Pot (Score:5, Funny)
Cheer up -- with Bush, you can have both!
Re:Pelosi Railroaded Cynthia McKinney (Score:3, Informative)
The only fair tax is a flat tax on UTILITY of income - which translates into a growing % of income as income grows. (Math at
Pot, Kettle ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, that has not stopped the party currently in power from jumping into things where they had no plan either.
Re:Pot, Kettle ..... (Score:2)
At best they could set aside the funding and make a program, it seems to me...but that would be a huge step forward, so I'm not going to naysay this effort.
Re:Pot, Kettle ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Easily win the war
2) Iraqi's rejoyce and love the USA!
3) Privatize all of Iraqs businesses - have American companies buy them up
4) Iraqis can buy stuff from the now American companies
5) Send Iraq a big bill for the war
6) Net transfer of wealth from Iraqi oil -> USA
7) Profit!
Unfortunately the plan didn't quite work out...
Re:Pot, Kettle ..... (Score:5, Interesting)
To exhume the corpse of an old political metaphor, it's more like building an interstate highway system. While there may be some issues of scaling, and challenging issues of security and regulation, the technology exists today and is mature. There are probably thousands if not tens of thousands of engineers in the country who could sketch out a workable outline for how to do it, and if we lookd at those outlines they'd probably boil down to no more than handful of similar designs. In fact, if anything the job is technologically easier, since highways have to deal with unique geographic obstacles along every mile.
The only thing you need to do this is money, and while in the grand scheme of federal spending it'd be a major project, it would not be anything like the actual highway spending.
The reason it will never happen is the very same reason that we don't have single payer health insurance. There are companies that are making money today under the status quo. These companies will open their checkbooks and fight this to their last penny, because a Federal program along the lines of the Eisenhower Interstate System would be tantamount to a bill of attainder. So, what will happen is they politicians will try to create a complicated system that works around the concerns of these companies, resulting in something that is nearly incomprehensible and probably unworkable. In other words the network equivalent of the Clinton health plan.
And even then, the companies won't like it. The only difference is that politically speaking, it will be like demolishing a house of cards with a squib.
Re:Pot, Kettle ..... (Score:3, Funny)
If that's all it takes, then you must be rather morose. What makes me sad is all the people who know it's propaganda but can't think of anything better to do than muddle along as if it were true.
Maybe it's just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
oh well, I guess there is always WebMD.
Re:Maybe it's just me... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:5, Funny)
Thank God we have unbiased sources like the Heritage Foundation [sourcewatch.org] to warn us of the looming threat from the army of bionic poor people!
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice numbers, but I question the optimism here.
I'm single and make more money than the median or average household in my area, I don't remember which stat it is.
I own a home, but cannot afford it anymore. No, I have not lost my job or got a paycut.
No one in my area who makes an average household income owns a house that I know of.
Microwaves and VCRs are practically free. Microwaves are cheaper to operate than an oven.
Back in 1995 my parents bought a very nice home for $250,000 and they are far from poor. I have no idea how a poor person can own a $300k house, unless it is something that is very old and rundown and its the property that is now worth that much, but they probably can't afford the taxes on it.
You can get a car for $1000 or so. Public transportation is almost nonexistent in most of the US. I took a cab the other day and it was $24 for one way that was not that far from my house. At $12/day inclusive, that is $360/month, so a $1000 car seems like a better deal to me.
Now, the overweight thing is not a good thing. Its because they eat poor people's food like McDonalds and other fried crap, and its not nutritious, nor are they healthy. In fact, these types of overweight people will be likely to have a number of health issues.
Later in the article is says, "The Census Bureau counts as poor any household with cash income that is less than the official poverty threshold--which, in 1997, was $16,404 for a family of four."
I don't see how a family of four can get overweight and have a $300k home with a car and things.
But then again, I don't see how a family of four, I would assume that at least 2 could work, so thats $8k/yr, or $666/mo, or $166/week that each of the two has to make to get that. Unless your disabled, I don't see how someone can work fulltime and not make more than that. I know plenty of people that do not work fulltime, and are not "poor".
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
In case you don't trust the Heritage Foundation (Score:3, Informative)
Oh wait, I remember now how to deal with professional trolling organizations...
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:5, Insightful)
of course, the bathroom typically has a soft floor and no sewage or hot water, at least two of the bedrooms are less than fifty square feet, there's a whole in a corner of one and a leak in another, no insulation in most or all rooms... you get the idea. of course, all these places have a porch, three bedrooms, whatever, so they must not be "truly" poor, right? bite me.
i've done plenty of inner-city missions work, too, although not nearly as extensive. you want me to give you a tour of west philadelphia some time? oakland? brooklyn, around where my father grew up? DC? let me take you for a walk around some of the neighborhoods where even the sort of poverty you don't think is "true" poverty is a pipe dream.
i've heard the argument that there's no "true" poverty in this country before. it continues to just make me angry, and demonstrate the profound, saddening ignorance of the speaker. poverty in America is not hard to find; hell, if you live in the right places, it's hard to avoid. are there interesting questions about how we define and deal with poverty? are there problems with our classifications and definitions? is our understanding of the situation less-than-perfect? of course. but you conclusion that there's "almost no true poverty in the US" is ludicrous, stupid, offensive, ignorant, blind, and downright incorrect.
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:4, Insightful)
But struggling to get your car working or to pay your bills or to patch your house is very very different from struggling to:
a) Evade the rebel army that lurks all over your country (see Sudan)
b) Eat - most "truly" poor people have a very hard time finding food for themselves and their family. See many parts of Africa.
c) Shelter yourself. I am quite certain that ANYONE who is hanging in one of the refugee camps would gladly trade their tent for the 3BR shack you describe in your post.
I am not saying there aren't some of those folks here in the US. I am sure there are. In fact, I've spent some time down in the Valley -- near the TX/Mexico border and even there, the standard of living for the "poor" is WAY above the standard of living of the "poor" in the rest of the world.
I think that is the point the GP was making. That being "poor" here in America is arguably better than being "poor" somewhere else in the world.
(sidenote: this discussion reminds me of a Sam Kinison comedy routine -- "the rest of the world dreams of being homeless in America. The homeless here eat better than 1/3 of the worlds population - and that's just from the dumpsters")
So what? So. What. (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition, the concept of "poor" makes no sense without a context. In the context of the United States, poor means poor nutrition, poor health care, poor living conditions, and poor education. Yes, if you compare to say Darfur, where poor means no nutrition, no health care, no living conditions, and no education, that's not bad. But is "slightly better than Darfur" really your ideal standard for American citizens??
Of course the Heritage Foundation like most conservative think-tanks (and you apparently) utterly misses the irony of using statements like this to attack social programs:
Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
In fact, numerous government reports indicate that most "poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more personal property than average Americans throughout most of this century. (from your link)
Geez, I wonder why the poor are so much better off now than they used to be?? Oh well, let's get rid of all these social programs since they don't seem to have any positive effect on the nation...
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was in a similar situation as described above (without the fast food, the fatness, the TV or the air conditioner) I was pretty happy with where I was. However, I haven't been taught to whine about being poor and vote democrat. I was tought to to side with whomever had more guns. When you have notthing, then you understand poverty.
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is not poverty. A few years ago, my sister moved to Mexico City with her Mexican husband. His family is very poor. He, my sister, and his whole family lived in a small three bedroom house (it became three bedrooms, because he built a make-shift structure on the roof for my sister's room). They had hardly any money, and job that paid very little. They had no TV or air conditioner, and they considered themselves fortunate to have an oven. When talking about lifestyles and cutting back on spending (in my American view), she talked about how they made it (they are doing much better now in Puerto Vallarta). Breakfast, lunch, and dinner consisted of tortillas with eggs... until the end of the week when they could not afford eggs so they just ate tortillas.
The example you raise is very American-centric. There are many people who would be happy to have a job -- any job -- in this world. They would be thrilled to have even one square meal every day -- let alone McDonald's hamburgers with a soda pop. Most Americans do not have to worry about whether their water is sanitary, and even this is related more to environment pollution in specific areas rather than lack of money. The poor here in America also have far more options for employment than most people in the world. You can almost always get a job at McDonald's, if nothing else, and it has options for advancement that can even lead eventually to owning your own store. Compare this to the future offered to the street kids of Bangladesh.
I do not want to be calloused to America's "poor". Even with their relative wealth compared to the rest of the world, it would take sacrifices that I am not sure I could make at this point to live at their standard of living. There is no doubt that their lives can be far more difficult than my own. We should reach out and help the poor in our country when we can. But let us keep it in perspective here. There is a reason why Mexicans are pooring illegally into our country. The poor here are far better off than they are in Mexico, and Mexico is even better off than many other third-world countries.
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:5, Insightful)
What burns me about people saying the government should provide this, the government should provide that ... is what you don't realize is that what the government provides has to come FROM someone. So you're basically saying that someone who made bad choices is entitled to the labor of someone who didn't. That pisses me off.
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whaaa? I don't think that the GP was talking about taking lazy poor people and puting them up in mansions; i think he was talking more about making sure that people dont sleep on the streets at night
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:3, Insightful)
Proper social policy needs to meet these two aspects of reality in the middle, balancing choice with a safety net for the things we can't make choices over. National healthcare has been demonstrated to work beautifu
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:4, Insightful)
If any decision you made in life would be compensated for by the government, and thus lead to a comfortable living ... why would anyone work at all? What would be the incentive to do your best let alone anything at all?
You're making an incorrect, implicit assumption. That is, that working hard and making good choices leads to success and rewards. For the most part, this is just not true. The number one predictor as to how "successful" a person will be is how much money their parents have. The majority of the wealth and resources in this country are not allocated to those who work hard, those who are particularly smart, or those who come up with innovative ideas. The majority of the wealth is allocated to those who inherited wealth and contacts from their parents and "let their money work for them" to make more money. Basically regardless of how hard the average person works, they will gather relatively smaller and smaller shares of the total wealth in the country as it concentrates into fewer and fewer hands. 5% of the population already controls more than half of it and they are controlling more every year, not because they are hard workers, but because it takes money to make money and if you have money you can use the power it brings to insure that the laws favor you.
I'm all for a fair system where hard work is rewarded with a representative share of the country's resources, but socialist policies in the US are not preventing that, rather they are encouraging that. They are also maintaining a slightly more even balance that amounts to bread and circuses that keeps the population from revolting and overthrowing that 5% who just happens to make up most of the government officials.
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but only for jobs that payed more than the government subsidies.
Suppose the government provided everyone in the United States with all the vitamin fortified rice and beans they wanted and a free ten foot by ten foot apartment with a shared bathroom and kitchen at the end of the hall. Would someone working 14 hour days at WalMart for minimum wage just to have enough to eat and a place live continue to work? Maybe not. Would a CEO making 20 million dollars continue to work? Absolutely. Would a technical professional making 60 thousand a year continue to work? Probably.
Goverment subsidies don't make everyone give up their jobs - just the people with the very low paying jobs.
Re:The truth about "poverty" in the US. (Score:3, Insightful)
From the GP:
Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.
Note that of 36.5 million "poor", these are 2% and 0.5% respectively. They don't use percentages (like in the other factoids) because it doesn't sound as impressive, and this is a nice example of how what numbers you choose to display can convey a misleading impression without
Re:Maybe it's just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
The unfortunate truth is that health care is extremely expensive. If it becomes more affordable for you, then it becomes more expensive for someone else. Somewhere, someone has to pay for it.
If you'd prefer all the cost was put on those more wealthy individuals in the country so that the less wealthy can get free health care, then just go ahead and say that.
Although there are things that can be done to lower the costs somewhat, for instance the Democrat party could stop blocking all attempts to put caps on medical malpractice lawsuits that force doctors and drug companies to spend a significant portion of their revenue on insurance. Don't you think a cap at say, 20 million, would be reasonable for a person filing suit against a doctor? And that of course doesn't include any payment for actual damages.
And on the other hand, Republicans could stop trying to reduce competition for our American drug companies, so that they would be forced to try to keep costs down.
Neither of those things will make your health care affordable though, the only way it will be affordable is if you tax wealthy Americans more and use their money to pay for it. Which to me, just seems a bit too socialist.
Re:Maybe it's just me... (Score:5, Informative)
I hate it when just because you want to tax those who have more that you're "socialist". It's stupid poo-flinging arguments like that which've made it so that 45 million Americans are uninsured. Let me quote myself in a post I made earlier on
Just look at the Toyota plant in Ontario [harpers.org] [harpers.org]; The company turned down hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies in the United States because, when compared to Canadians, U.S. workers are too hard to train, often illiterate, and expensive to insure. Also according to General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. the American car manufacturers are losing [washingtonpost.com] [washingtonpost.com] their ability to compete in the global marketplace in large measure because of the crushing burden of health care costs.
The US is the only industrial country without a national healthcare system. We're the most dissatisfied [umaine.edu] [umaine.edu] out of the top ten. Pay almost twice as much [newsbatch.com] [newsbatch.com] as number two. Yet still 45 millions are uninsured [census.gov] [census.gov].
You're saying to me that it's not in the best interest of the rich to have insured Americans? As Adam Smith said; it's justified to take from the rich as it's them who benefit the most from the smooth functioning of the state.
Re:Maybe it's just me... (Score:3, Insightful)
are the problem with health care costs in the U.S. ? The vast majority [offthekuff.com]
of malpractice cases are due to a few bad doctors. This is why we HAVE laws about
malpractice. PLEASE let this asinine meme die.
Re:It's not just you... (Score:3, Insightful)
Business-based health care: This would increase offshoring and eliminate low-paid jobs since businesses tend to do things in the most economical way.
Single payer: eliminating insurance companies and paperwork is estimated to halve the cost of health care.
Also, giv
Seems reasonable ... (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't think being in power would change anythin (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is such a good thing as a "good politician" they are so far removed from me as to make no practical difference.
Yes ofcourse (Score:2)
Gore Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gore Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about regulation of all kinds is that although it makes business difficult and slows growth, the established corporations love it; it makes breaking into the market almost impossible for new competitors. What's more, the combination of regulation, taxes, and subsidies freezes business models for established companies and keeps the market from being able to adapt.
Re:Gore Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
You are on the right track. Be very wary of this. How do they plan to fund this? Tax breaks? Subsidies? What happens when the DoJ wants information from an ISP? Do they have the threat of losing "funding"? Letting the government take money from us in the form of taxes, and give it to the ISPS is incredibly ineffecient and also it puts the government in the loop.. which means they can start demanding things and regulating things if ISPs want their cut. This could, very easily, be the conduit through which the internet could be controlled.
The plan is complete vaporware, for now, but just be really really really wary.
Re:Gore Tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not.
I'm looking at my phone bill now:
Taxes - $13.79
Service - $14.00
And if I had the luxury of call waiting, long distance, or other things, it would be more on both categories.
So, sure tax it more so that poor people can use the internet with their free computer that I will have to buy them next.
Promises and Fulfillment (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple. They completely ignore the promise if elected, then blame partisan politics for the promise never bearing fruit. It's the same thing done when there's a majority in Congress, after all.
Re:Promises and Fulfillment (Score:5, Interesting)
$80.00 a month broadband is to them "affordable" Hell they blow that much a day on lunch. They need to keep their hands out of the whole thing and let the market fist fight it out.
Comcast here is $60.00 a month for their lowest speed and $85.00 a month for their highest speed. Verizon is offering DSL for $14.99 a month and up to $49.99 a month. and yes these are normal prices not "special" prices. the 1.5M 384K DSL is absolutely perfect for most anyone. Hell I run 3 VOIP lines over one with far less problems than the Pro level Comcast Cable modem and honestly can not see or "feel" the difference between the two when surfing the web... the one thing that 90% of all users only do on their internet. Places like slashdot are no faster over a pair of load balancing DS3's with a crapload of bandwidth or a low end DSL connection. This is what users see.
The market will fight it out. when Comcast starts losing customers to DSL they will lower prices, it will all settle down to a price that makes companies a modest profit, costs very little to buyers and makes everyone pretty much happy.
Comcast right now makes obscene amounts of profit off of their Cable modem service, and they are reluctiant to give up that cash cow.
Here comes tiered internet (Score:4, Insightful)
How to accomplish it (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Claim the success of the market as your own.
3. Profit!
And if 1 never happens, just blame it on Bush.
Repeat after me (Score:4, Informative)
And don't forget... (Score:4, Informative)
Broadband for all? I think not.
Please, not four more years of the elephant (Score:5, Insightful)
With all of the things that could be done to make this country better, universal broadband isn't really what I think is going to bring the Democrats back into the majority . I'm just ashamed to even be registered as a democrat if this is what their big plans are.
How about limiting corporate control of the law making process? How about dropping our spending under two trillion dollar a year. HOW ABOUT PAYING DOWN THE 7 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT. How about opening up the federal healthcare group to all US citizens or permanent residents.
Don't get me wrong, broadband is a wonderful thing - but universal broadband isn't really a "hot-button" issue for Joe and Jane America.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
So here's a hearty cheer for "Stay the FUCK away from our broadband!", you god damned government assholes
If they do it... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. They pass the bill for the program with about 50 riders on it. Result: Plans for broadband Internet start and vendors in the districts of the senior politicians that proposed and passed this bill get no-bid contracts for networking equipment, which they sell for 10x the market rate. Also, somebody gets a statue, a fish pond, and a bridge to nowhere in their district.
2. The funding bill for the Intrenet program gets passed, but this time with 100 riders. The *AAs get a rider that mandates TCPA, HDCP, and whatnot because their lobbyists had to be bought off so that the funding could pass and make the incumbent party look good for getting it passed. Oh, and there are still many "regular" $1000 toilet seat pork-barrel deals in this bill too.
3. The telecom companies sue the government for billions for unfair competition. The project is tied up for five years while this happens and a bunch of lawyers get rich. The outcome is that the tiered Internet proposal by B(ell)S(outh) is allowed in exchange for the public broadband. The public broadband is also limited to 256K by the settlement as to not compete directly with BS and the other monopoly data providers.
4. The project gets completed ten years late at ten times the original cost. Most of us are on 20Mbps+ fiber at that time and few use the public 256K broadband. The project still gets hundreds of millions in funding every year even though it is almost never used.
"free" broadband? (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
CNS News not credible (Score:5, Insightful)
And there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party". That should have been your tip-off.
*Very* disappointed in Slashdot editors today.
How can this help put a chicken in every pot? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not trolling, only being realistic here. Our firm fixes Joe Public's computers. The first thing that happens when the average everyday PC user hooks up to broadband is his/her introduction to the bigger pipeline of viruses/malware/spyware. They bring in their machine to be de-flea'd to the tune of $200 bucks or so.
I would like to see what Ms. Pelosi has in mind as a cost/benefits in her "broadband for all" proposal. There are other things Americans need much more than a faster way to download music and porn :P
Americans need fiscally responsible government, this "shiny penny" is just that, a shiny penny.
Do we really want this? (Score:4, Insightful)
While everybody likes something for nothing, I think that this is a bad idea for a couple of reasons:
The government isn't the solution to everything and I think that this is one of the things that the government should say out of.
On the one hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I'm not really a fan of the government providing this access. Privacy issues, spending issues, quality of service issues, market issues (if the service is free and "not quite absolute shit" it's going to really damage the ISP market - and, hell, we'll be paying *anyway* just via taxes instead of a monthly bill) - lots of problems with it.
What I would rather see the Democrats focus on are the following:
1) Feeding, clothing and sheltering the absurd number of children in this country who are living below the poverty level.
2) Providing free preventative and maintenance health-care for all.
3) Beginning the process of repairing our image abroad.
4) (Ironically) Curbing spending/fiscal responsibility - digging us out from under the mountain of debt.
5) Stabalizing the Iraq situation and getting us the hell out of there.
6) Overhauling DHS so that it's actually, you know, secure. And not just in IT, but in ways that actually matter. We're *less* secure than we were pre-9/11, and it's mainly because it seems that everyone who's "responsible" *thinks* we're secure and is pulling a "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!" when anyone mentions the glaring holes.
Actually, I don't care if it's the Dems or the Repubs - I just want those things (among others I no doubt missed) addressed. I'll vote for the person I think is most likely to have a real plan for addressing those issues. Unfortunately, it'll probably be some "fringe" candidate who's not got a hope in hell of ever being elected dog catcher, let alone president.
Federal Guarantees (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at Federal guarantees that we received in the past:
1. The guarantee that no old person who is unable to work will be able to live at a bare means level (Social Security). Now all of us pay 15% or so of our salaries to pay for our retired parents who had every chance to save their own money.
2. The guarantee that no child will go to school without lunch. Now everyone, even the wealthy, qualify for subpar school lunch programs that do nothing but fatten the children up, cause them to carb-crash after lunch, and pander to the large food farming cartels that backdoor sponsor the law's expansion.
3. The guarantee that no child will be left behind. Every child is now brought down to the level of the child least able to learn. Instead of promoting the brightest, we're just equalizing everyone out so everyone can get a C. A C grade is enough to say they need more money, but not bad enough to complain about.
4. The guarantee that college tuitions will be available to those who need them. This caused an excess amount of money to enter the college system -- more money within any limited supply market means that all money is worth less, so prices will go up.
5. The guarantee that all employees have an opportunity to have managed health care. If you take 19 friends to dinner and ask everyone to pay themselves, they'll generally buy burgers. If you agree to all pay an equal share of the bill, some will buy steaks. In the long run, everyone eats steak, except in our situation the steaks are paid for by our children as the group needs to borrow against future wealth to pay for steaks on a burger budget.
6. The guarantee that medicines and drugs will be safe. Instead of supporting medical safety research alone, the FDA has become a complete pawn of the drug companies used to keep new drugs out at high cost to the citizen base. Rather than rely on your doctor's advise for what is best for you, we have to wait for bureaucrats to accept a drug as safe. Even worse, many drugs are released for political reasons that end up not being safe, but still pad the pockets of those who made them.
I have no desire for the Federal government to keep expanding way beyond what they're allowed to. Broadband and communications has NO allocation in the Constitution -- none at all. The Interstate Commerce Clause was written specifically to use the power of Federal government to PREVENT individual states from harming open and free trade. The Welfare clause was written to give people the chance for equal opportunity by preventing governments from harming their ability to provide for themselves.
The Democrats are going to tax me well more than I already pay for broadband so that we can all have it. I already provide a few of my neighbors with free WiFi (and charges others who can afford it). I support 6 families in my church who homeschool by paying for their broadband. I don't need your help, and I don't want to help you if I don't know you and I can't hold you accountable for your actions with my money..
This is the message they've spent years on? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. No tax subsidies to companies which outsource overseas. -- IMO, we ought to do away with all subsidies, period. It is not the governments responsibility to manipulate the free market when it behaves is ways which do not equal votes.
2. Protect "the right of americans to organize", and the "Employee Free Choice Act" -- In other words, they support legalized blackmail as long as you're paying union dues. The "Act" they have drafted would allow employees to force a union on an employer. I wonder if this would make it illegal to fire someone for their participation in a union strike. How about the "free choice" to go get another job if you don't like your current one? After all, Delta Airlines is so grateful for their wonderful union. Remember Eastern Airlines?
3. "universal broadband" -- and when did it become the responsibility of the governement to make sure we all had broadband? I'd rather the government keep from touching the internet any more than it already has. If this happened, how long until the government demagogues its way into monitoring those "guaranteed" connections? What if you don't have a computer? Does this mean that we have to have "universal computers" also?
4. "energy independence" in 5 years -- How? Government regulation? Opening up ANWR to drilling? Oh, wait, Dems won't do that, as caribou might be offended by the sight of a drilling rig. What does that leave? Solar--too inefficient; Hydrogen--unproven tech(BOOM!)and/or too expensive; hybrid cars--anyone ever replaced one of the batteries in these things (estimated costs are between $2000 for a Toyota and up to $6000 for some hondas)? My father has owned an Insight for some years now, and has repeatedly tried to get Honda to give him an official price on a battery replacement, to no avail.
5. Socialized health care -- I can't wait to get in line for 6 months for an MRI. Will we pass out government health insurance cards at the Mexican border? How about deregulating health insurance so that we can buy it from whoever we want instead of being force-fed whatever our company can afford? Ever have a problem getting auto insurance?
6. "Real security" -- Apparently, to Ms. Pelosi this means inspecting 100% of the containers coming into our ports. I'm sure that would be very effective in stopping morons from getting a WMD into our country. I doubt it would be as effective against someone striding brazenly across our ridiculously porous borders.
To sum up: socialism, government regulation, increased bureaucracy, and economic protectionism. Someone please tell me exactly which of these things has historically proven to be successful?
In India... (Score:5, Informative)
...one of the promises of the present government was that it would make broadband affordable.
What happened was pretty decent, for a government programme. 256 kbps broadband was rolled out in all the larger cities, at Rs. 500 (USD 10) per month - however, there was a rider - a 1 GiB transfer limit.
This scheme, however, was sufficient to start a major price war, and broadband prices have been steadily falling, upto the point where it's now being pushed way more heavily than dial-up.
The problems:
However,
Whether it was the best idea, whether it helped starving people...those are all debatable points. But surely, it is hardly an incredibly expensive project, which will kill off the American economy?
Even if the government doesn't offer fiber-connections to the rest of America, 256k broadband is perfectly capable of accessing Wikipedia, joining and taking part in mailing groups...there will be a section of the society whom it will help.
Cheers,
Rahul.
50% (Score:3, Insightful)
50%. This is the FIRST TIME in history that the opposition party has hit 50%.
50%. This is such a staggering number that even the Republican leadership will admit that, if the election were held today, that the Democrats would retake control of both houses of Congress. Six years of Republican stonewalling into dozens -- hundreds -- of critical issues will be broken. There will be blood on the walls --- already there are reputable claims that the Abhramcoff(sp?) scandal will take down dozens of Republican (and only Republican members of congress. Not "forced to resigned" either -- the former Representative Cunningham won't be alone in federal prison for corruption.
I don't want to turn this into a political thread -- go to Daily Kos is that -- but the "so what, they're out of power" argument ends on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The country is pissed off.
(P.S., did I mention that Nixon was more popular before his resignation than Bush is today?)
BTW, answering the point upstream -- the Democrats ensure affordable broadband to at least half of the population by passing a single law that costs no money. "No state, or subdivision within, shall pass any law restricting the ability of any government entity from offering municipal broadband service if it so chooses." Some cities are seriously considering offering citywide WiFi as a municipal utility, same as they offer water, sewer, trash collection, even power and natural gas. Yet the state legislature may pass a law saying that only for-profit entities can offer such service. Huh? Nobody is saying that people _must_ choose municipal WiFi, just that it should be an option on the table, esp. for people in areas where the commercial providers do not or cannot offer service.
Remember the rural electrification and commun... (Score:3, Insightful)
For the most part, this was a very good thing. At the time, the telcos were loathe to spend the bucks to run lines to anywhere but where lots of people lived... there were massive numbers of people who did not have access to telephones. Lots of good stuff happens for rural communities...
Fast forward to today... The government is still paying subsidies to the telcos for the rural telecommunications act... even though the telcos aren't really doing much new line work for basic POTS [wikipedia.org]. Many billions of dollars in unintended windfalls have been paid out to companies that recouped their rural investments decades ago.
Will this new legislation cause good and bad consequences, too?
D'minority (Score:5, Insightful)
Overblown (Score:4, Informative)
Also, there is no "Democrat Party". My membership card says "Democratic National Committee".
So let me see if I understand this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I supposed to take this seriously?
Frankly, this looks to me like nothing more than Republican bullshit. The use of the phrase "Democrat Party" (instead of the more proper "Democratic Party") gives it away.
not "access for all", "affordable" access for all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation: People who can afford it today will continue to pay for it, plus we will pay more so that people who can't afford it will get it for free or a substantially reduced price.
You know, I could get behind some of the Democratic Party's socialist ideas if they applied to everyone. Unfortunately it seems like I'm always "too rich" to be on the receiving end of the benefits - I just get to pay for them.
You want to have free (as in beer) internet access for EVERYONE, like libraries? Great - I'm for that - I'll pay some taxes for that.
You want to add a tax somewhere so that I can continue to pay for internet access AND pay for everyone else to have it too? No thanks.
Democrats support "energy independence" within ten years; health care for all American within five years; and "dignified retirement" (no privatization of Social Security) through an "AmeriSave" plan.
I'm all for the energy independence. But my guess is that "health care for all" will really mean I will continue to pay for my own plus pay for everyone else under me. Likewise "diginified retirement" will mean in addition to saving my own funds for retirement I'll be taxed to provide savings for others to retire on, too."
It's hard enough to provide for my own health care and retirement!
I'm tired of being asked to pay for programs that I can't take advantage of myself. If I pay for it, I should have the same level and cost of access as anyone else - just like a library.
Steve
A good question. How would *you* do it? (Score:3, Informative)
Beware such nonsense as desperate conservative demagoguery. Conservatives, like the annoying smart-assed jocks in high school, are good at saying things that sound derogatory but are really baseless and meaningless.
The question to be put to such wags is this: How would *you* get something accomplished as a party that has zero power in the government? There really isn't much you can do, is there?
zerg (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone believe this?
Remember the $100 laptop? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's revolutionary.