ISP Lobbyists Shape Broadband Stimulus Plan > What the **** good does it do handing money to large MegaCo

reply to fiberguy

Re: What the **** good does it do handing money to large MegaCo

reply to pnh102
It took spending us to 120% of GDP worth of debt to get us out of the Great Depression and you're blowing a gasket because our current debt is the same as it was during Clinton and even Ike as a percentage of the GDP?

You free marketeers who got us into this mess in the first place need to get a grip. We tried it your way for 8 years and we saw how it worked out.

reply to KrK

reply to pnh102
because the 1st so called bail out, was just throwing un-accounted for money at major companies trying to protect their interests by using lobbyists. And they were given the money in order to free up some credit for businesses, which they did not do at all. They just took the money and ran.

at LEAST this time, we all get to see exactly how much is going to what purpose, and at least open access conditions are applied to the networks that will be built (as they should be, since we paid for them.)

reply to pnh102
The last 8 years was all about actively exporting tech and light manufacturing jobs unchecked, ramping up H1Bs to displace American workers in the US, and Bush-McCain shooting their pro-amnesty mouths off saturating SW states job markets depressing wages and decimating public infrastructure with rampant illegal immigration.

The era of Free-Trade is over and it was a complete failure for American workers and a boom to our emerging enemies like China. It's time for some Fair-Trade.

reply to morbo
First off, morbo, I am not a Republican so you can get your narrow-minded 2-party system thinking mind out of your liberal back door. You clearly don't pay attention around here or you would know it. I make no bones about being neither republican or democrat.

Second of all, I will take my hat off to you. Apparently you ARE a democrat, based on your own logic (I use that term loosely) applied to your own post, and you think that one-upsmanship is acceptable and responsible form of government huh? So, Bush abused the public troff so it's okay for the dems, in the name of "change" of course, to out spend.. so what next? The Republicans are going to out-do the dems next? Do you EVEN SEE how stupid that sounds? That is SO kindergarten playground B.S. ... and spells out EVERYTHING wrong with government thinking today.

And, to give bush a TINY bit of defense... most of his spending went to the war that he waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. No matter where the war is/was being fought, in case you forgot, lib, we WERE attacked on 9/11 so there was going to be a big chunk of money spent to protect the U.S. ... further, you, like so many bandwagon cheerleaders forget.. the money spent today is not quite far outside of previous war-time spending, adjusted for inflation.

So before you get in here, in my face, with your weak rhetoric with your "yea but".. why don't you do some research, and ... quite frankly, grow up a little. ANYONE that justifies bad behavior by pointing to the other guy and saying "but he did it too".. show great weakness in your own argument, and, you should be embarassed.

... above all else.. YES. Dems are big spenders. You'd have to be blind to see that they are all over the gambit right now looking to raise taxes, in a recession which HISTORICALLY NEVER WORKS! and find things that are not yet taxed.. and tax it!

SOME spending is good, I'll agree, but stimulus from government spending HAS NEVER WORKED outside a war. What this tells you is that the government knows how to spend your money better than you.

Own up bro..

reply to Dogfather

dems? libs? b.s. social security arguments?

and you wonder why people think you are a republican.

reply to fiberguy
i'm not a democrat. or republican. i've voted for 3 parties but claim allegiance to none.

i don't support the bailout. i didn't support the bank bailout. i don't support bailouts, period. i am a fiscal conservative. i believe in balanced budgets. i believe in spending less than you bring in by taxes.

what destroyed the Republican party is the rampant hypocrisy over the past 8 years. supposedly, the right is for lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. according to your logic, that would make George W Bush a democrat. the only thing W did was to cut taxes, but to cut taxes without cutting spending is the equivalent of increasing spending. even in the midst of rampant increased spending due to the war, he pushed for tax cuts...and a stimulus. Both resulted in increased debt, which we continue to pay for every day. Under his watch, the debt increased something close to $6 trillion dollars. a Republican! big spender, big government! do you see the problem here? are Republicans so blind that they only see what they want to see?

reply to morbo
So, even though "republican" is a "party" or a "club" if you will, that you have to join, you some how are turning that into an adjective? or a noun?

I really don't think I should dignify your post with a reply.. but I will.

I can be an independent person with out having to "be" a republican. I think my simply saying, over and over, I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN is good enough.. if it's not for you.. well, get educated please.

Liberals? Um, calling self identified liberal/democrats is pretty simple.. if you say you are.. I take it on your word. So my point is valid. I don't have to be one of the Hatfields or one of the McCoys to be able to look into that feud and call foul or pass judgment on either family.

Those that would say "you made a comment on social security that sounds like what a republican would say makes you republican" is plain stupid! That's the same as calling black people in this country "African American" by default which is ACTUALLY an insult to many of our black skin colored brothers. SOME of those that are labeled "African American" don't even have heritage that even roots their ethnicity to the continent of Africa in the first place. It's like calling every person that looks "Hispanic" a "Mexican-American".. and to be honest, while I don't look "Hispanic".. my father does.. however, he's Portuguese which he looks Mexican, but is nothing of the sort..

So, you see now just how stupid your argument is?

My saying is that "my thoughts are my own." That passes MUCH further than people trying to label me, basically, Brian Roberts himself becuase I don't agree with many of the silly arguments passed along as facts here daily. I don't agree with all of what cable does.. but I also don't agree with many of the complaints that people make and assertions and accusations that people like to pass here on a daily basis. What does that mean?? (Cheat: here's the answer...) I am CAPABLE of THINKING ON MY OWN.. I know some people need to look to someone for guidance and for leadership and answers.. however, I did pay attention in school, and I do have my own mind and I DO know how to form my own opinions, and render my own decisions. I don't need a party to do that for me, I don't need an industry to tell me what to think, a union, or so called "government leader" or role-model from Hollywood to tell me what to think, believe, how to dress, anything.

.. but I applaud you on your effort.

I don't "wonder why" people think I am republican.. I laugh at their narrow-minded ways actually.. especially when I tell them I am not and they are too short minded to understand that while our form of government may be a two party system, there are actually more parties and ways of thinking out there greater than what the system is configured for. It just shows a failure in their own education... and that's not my problem.. it's theirs.

reply to morbo
I, like yourself, voted not with a party, but for the person on the ticket. The fact they have an R, D, I, L, or other letter next to their name is, in my view, their problem, not mine. I call parties "Unions for the Politicians"..

I too believe in balanced budgets.. I am fiscally 'responsible'.. i don't even call myself conservative since that term, too, is muddy. I don't really believe in spending less than you take in with out refunding that money not spent to the people in form of a tax reduction the following year. There has to be a line that you can cross on either side, to a point. Its impossible to spend less than you budget every year or not go over the budge, BUT SOME.. but, part of budgeting is to be able to carry over habits into another term in order to balance.

Yes, I do agree with you. The R's killed their party.. well, Rove did, actually. He interjected religion into the party as a way to garner votes for his man, and did something that never should have happened (and proves another point) .. he crossed religion into politics which is exactly why our founding fathers tried to put up boundaries on that..

Also, if you do your history, you will find that the roles of the D's and the R's have actually meant different things in the early part of the last century.. and will probably change again.

There is one thing, however, that is true to this day. Dems like to tax and spend their way out of a problem and they try to balance the budget. The repubs like to do deficit spending which is a ponzi scheme on Americans. It can't be sustained for very long. You borrow too much money this way, or you cut too many services so that people can pay for their own toys, but government services, which some ARE required for society to function, get cut, and the growth in the nation slows.

One thing the parties have yet to understand is that they are BOTH radical in their thinking and that they need to come to the middle for it to work. However, while they're busy calling muslims radicals, they forget that they, themselves, are radicals as well, just in a different way. Some of what both parties stand for does work. Where it fails EVERYTIME is when they think that they have capital to spend by the american people and start doing their pet projects.

No matter WHO is in power, and no matter what their platform is.. there are only so many jobs that belong to the federal governmnet (protect our borders - often not done, ensure interstate commerce - very bastardized, and protect the constitution - which is nothing more than a welcome mat any more.) Getting involve din abortion, marriage, education, and all this other crap is not the job of the federal government. People have forgotten that.

You and I actually do see things eye-to-eye after reading this message. Maybe our ways of speaking it can come off hastily at times. However, there is one thing I am NOT and that is someone that follows any party. Bush was not a republican.. he was a kindergarten drop-out.

reply to fiberguy
Then there are little boo boos like
a) the Carter Community Reinvestment Act that caused banks to create subprime loans
b) the Act signed by Clinton in 1999 eliminating the Glass Stiegel Act allowing for the creation of all the failed and failing investment firms
c) congress refusing to regulate Fannie and Freddie (4 years each party)
c) impotence by both parties to reign in high energy prices, effectively converting personal discretionary spending to personal debt
d) Bush encouraging banks to increase subprime lending

All are responsible for the current economic state.

reply to pnh102

reply to fiberguy

reply to lesopp