Congress Pushing For Communications Act Rewrite Rockefeller, Waxman, Kerry and Boucher to begin talks in June Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Senator John Kerry (D-MA), and Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) issued a press release this week claiming that they are going to begin the process of updating the Communications Act of 1934. As a first step, the politicians say they're going to "invite stakeholders to participate in a series of bipartisan, issue-focused meetings beginning in June." While the Act certainly needs updating for the broadband era (the last update was the Telecommunications Act of 1996) the nation's partisan gridlock and heavy lobbyist influence by giants like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon will make the entire process a very, very messy one with an end product that may -- or may not -- actually accomplish anything for consumers.
|
  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | hee hee said by Lying Asshole Politicians :
they're going to "invite stakeholders to participate in a series of bipartisan, issue-focused meetings beginning in June." That's a good one... made me giggle. | |
|  |  jsimmonsPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-24
Falls Church, VA | Re: hee hee Yeah... Congress is so ineffective now, and the public is so cynical... Seems the only thing Congress is good at now is spending money our kids and grandkids haven't even earned yet. 
--
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler."- Albert Einstein | |
| | Reviews:
 ·DSL EXTREME
| said by jester121:said by Lying Asshole Politicians :
they're going to "invite stakeholders to participate in a series of bipartisan, issue-focused meetings beginning in June." That's a good one... made me giggle. Oh yeah, Don't make Me laugh, The Republican Party would vote YES only for a repeal of the Communications Act of 1934 and 1996, But a rewrite? They'll vote NO as a group as usual, As they do not want or like paying their fair share of taxes as they represent the Super Rich and Large Corporations(Wall Street).
--
»www.realtor.com/realestateandhom···12798476
»www.exitstrategyrealty.com/custom4.shtml
look for 37130 Calico Blvd | |
| | | | | Re: hee hee interestingly Verizon is very much for this -- largely because they know that by proxy, they'd largely be the ones writing it. | |
| | | | | | Re: hee hee I don't have or pay for Verizon DSL, Verizon the Phone company sure, Not like I have a choice as a landline is the only phone I can afford, But that's the fault of Congress and the check I get, As I'm a disabled person. | |
|
| | | | Yea your right all democrats are poor. Could you name me one Democrat in congress that isn't a millionaire please? Quit spouting politico crap. | |
| | | |
1 edit | Re: hee hee Oh? What are You implying?
I get SSI/SSP money($674=SSI/$171=SSP from CA), As I'm physically and Mentally disabled, I get a check for $845 a month, So just how is that politico crap???? | |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | What partisan girdlock? Dont the democrats control house, and senate now ? Didn't the senators realize that when they said it ? Amazing how whenever something doesnt go the democrats way , they reflexively blame someone else. | |
| |  roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | Re: What partisan girdlock? Nobody controls the House and Senate now. Not when the minority party threatens to filibuster EVERYTHING!
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
| | | | | Re: What partisan girdlock? said by roc5955:Nobody controls the House and Senate now. Not when the minority party threatens to filibuster EVERYTHING! There is no filibustering in the House. The Dems had a filibuster proof super-majority in the Senate until they did such a bad job the people of Mass. said enough of this "Change" we can't believe in. | |
| | | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: What partisan girdlock? said by Automate:said by roc5955:Nobody controls the House and Senate now. Not when the minority party threatens to filibuster EVERYTHING! There is no filibustering in the House. The Dems had a filibuster proof super-majority in the Senate until they did such a bad job the people of Mass. said enough of this "Change" we can't believe in. The people of Mass and most Americans are idiots. You ask for change then bitch about it because it's not the staus quo. That makes you stupid. Not sure what "change" people expected or wanted. I have to find ONE person in the HWOLE US to LOGICALLY explain what "change" they expected. | |
| | | | | | said by Automate:said by roc5955:Nobody controls the House and Senate now. Not when the minority party threatens to filibuster EVERYTHING! There is no filibustering in the House. The Dems had a filibuster proof super-majority in the Senate until they did such a bad job the people of Mass. said enough of this "Change" we can't believe in. So they elect a member of the party that bankrupted the US through two wars, destroyed our economy, and continually lowered taxes for the rich while harming everyone else?
Brilliant job there American citizens. Bravo. | |
| | | | | | | Re: What partisan girdlock? Oh brother... recessions happen in virtually every decade. Almost every President has to deal with the effects of business cycles. Obama could have limited the damage of this particular recession by inspiring a little confidence in the market. Instead, all he proposed were tax and spend policies. Of course the recession got worse! The stimulus has been a complete disaster and has done nothing but put us deeper into debt while current and future taxation, due to the expansion of Obama's federal government, will crush us. Yes, Bush expanded the federal government at an unsustainable rate and should be rightly condemned for it, but Obama is expanding the government at an exponential rate. Take a look at California and Greece, its just not possible to continue on this track. | |
| | | | | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: What partisan girdlock? The Republican no regulation government policy had the economy in a death spiral. Their policy was if the CEO was making millions he can't be doing any wrong. It was funny all those over paid CEOs rushed to the government for a bailout and most kept their jobs while those making well under $100K lost their job.
I wish the election had been a year later so Bush and the Republican would have gotten all the blame. He was well on the way of making President Hoover look better in the history books. The Bush Presidency was like a great party at a Frat House it was fun until you drink too much and have to deal with the hang over or car accident the next day. You can blame Obama all you want in the last year of this term but the Republicans were blaming him before he was even sworn in and they have done everything they can to make the government unworkable. Why is it wrong for the Democrats to act just like the Republicans when they controlled Congress and the White House. If the Republicans want to cut government let them put a budget together saying what and how much they will cut each department budget. They had their chance to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse. So now we get mine explosions and BP oil spills. Lets have less regulators. I am for a truly balanced budget if you can't pay for it don't do it.
I am not for job killing regulations but when the regulators can not spot a Bernie Madoff or the housing bubble gees. I could see the housing bubble by just watching HGTV where painting a small bath room added $30K to the sales price of the house. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: What partisan girdlock? said by WhatNow:The Republican no regulation government policy... In fairness, the Clinton administration wasn't a pillar of market regulation either.
Clinton hired former Goldman Sachs CEO Robert Rubin as Treasury Secretary. He kept the Ayn-Rand nutjob Greenspan at the Fed.
Those two, along with Larry Summers, fought Brooksley Born's attempt to regulate the derivatives market. (Summers is now an economic adviser to President Obama.).
Clinton was almost as giddy as Rs when he signed the Gramm-Leach reform of CRA to repeal Glass-Stegall (allowing banks to go back to pre-Depression casino-like practices).
The last 30 years were an era of deregulatory politics. Led by Rs. But, willingly followed by Ds due to the fact that it was popular.
(The same way Ds led the way for lowering lending standards, but Rs willingly followed because it was popular).
Mark | |
| | | | | | |
2 edits | I'm with you on the bailout point. They should have never bailed out any of those companies as the only way to make them pay for their sins was to let them go down.
As far as your worst president point, that is laughable. Obama is already on his way to becoming the worst president in the history of the US. He has something like an unheard of 42% approval rating just 1.5 years into office, and its dropping by the second. He has done nothing but exacerbate the recession and every one of his experiments has been a complete and utter failure (See Porkulus, Cash 4 Clunkers, Mortgage plan, etc, etc).
If you think the democrats don't have any blame to share in this recession, you are kidding yourself. They had control of congress for 2 years before the recession started. They were getting all their sweetheart mortgage deals from their cronies while the housing market was collapsing beneath their feet...They are also responsible for the last 3 record budget deficits and haven't passed a budget yet this year because they know they will get killed at the polls once people find out how they plan to spend our money. You want spending cuts from the GOP? How does $1.3 Trillion sound (»house.gov/budget_republicans/pre···gnow.pdf )? | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: What partisan girdlock? said by lakerfan82:I'm with you on the bailout point. They should have never bailed out any of those companies as the only way to make them pay for their sins was to let them go down. That's easy to say after crossing the chasm. However, when starring into the abyss, President Bush began the bailouts ($800 bill to Wall St., four months before the end of his term, etc.).
See this article for context. This sidebar graphic illustrates the point.
What I think is funny is that this occurred at the same time Rs were screaming about Obama posing as a moderate, but really an extremist liberal. It turns out he continues President Bush's bailout and war spending and he's portrayed as the sole cause of the deficit.
Really funny is that every D president in recent history has cut the national debt. Every R president (except Nixon) increased the debt. See the red/blue bar chart here.
said by lakerfan82:If you think the democrats don't have any blame to share in this recession, you are kidding yourself. They had control of congress for 2 years before the recession started. Ds took control of both chambers of Congress Jan., 2007.
The recession began Dec. 2007.
So, 11 months is 2 years in your book?
What's amusing about this is that Rs accuse President Clinton for doing nothing about Bin Laden, and insist President Bush couldn't do anything in the 9 months before 9/11.
But, when Rs controlled both chambers of Congress for 10 of the 12 years following the 1995 regulatory changes to CRA (and controlled the Presidency for 8 of those 10 years, and the Presidency, house and senate for 4 of those 8 years) all they can say is that Ds should have done something in the 11 months prior to the recession?
This is what's wrong with our political process. Politics is like a religion.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: What partisan girdlock? Fine, yes, the recession "technically" started in late 2007, but the economy was still stable well into 2008. When it was finally clear that there was indeed a recession, DEMOCRAT policies EXACERBATED the recession. Raising minimum wage contributed greatly to unemployment among teens and the poor. Threatening to increase capital gains tax significantly affected the market in a negative way. Extending unemployment benefits only allowed people to hold off looking for work, which increased unemployment even further, increased unemployment taxes on businesses (which then caused them to layoff additional employees), and crushed already strained state coffers. Porkulus, Cash 4 Clunkers, Mortgage experiments were a disaster that only wasted money, falsely manipulated economic indicators, and put us deeper into debt. So yes, D's share a significant amount of blame for the severity of this recession, to continue to say otherwise is lunacy. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: What partisan girdlock? said by lakerfan82:Fine, yes, the recession "technically" started in late 2007, but the economy was still stable well into 2008. Ok. So, now you're saying Ds didn't see it coming -- like [almost] everyone else.
said by lakerfan82:Raising minimum wage contributed greatly to unemployment among teens and the poor. The Fair Minimum Wage Act was passed in January 2007. Eleven months before the recession started.
Even more months before the economy became "unstable" (your words).
It passed the House with 41% Republicans voting FOR it. In the Senate, 99% of Republicans voted FOR it.
said by lakerfan82:So yes, D's share a significant amount of blame for the severity of this recession, to continue to say otherwise is lunacy. I didn't say they don't share blame (significant or otherwise). It's just not as lopsided as you presented.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: What partisan girdlock? Wow, how convenient of you to leave out the important fact that, while the law was passed in January of 07, minimum wage didn't increase until July of 07. In addition, it also increased during the worst possible times: July of 08 and July of 09.... You also left out the fact that the R's who voted for it were actually voting for the Iraq Appropriation's Act, the minimum wage bill was tacked on in typical fashion... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: What partisan girdlock? said by lakerfan82:Wow, how convenient of you to leave out the important fact that, while the law was passed in January of 07, minimum wage didn't increase until July of 07. In addition, it also increased during the worst possible times: July of 08 and July of 09.... Minimum Wage laws usually work that way. They stagger the increases over time.
As you said, the economy was relatively stable, particularly in January 2007. I wouldn't have expected Ds or Rs to see how quickly it would fall off the cliff late 2008 (nor, that a recession would start late 2007).
said by lakerfan82:You also left out the fact that the R's who voted for it were actually voting for the Iraq Appropriation's Act, the minimum wage bill was tacked on in typical fashion... You're wrong. In January 2007 it passed the House with 41% Republicans voting FOR it. In the Senate, 99% of Republicans voted FOR it.
Because of differences between the House and Senate version, it was tacked onto the Iraq appropriations bill and voted on again May 24, 2007.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What partisan girdlock? Just because that's the way "minimum wage laws usually work" doesn't change the fact that minimum wage increases are ALWAYS bad policy, no matter in good times or bad times. History has shown that the people most adversely affected by minimum wage increases are teens and the poor (ya know, the people who actually work minimum wage jobs?). Furthermore, if dems actually cared about easing unemployment, they would have repealed further minimum wage increases as soon as they realized there was a recession.
As far as your claim that 99% of republican senators voted for the increase, that is factually incorrect. The link you provide goes into detail that the senate rejected the minimum wage increase until tax cuts were included in the bill. While I think this practice of earmarking and tacking bills onto other bills is utterly corrupt (both parties do it, but I firmly believe each bill should get a vote based on its OWN merit), its quite clear from the voting history that most of those senators were voting in favor of the tax cuts. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: What partisan girdlock? said by lakerfan82:Just because that's the way "minimum wage laws usually work" doesn't change the fact that minimum wage increases are ALWAYS bad policy, That's a different argument. No doubt we could eliminate minimum wage (and all labor laws) and stimulate employment.
Likewise, we could eliminate zoning laws and building codes to encourage affordable housing.
Or, eliminate food quality laws to reduce hunger.
As a civil society, we choose to set the standard of living a little higher than that. And so, both Rs and Ds were operating within what is expected by society.
If you advocate getting rid of all that stuff (so "free markets" can rule the day), that's fine. But, don't confuse your fringe position with everyone else.
said by lakerfan82:As far as your claim that 99% of republican senators voted for the increase, that is factually incorrect. The link you provide goes into detail that the senate rejected the minimum wage increase until tax cuts were included in the bill. So Rs had their price (or, found their political cover). That doesn't make it "factually incorrect." 41% of House Republicans voted FOR minimum wage before tax cuts were added. 99% of Senate Republicans voted FOR minimum wage after tax cuts were added.
Obviously, it had significant amount of Republican support. You're just making excuses for Rs. If minimum wage is such a bad idea, there would have been no reason for them to negotiate a tax cut to compensate for the cost to employers for minimum wage. They just took the money from the general treasury.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What partisan girdlock? said by amigo_boy:That's a different argument. No doubt we could eliminate minimum wage (and all labor laws) and stimulate employment. Likewise, we could eliminate zoning laws and building codes to encourage affordable housing. Or, eliminate food quality laws to reduce hunger. Wow, so if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying you would rather people not work, not eat, or not live in affordable housing at all and have these "civil standards" (most of them overbearing or an overreaction to some "victim" who really didn't want to take responsibility for his own actions and sued a company or the gov't) than allow people to decide for themselves whether they want to work in a low paying job, eat a particular food or not, or live in a particular house that YOU would consider "substandard." I've got no problem with people willingly doing any of those things in a free society. I mean, how did people ever make it for thousands of years without the Nanny State to tell them how to live their lives? The only reason people have good jobs, have good food, or have nice homes is because they worked for these products and demand them as a member of the free market, not because the government mandated these things.
If you advocate getting rid of all that stuff (so "free markets" can rule the day), that's fine. But, don't confuse your fringe position with everyone else.
I always find it so hilarious how you accuse people who support "free markets" as being "fringe." The socialism you continue to try and pass off as "the norm" is quickly being rejected by Americans, as you will see this November... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: What partisan girdlock? said by lakerfan82:... you are saying you would rather people not work, not eat, or not live in affordable housing at all and have these "civil standards" I said that we as a society set standards even though those standards are antithetical to pure "free markets."
We provide food stamps, health care, housing to those who can't afford the basic level of employment, construction and food quality. We deem that as better than the alternative (everyone having to buy enough land to protect themselves from their neighbor converting their home into a biker bar -- enjoying the benefits of a truly "free" market.).
said by lakerfan82:I always find it so hilarious how you accuse people who support "free markets" as being "fringe." Usually those who play the "free market" card aren't willing to get rid of all minimum wage, labor laws, environmental protection, zoning laws, building codes, food and drug quality, etc.
So, they've established the principle that society has an interest in setting standards. (Or, better yet, they don't want to be seen as part of the irrelevant fringe.). But, they don't want to admit that because it would take the wind out of their high-sounding rhetoric (that they're for "free markets" and others aren't.).
It's like Rand Paul. He had a lot to say about how the civil rights movement negatively affected the rights of individuals to discriminate. But, when faced with how his position would firmly place him among the irrelevant fringe, he back-peddled and said he supported the civil rights act.
It's more like a religion for some people. They can't find balance between their ideology and reality. They know this. But, they play a game with themselves as the oscillate between high-sounding rhetoric and trying to appear mainstream.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What partisan girdlock? Usually those who play the "free market" card aren't willing to get rid of all minimum wage, labor laws, environmental protection, zoning laws, building codes, food and drug quality, etc.
So, they've established the principle that society has an interest in setting standards. (Or, better yet, they don't want to be seen as part of the irrelevant fringe.). But, they don't want to admit that because it would take the wind out of their high-sounding rhetoric (that they're for "free markets" and others aren't.). Again, you're just assuming that if we "abolished" those things that people somehow wouldn't be able to demand good jobs, construction, or quality food. Maybe you are able to convince others that would not be the case, but whatever...
You're right in that society has an interest in setting some standards in certain areas. However, you're trying to equate things like local zoning laws to federal social programs (like welfare programs, health care programs, and social security). There's a huge difference between a city setting local standards (ie, by saying someone can't build a tire factory right next to a retirement home or your biker bar analogy) and the federal government telling my business how much I have to pay my employee or telling me that I have to pay for Joe Blow's social security retirement in Ohio. There is far more accountability between the people and their local government than between the people and the federal government. You continue to try to blur the lines between the two as if they were the same, when they are not. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: What partisan girdlock? said by lakerfan82: There's a huge difference between a city setting local standards (ie, by saying someone can't build a tire factory right next to a retirement home or your biker bar analogy) The only difference is that you benefit from society interfering with "true, free" markets.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What partisan girdlock? said by amigo_boy:said by lakerfan82: There's a huge difference between a city setting local standards (ie, by saying someone can't build a tire factory right next to a retirement home or your biker bar analogy) The only difference is that you benefit from society interfering with "true, free" markets. Mark No, nearly EVERYONE benefits. When the federal government creates a social program, only the recipients of that social program benefit, usually a small minority. THAT's the difference. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: What partisan girdlock? Everyone except the person who'd like to construct their home to their own standards (and resources). Or, who'd like to dispose of their own property based upon their changed circumstances -- not to the benefit of their neighbors.
With minimum wage, almost everyone benefits because, at some point in their life, they held a minimum-wage job.
Usually the difference is who's receiving the benefit of intervening in a market (labor, food, housing). It's called "who's ox is being gored."
As we saw, 41% of House Republicans supported the ox-goring of Minimum Wage even without tax credits for businesses. 90% of Senate Republicans supported it with tax credits -- without any prerequisite that a business pay minimum wage to anyone.
Shifting the cost of government to others. While implementing what you view as a harmful program.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
2 edits | Re: What partisan girdlock? said by amigo_boy:Everyone except the person who'd like to construct their home to their own standards (and resources). Or, who'd like to dispose of their own property based upon their changed circumstances -- not to the benefit of their neighbors. Now you are starting to sound like the one on the fringe. How often does that happen? If someone wants to build their house to their own code they still have the option of moving out to the middle of nowhere and building virtually whatever they want. Local standards benefit nearly EVERYONE in that locality.
With minimum wage, almost everyone benefits because, at some point in their life, they held a minimum-wage job. Even if it were true that "almost everyone has held a minimum wage job," the net benefit over the life of that person is still negative. Yeah, maybe they benefited for like a year, but during the rest of their life that law cost them in the form of higher prices, lost profit (if they invest in stocks or own a business, and something like 95% of Americans do at least one of these), or worse yet, a lost job. Social programs (redistribution of wealth from productive to unproductive) only benefit the few and hamper competition, while standards benefit virtually everyone and allow competition to flourish.
Usually the difference is who's receiving the benefit of intervening in a market (labor, food, housing). It's called "who's ox is being gored."
Call it whatever you want, its still different, as I pointed out. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: What partisan girdlock? said by lakerfan82:said by amigo_boy:Everyone except the person who'd like to construct their home to their own standards (and resources). Or, who'd like to dispose of their own property based upon their changed circumstances -- not to the benefit of their neighbors. Now you are starting to sound like the one on the fringe. How often does that happen? Never? Because we have building codes and zoning laws? Because that stuff used to happen?
said by lakerfan82: If someone wants to build their house to their own code they still have the option of moving out to the middle of nowhere and building virtually whatever they want. I'm not sure that's true. A friend built a place in the middle of nowhere. He still had to have inspections by the county, and certification of habitability.
said by lakerfan82:Local standards benefit nearly EVERYONE in that locality. Well... everyone except the people who have to move out into the country to do what they want to do (i.e., exercise their perfect liberty as a willing buyer and seller within a marketplace).
And, did "everyone" benefit when R Senators jumped all over the tax breaks to business (in return for minimum wage increases)? Shifting the cost of government to others?
I think the problem here is that you have a loose ("we all know what I mean") definition of "everyone." And "benefit."
"Everyone" benefits if you perceive that you benefit. But, if it involves raising minimum wage (and the cost of buying something at Walmart), it doesn't benefit everyone -- even though it reduces the spectacle of businesses like Walmart pushing their business model onto society by paying a non-living wage, and letting their employees collect housing, food and health benefits at society's expense.
said by lakerfan82:Even if it were true that "almost everyone has held a minimum wage job," the net benefit over the life of that person is still negative. Yeah, maybe they benefited for like a year, but during the rest of their life that law cost them in the form of higher prices, lost profit (if they invest in stocks or own a business, and something like 95% of Americans do at least one of these), or worse yet, a lost job. See what I mean?
said by lakerfan82:Social programs (redistribution of wealth from productive to unproductive) only benefit the few and hamper competition, while standards benefit virtually everyone and allow competition to flourish. 1. A business using labor at an unsustainable price is also a "transfer of wealth." Those laborers end up on public assistance. Essentially the public subsidizing the business (and the customers who get low prices).
You may say we wouldn't have that problem if we didn't have public assistance. But, that's never going to happen. If you honestly believe that's the solution, then you're part of the irrelevant fringe and your views should be viewed in that light.
2. Building codes and zoning laws are "redistributions of wealth too." You use government to force your neighbor to dispose of their property in a manner complimentary to your own interests.
Essentially deriving a benefit from your neighbor's property that you couldn't obtain if left to consensual relations between you and your neighbor.
If you constructively define "everyone," "benefit" and "wealth redistribution" your argument works perfectly.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| Feel like you're banging your head on a brick wall?
You're running into the "Democrats are bad, Republicans are good, Mmmmkay" mentality. No amount of facts or truth will change his mind.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| I've found that when people talk about "Free Markets" what they mean is "Regulate everyone else and my competition, but let me do whatever I want" type of business attitude.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| False. You obviously are letting ideology blind you or re-write history to fit your viewpoint. I suggest you listen to Mark and study up a little on the effects of the deregulation and removal of oversight leading to the collapse. Which is what we're paying for in increased debt right now. You complain that the recession "was made worse." No, it was made a lot better. Had the Government followed YOUR theory and not engaged in stimulus the market crash would of destroyed the country and civilization as we know it.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Everything you said is wrong.
The Stimulus and bailouts saved your precious markets from total collapse. Obama cut taxes. He hasn't expanded Government size. The recession has improved as stimulus takes effect. Is everything hunky-dory? No. ... but the outcome is much preferable to what could of happened.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | said by Automate:There is no filibustering in the House. The Dems had a filibuster proof super-majority in the Senate until they did such a bad job the people of Mass. said enough of this "Change" we can't believe in. Sorry, there's what's called a "Privileged Resolution," in the House. Unfortunately, the members of the Democratic Party follow their heart, and have differences. A "filibuster-proof" majority is unrealistic. By contrast, members of the RepubliCON follow the leader.
The reason why the people of Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown was because Margaret Coakley ran the worst campaign ever! She didn't visit all the districts in the state, and she failed to get out the vote. Plain and simple. You can't win an election if you don't do the ground work.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Automate:said by roc5955:Nobody controls the House and Senate now. Not when the minority party threatens to filibuster EVERYTHING! There is no filibustering in the House. The Dems had a filibuster proof super-majority in the Senate ... Those things aren't absolute rules.
The senate always has the nuclear option. Usually threatened by Rs. A procedural rule which allows a simple majority to end a filibuster by 40%.
I keep hearing that the House has a procedural rule which can be invoked to require 60% approval to move legislation to the next stage (reading? floor vote?).
I can't find a reference to it. But, if true, that would be another form of filibuster. Stonewalling a simple majority from having their way.
Mark | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| I haven't had any problem with the change. In fact the biggest problem I have had is the change has been minimal and not gone far enough.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
|  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Well, they have to have SOMEONE to blame it on, right? Considering over 60% of the people favor the repeal of Obamacare, and this anti incumbent climate right now, these guys are trying to jam as much shit through before the get handed their hats.
I guess they all figure they have nothing to lose at this point Obama will sign anything congress hands him.
Just like when Bush was in the White House. Nothing but a rubber stamp for one party rule. Nothing changes.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Hopelessness & more of the same.
This country, in it's present form is doomed. Sit back and watch the second fall of the second Holy Roman Empire. History really does repeat itself...
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by DaveDude:Dont the democrats control house, and senate now ? Didn't the senators realize that when they said it ? Amazing how whenever something doesn't go the democrats way , they reflexively blame someone else. Rs do the same thing. They controlled both chambers of Congress for 10 of the 12 years that the sub-prime mortgage mess was brewing ('95-'07).
Rs controlled both chambers plus the Presidency for four of the most critical years: Jan. 2003 to Jan. 2007. A period when the R-controlled HUD massively increased sub-prime lending.
After everything hit the fan, they blamed it on Ds who supported the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) -- even though Ds didn't control much (except the threat of filibuster).
It's natural. All legislation has negative consequences. Rarely does a politician want to take full credit, no matter how strongly they believe in an issue.
Rs didn't want to take the punch bowl away just when the party was getting started. (I wouldn't either.). Ds don't want to unilaterally affect national broadband policy, giving their opponents more poo to fling.
It's just reality.
Mark | |
| | |
See 17 replies to this post |
| | So this is where it starts I guess we now know how they're going to cram in draconian new web controls and copyright laws.
I don't trust this Congress to do anything that's positive for the Internet with this update. | |
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: So this is where it starts said by 45612019:I guess we now know how they're going to cram in draconian new web controls and copyright laws. I don't trust this Congress to do anything that's positive for the Internet with this update. This is the DEM leaders pushing this. But at least 74 Dems are against more regulation and have written a letter to Genachowski against his plans:
»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···_II.php1
One letter is from Gene Greene (D-Tex.) and at least 73 other House Democrats, who say the Title II proposal will jepoardize jobs and deter investment. Addressed to the chairman, the letter says that they have "serious concerns" about the plan.
"The expanded FCC jurisdiction over broadband that has been proposed and the manner in which it would be implemented are unprecedented and create regulatory uncertainty," they write. "The controversy surrounding that approach will likely serve as a distraction from what should be our Nation's foremost communications priority: bringing broadband to every corner of America, getting every American online, and providing the high-speed connections needed to realize the promises of telemedicine, distance learning, and other forms of consumer empowerment."
A source familiar with the letter said that it currently has 74 signatures, all Democrats, and will be sent sometime today. And a 2nd letter from the GOP has similar sentiments:
A second letter is being readied by Republican leaders on the House Commerce Committee and Communications Subcommittee, says Free Press,
The Republican letter uses even stronger language than the Democrats', essentially leading off by telling the chairman to stop and leave the issue to Congress (it is unclear how many Republicans have signed on).
Both letters suggest the chairman should wait for marching orders from Congress before weighing in, something the Bells and cable ISP's have been arguing for.
“Most people consider this a partisan issue – Democrats support net neutrality regulations, Republicans oppose it,” said Green in announcing the letter late Monday. “This letter clearly shows it is not a partisan issue. A large number of Democrats have reservations about such a significant regulatory shift and the impacts it will have on jobs and investment.” This isn't going to be an easy sell and I've read that this rewrite of Telecomm Act won't happen this year and may take a couple years.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | | | Re: So this is where it starts Its the same smoke, mirrors and BS the incumbents and congress has been feeding us for years.
They will ALWAYS make threats to get what they want. That is a given. However, once it is in place they will continue to do what they need to do and hopefully they will be required to do even more. It was true in 1996 and it will be true of this one.
WE can only hope that this time the Act has teeth and doesn't get dismantled again through a bunch of legalized bribery and a bunch of panzy congresscritters. Because if you actually go back and look at the facts, once the 96 act was put in play (more regulation) they invested more (though made this same lame threat leading up to it) and then as it was dismantled (less regulation) they invested less and many buildouts were put on hold or scratched altogether. | |
|
| | bipartisan? "Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Senator John Kerry (D-MA), and Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA)" - now there's a brain trust... Follow the money train...it's always about money and power...never about us "common folk." | |
| | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: bipartisan? Yep.
And the money train stops at re election station. That's all anyone in power cares about.
We're the great unwashed masses to each and every one of the bastards.
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
| | | | said by hemlock :
"Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Senator John Kerry (D-MA), and Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA)" - now there's a brain trust... I like how four Democrats get together and call it bipartisan meetings. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Congress... will do whatever the telecoms companies pay them to do. If anything it will make it easier for the telecomunications companies to screw customers more easily.
We have the worst government money can buy. Anyone who thinks that there are honest politicians in washington or in the agencies is dreaming. | |
|  TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL | How Big? I wonder how many pages this new bill will be? 2000? 3000? | |
|  adsldudePremium,Ex-Mod 2003-9
join:2000-11-10
Colorado
kudos:1 | Follow the money This is a about increasing taxes on Internet like they did with telephony. Get ready to pay double for your Internet access as you contribute to the Universal Service Fund, federal access charges and State access charges. This will all be done in the name of making the Internet more affordable for the less fortunate and drive up prices for everyone else.
Regulation of the Internet in the US sucks but here it comes, ready or not! | |
| Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | If Rockefeller is involved... If Rockefeller is involved, then you know it must end up being something bad for the users.
If he had his way, we'd all probably have to register with the government to get a license to access the internet, or some other form of Chinese style tyranny. | |
| | | | Re: If Rockefeller is involved... said by Pv8man:If Rockefeller is involved, then you know it must end up being something bad for the users. If he had his way, we'd all probably have to register with the government to get a license to access the internet, or some other form of Chinese style tyranny. You know, while I'm staying in Japan I'm living in a dorm with a number of Chinese international students. Talking to one of them about their government, I realize this:
Americans are complete, utter egotistical idiots who have no idea how good they have it. Their endless comparisons with Mao, Stalin, and Hitler demonstrate how horribly misinformed and insensitive they are to the plight millions, if not billions suffered through.
So please, just shutup with the US-is-communist rants. It's sickening. | |
| | | | | Re: If Rockefeller is involved... And your efforts to try to silence people who can detect tyrannical parallels (including some Americans who have naturalized from Communist regimes) is even more sickening. | |
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by sonicmerlin:said by Pv8man:If Rockefeller is involved, then you know it must end up being something bad for the users. If he had his way, we'd all probably have to register with the government to get a license to access the internet, or some other form of Chinese style tyranny. Americans are complete, utter egotistical idiots who have no idea how good they have it. Their endless comparisons with Mao, Stalin, and Hitler demonstrate how horribly misinformed and insensitive they are to the plight millions, if not billions suffered through. So please, just shutup with the US-is-communist rants. It's sickening. As usual, the left believes in free speech, unless it doesn't agree. Then its "Just shutup".
If you can't take the heat, get out the kitchen.
No, the US is not communist, but it gets closer to that "ideal" every day, and the current administration is comprised of many genuine Marxists and their sympathizers, now acting out what they always thought would remain mere fantasy.
The reason people in the US "have it so good" is that our country was founded on not surrendering the rights of the individual to the state. While both sides of the aisle have made attempts to deny us our freedom, the current regime is doing so at a much more rapid pace than its predecessor.
We are not insensitive to the fate of people under Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il and the rest of their club. That's why we are so obsessive to ensure that America remains free. | |
| | | Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | I'm not sure you proved your point...
How is me recognizing a system being put in place that is similar to one that exists in china, how is that idiotic?
Is requiring a license to own a web domain NOT draconian?
Because that's what is in place right now in china.
I don't follow your logic, why don't you please elaborate on what you mean/ | |
|
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: 2 word fix: said by jeemyf :
TERM LIMITS.
We have term limits in California. They don't really fix anything.
In our last session, it just meant that "termed out" legislators became the sacrificial lambs to "cross the aisle" and vote against their constituents. They are then rewarded for their treason with $100K+ appointments to boards and commissions.
In fact, they may make things worse. Coalition / compromise government may cost more than surrender, when you consider the amount of pork/earmarks required to buy off enough votes from the other side to pass [unnecessary] legislation.
Campaign finance reform that levels incumbents versus challengers would be the best equalizer - for instance, challengers would be allowed to spend twice that of anyone running for re-election. But SCOTUS has made it pretty clear that we can't limit election spending. | |
|
Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| Immigration and Poizners Propaganda He's been spouting this stuff of lets see Legal and Illegal immigration, Ok, Did most of You know that before 1891 that there was no such thing as Legal and/or Illegal Immigration? Yes that's right folks, My Ancestors came to this country and settled in Nebraska in 1850 and there was No equivalent to ICE, INS or such back then in 1891 as It says here.
said by the Immigration and Naturalization Service Wiki :
Shortly after the U.S. Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility[1]. The Immigration Act of 1891[citation needed] established an Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department.
Oh and I don't support Meg Whitman(formerly of Goldman Sachs, formerly of FTD(Slapped down by the FTC for anti competitive practices) and formerly of ebay and Wall Street(Billionaire from the East Coast)) either.
--
»www.realtor.com/realestateandhom···12798476
»www.exitstrategyrealty.com/custom4.shtml
look for 37130 Calico Blvd | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Immigration and Poizners Propaganda said by zoom314:Did most of You know that before 1891 that there was no such thing as Legal and/or Illegal Immigration? That's not quite correct. Prior to the Civil War it was unclear whether the Constitution granted the federal government authority to regulate immigration. Until that time, it was mostly a local matter. Controlled by social norms.
I.e., if you were catholic you wouldn't immigrate to to a predominantly protestant area. If you were a person of color (Chinese, African) you wouldn't immigrate anywhere except as slave labor (Chinese coolies working for railroads).
The 1875 and 1882 federal immigration laws (excluding Chinese, for example) were just a reflection of conditions which existed locally from the beginning.
Heck, look at post-Revolutionary America. Loyalists were literally forced out of the country. Mass deportation of almost 30% of the population to Canada.
Mark | |
|
 old_dawg"I Know Noting..."
join:2001-09-22
Westminster, MD | What? "Bipartisan", so sayeth four Demorats. Sounds about right, at least according to them. Will John Kerry be opposed to it now that he proposed it? . 
--
"Our network engineers are aware of the problem..." | |
| Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| sold down river it's time for the POTS regulatory system to die. a $6 fcc line charge does not ensure equity or deployment of next generation broadband services. the taxes and fees associated with phone service, cable-tv, or internet does not serve the public interests. the major problem of mon/duo/multiopoly anti-competitive moves in the wireline and wireless industry serve to fatten the biggest carrier's revenue at the expense of consumers.
if you expect the cable-tv industry and the telecom industry compete head to head.. they must play by the same rules. that will require a rebalancing the regulations to have the cable industry face exactly the same rules as the telcos. this does not mean that we should see $15 of taxes on voip services or a $5+ tax on broadband let alone any further fees ontop of what is already outrageous cable-tv service pricing. this just means that in principle voice & internet are telcommunications services. a minimum usf/fcc charge can be extracted from consumers but rolled into one fee (broken into two line items) of not more than $5 (per $100 of service bought per month) depending upon the price of services bought regardless of which infrastructure it passes over (wired and/or wireless). the moratorium for internet taxation should continue. states no doubt will be able to tack-on 1-2% TO VOICE SERVICE (as a replacement of what exists.. not 1-2% more than what they already charge).
incentives for minority carriers to build fiber and compete with the major carriers should be encouraged-- especially in the footprints of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon. Competiton to the footprints of Fairpoint and Frontier should also be a priority.
Criminal charges against Verizon should be forthcoming when Fairpoint & Frontier end up folding post bankruptcy. Laws preventing reverse Morris trust maneuvers to offload debt should be strictly enforced. Company officials should be proesecuted and sent to jail for a long time for pulling this kind of scam.
BTW, I have no confidence the Democrats in charge will make any significant changes to telecom laws in the coming years.. much like big oil.. they are too close to their regulated industry to be effective. Party doesn't matter.. it's what they DO, not the stripe, color & ideology that shows you how far down river they are selling out the country to big business special interests. | |
| | sparks
join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR | Re: sold down river anything for consumers
what a laugh.
that has not happened since the days of anything for tax payers. | |
| | sparks
join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR | they say at the end "anything for consumers"
what a laugh.
that has not happened since the days of "anything for tax payers"
but higher rates/taxes no voice no representation.
yep we will get the shaft from anything that is done. | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Comcast Digital ..
| will this actually pass? Will this legislation actually pass or will they get their pockets padded by big business. Seems like the country is ran by big business instead of the citizens like it used to be.
The worst mistake was the act of 1996, which essentially gave cable companies free reign to do as they please instead of having to ask the fcc for approval to change rates,etc. | |
|
| |
|
|
