And considering that the President, you know, doesn't make telecom law. I have no problem complaining about a disconnected Congress and a corrupt FCC, but bashing Obama for this is silly and cheap.
Obama has to sign bills and can veto them. I agree though this is a pointless reason to bash Obama; but I also think Obama is completely worth bashing in general--given his dialogue and what he has actually delivered.
Haha, I love that site and agree with many of the complaints there. I just hate the unsubstantiated "Obama hasn't done anything" stance when Congress screws stuff up. He's sold out on plenty, no doubt. 4th Amendment and Gitmo are enough to send me up a wall. Right now DADT is much more important to me though.
0.) Cut taxes for 95% of America (EDIT: not referring to the most recent tax legislation... these are tax cuts Obama passed a while ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html. They truly are the tax cuts no one has heard of....).
1.) Reserved the policy of forbidding the media to photograph fallen soldiers and reversed Bush's torture policy.
2.) Signed legislation that provided health insurance to 4 million uninsured children.
3.) Prevented insurance companies from denying claims due to pre-existing conditions.
4.) Significantly expanded Pell grants.
5.) Expanded hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation and extended benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.
6.) Created the largest and most significant nonproliferation treaty with Russia in our lifetime.
Of all the things to pick, you picked accountability and the reduction of the MIC as points of criticism?! I wonder what you think about Obama's Secretary of Defense, who is one of the most fiscally conservative SoDs in recent history, pushing for reductions in spending across the board [1]. Hell, he nuked F-22 production which is like THE symbol of the MIC in the US. I'm also curious what you think about Obama ordering that all DoD interrogations be filmed [2], the voluntary (and unprecedented) disclosure of vistor records to the White House [3], the extensive anti-lobiest legislation created by Obama [4,5,6], and the creaton of a national Declassification Center to speed up the release of documents to the public [7].
Also, how is the Nobel Obama's fault? He knew he didn't deserve it (hint: read between the lines of his acceptance speech). The idiotic committee put him in that situation and I don't think you'll hear anyone arguing it was actually deserved.
Do you really expect people to engage in a conversation with you when you demonstrate such a clear lack of preparation and knowledge of the issues in question? It's a drain for all those involved. Dijkstra had something to say about this....
What, like the fact that he didn't replace Gates like had been done with almost every single Secretary Of Defense in the past? Note how in recent years new presidents typically have appointed a new SoD [1]. Not replacing Gates was a de facto appointment.
Gates, as SecDef, has been pushing for many of those changes since he took office in 2006. There's quite a bit to give Obama credit for, but Gates as SecDef is not one of them.
Patently false. Gates introduced these changes in April of 2009: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/gates.budget.cuts/ind.... I'd be interested in any sort of proof that Gates was working on changes like this during the Bush years, because as I recall, programs like missile defense were being expanded not cut during that time.
Military Construction was 19% more in 2010 than 2009 at $24 billion [1]. Sure he nuked the F-22.. but we are still spending in 2011 $11.4B on F-35s, $5.4B on Virginia class submarine(+28%), and $3B on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer(+19%)[2]. You cannot pretend Obama isn't playing super nice with the Military-Industrial complex.
Naming a dozen good to decent things Obama has done, with or without citations, doesn't come close to dimming the fact that Obama ran on a platform of huge sweeping change toward a more rational, peaceful world--and has in fact delivered on some token items but not even touched the core issues of imperliasism, state distributed misinformation, and a corporate-government marriage (it remains to be seen if Obama's anti-lobbying bill will be followed/enforced/effective).
Awful, awful manipulation of statistics. I'm not even sure what subcategory of military spending Military Construction represents. How about we just consider all defense related expenditures instead of just the slice that fits your preconceived notions? Take a nice, hard look at this graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/PerCapita.... None how every single measure that is not interest being paid on past debt goes WAY DOWN when Obama becomes President. You're trying to claim that Obama is playing "super nice with the MIC" when the fact is he has instituted massive reductions compared to the last decade.
Your partisanism and preconceived notations are blinding you in this case, and I will say, it makes a conversation with you quite unenjoyable.
Oh. Do you happen to mean the imaginary budget projections for 2012-2014 go down? Because when I look in the 2008-2010 range all the curves are heading up pretty sharply.
Let's lump (2), (3) and (6) under a category of idealogical disagreement. I think if you believed in the ideology behind them you would agree these steps represent concrete progress being made. Although I will say you're objections to (6) don't make any sense. Congress hasn't approved the treaty yet, so of course nothing has happened.... However the measure is regarded by the international community as a measure that will "foster more favourable conditions for actively promoting security and cooperation and strengthening international stability". [1]
As for (8), how is that Obama's fault? He got the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs on board, he called for the removal during the State of the Union (note that the SotU is probably one of if not the most watched speech in the world), and then pressured Congress to take action. The difficulty comes from the Legislative Branch, which, thanks to the separation of powers, Obama has no control over.
Every single item you list has significant "catches" that basically void the entire reality of itself, they are all meaningless - off the top of my head:
0) simply renewed a republican tax plan that was proven not to work since they helped put us into recession and caved on the idea of people making over $250k actually paying proportional taxes to help pay back their incredible gains
1) allows people to still be imprisoned forever without being charged and/or in solitary confinement with inhumane conditions - refuses to prosecute Valarie Plame leaks that got informants killed but now wants to go after non-citizens that republish leaks that only make his administration look bad
2) allowed insurance companies to drop children entirely before policy applied
3) allowed insurance companies to radically raise rates to compensate for imaginary loss of future profits - made the IRS an (even more powerful) enforcement agency that everyone will literally have to fear for their lives
4) allowed student loans to be "recovered" far more aggressively
5) insists on "partnerships" being "good enough" refuses to recognize gay marriage, setting a national tone that it's okay to discriminate like that
6) this won't be likely be signed because it's too late and democratic led congress is over - he let it drag out since April
7) allowed credit card companies to max out rates months before policy went into effect
8) asked courts to keep DADT on the books, setting national tone, allowed massive caveats in replacing DADT, 60 day nonsense waiting period from a dead-senator - military dishonorably discharged have to apply all over again and get all records reviewed without compensation
I like to consider myself very progressive but I cannot wait for Obama to be gone in 2012 so we can endure the dumbfounding insanity of 16 more years of far right rule, so FINALLY, FINALLY in 2038 when all these ancient a-holes finally die off and the young progressives will take over for a more enlightened country.
5.) Disagree. Marriage is not a governmental institution and needs to be removed from our legislation and legal code in favor of civil unions.
6.) Strongly disagree. Sorry, how did he "let" that happen? Obama doesn't control Congress. He got the hard work done by, I don't know, negotiating with the Russia and writing the damn thing?!
7.) Agreed.
8.) I recognize what you're saying here, but to not support what Obama has done on DADT based on this feels like a stretch.
I'm not saying Obama has accomplished everything (my comment actually says the opposite and expresses displeasure in some parts of the job he has done). But do note that I was responding to someone who thought Obama was 100% rhetoric and no backbone, which empirically is not true. Also, I hope you realize that young people have thought the nation would be taken over by "young progressives for a more enlightened country" since the begininning of this nation. You do realize the people in power now grew up in the 60s, perhaps one of the most left-leaning decades this nation has seen?
Regarding 8 - Don't Ask Don't Tell was never "on the books" as a law - it was a policy implemented by Clinton and continued by Bush and Obama as a de facto way to allow homosexuals to serve in the military. The relevant law (which forbids homosexuals from serving in the military) is http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
Can you point me to any information regarding Obama's stance on the issue? I hadn't been following it until recently so I'd be curious to see what he's said on the matter.
> simply renewed a republican tax plan that was proven not to work since they helped put us into recession
Everyone else thinks that the recession was due to the collapse of housing prices and/or the credit markets.
> and caved on the idea of people making over $250k actually paying proportional taxes to help pay back their incredible gains
$250k is a pair of married mid-level individual contributors. It's also an engineering manager and a school-teacher.
BTW - what definition of "proportional" are we using? Both before and after, the marginal tax rates are progressive. (No, SSI doesn't count - it's a forced savings plan with better return for folks who contribute less.)
And, if you look at the difference between the Clinton tax rates and the Bush tax rates, you find that the Bush rates are more progressive.
Yes, compare someone who makes $300k with someone who makes $30k. You'll find that the $300k person got less than 10x the benefit from the Bush tax rate cuts that the person who made $30k.
Curiously enough, that site's founders think that the tax rate cuts are a bad idea but suggests sending the savings to charity, which reduces tax liability, instead of sending it to govt....
Well, 0 is slightly off. Ge extended the Bush tax cuts, so he quite literally cut taxes for 100% of America and not the talking point number of 95. Also, failing to raise the taxes on those top 2% puts a huge tarnish on the rest of his achievements. Add this to that tarnish. Sorry, but he failed on his most important mandates. No public option, successful blackmail by the republicans and now most likely, no net neutrality.
You're right, but it's not like he didn't try. Everything you cite are things that he and the Dems push for WEEKS before "caving" because it wasn't going to pass unless they compromised with the Republicans.
Again, I agree with the sentiment, but not with the blame assigned.
The Republicans were not going to allow Obama's preferred tax cut version to get through congress, and because the mid-term elections swelled Republican ranks better prospects in the new year with the next congress would be even more unlikely. But don't take my word for it. That's what Bill Clinton said, along with endorsing the tax cut deal by saying he didn't believe there was a better deal out there. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYHDPxohkrc
He failed on his most important mandates? In the middle of a historic financial catastrophe which nearly triggered a full-blown depression (which under his watch the freefall was stopped successfully and the stock market is now largely recovered) he gets a historic healthcare law passed which had been attempted and failed at for more than 50 years. And because it's only 90% instead of 100% of the desired outcome it's a failure? Why not give credit for what it is, and opportunity for improvement it provides? Social Security, one of the most important social safety nets we have was not what it was when it first started either. This doesn't even get into passing the biggest financial reform laws (against powerful lobbies) since the Great Depression. No, I see it another way. This president has already had a very busy two years.
Better deal, maybe not. He could've and should've forced their hand by calling out those Republicans who were pulling for the rich and against the common man. The same must be said for the assholes who are voting down the 9/11 responders bill. Why should that fall on the shoulders of Jon Stewart? The young people want Obama to do this. His failure to do so has been the greatest disappointment to me.
Something tells me it cut fairly deeply for Obama to extend all the tax-cuts, but you have to look at the larger picture. The U.S. economy has suffered a severe and historic financial fall. To recover from that it's theoretically more favorable to provide citizens with tax cuts than not. Add to that the hand Obama was dealt at the mid-term elections which tilted the scales of congress in the Republican favor, and you see much more pressure to compromise in order to govern for progress of the country rather than draw lines in the sand for gridlock.
I'm not saying Obama is Jesus in the flesh, and that he never gets anything wrong. At the same time, I don't think it's helpful for people to sit back and criticize with broad strokes. Have you called your representatives about the 9/11 responders bill? Or net neutrality? Have we, the tech experts that hang out on sites like HN, taken concrete actions to make our voice heard on things like net neutrality, or do we just wait until the verdicts are nearly in from politicians who don't understand the ramifications as well as we do, and then complain when it's not what we want?
Industries with scale that are deeply embedded into the American economy (as the cable companies and now the wireless companies are) will always be able influence regulation and legislation in their favor.
Well, the vote hasn't happened yet. But the fact that it has come "down to the wire" literally and figuratively is perhaps foreshadowing for the impending doom of this legislation.
Because it threatens the nature of viral. More eyeballs being directed at fewer outlets is a recipe for ignorance.
Viral can't be viral under the oppression of corporate agenda. It's like the loudest voice in the room getting all the attention. This gives a megaphone to that person. Which wouldn't be that bad, if the loudest person was actually saying something interesting. But they rarely do.
The question is: what will the landscape of the internet look like in 5 years? Will it be divided into "basic" and "premium"? Or will we just have a broader range of access plans ranging from a cheap 1mbps plan to a very expensive 1gbps plan. Will the ISPs start restricting traffic from different IP addresses who don't pay up? Will we all start hosting on Amazon because they will make the deals with the ISPs?
Why was it necessary for you to insert a comma between "Obama" and "FCC" in the title you submitted here, when this comma does not appear in the source title?
Your title makes it sound like both Obama and the FCC have caved.
The article reads like this was a decision of the FCC commissioners appointed by the President. It's not clear that he had some hand in their votes or their decision, other than appointing them.
It's because he specifically mentioned how net neutrality will be achieved. Sure, he appointed those FCC members, but he shouldn't stop there. Especially if you make it your mandate. So, when the members he appointed sell out and fail to secure net neutrality, he fails.
I would like to see articles about net neutrality on HN; however, I would not like to see this already sufficiently political topic hyper-politicized here. Can we look for more neutral sources so we can discuss the (much more interesting) facts at hand?
By all means, please suggest a better one. In this day and age I see more and more of the best investigative journalism being done in blogs and not in the mainstream media, so maybe there's a post out there that gives this a thorough treatment?
My point was that I wanted to talk about the facts, not about the people. I did't want to criticize without offering something better, so I grabbed the NYT link.
Except any small-time Internet publication also has a stake in the outcome, as does any big-time Internet publication. We can't just rule them all out like that.
I'm more of a WSJournal reader myself, but I think "NYTimes is more neutral than HuffPost" is self-evident to all but a few.
I'm a pretty free market guy, but I'm pretty sure I support net neutrality regulation. Somebody please help me play it out. I'd like to think that there'd be a market for content neutral plans from ISPs, and that I'd be able to buy one, but isn't the fact that cable television has commercials evidence that people will do anything to save a buck? That is, I'd also like to think there would be a plan offering commercial free television programming, but with the exception of movie channels like HBO, I can buy no such service at any price (at least none that I know of)
I'd sincerely appreciate this community's thoughts on the issue.
That's because local governments give monopoly status to cable companies, i.e. there is no competition due to government interference in the market.
I'm against net neutrality because I fear government interference in the network more than corporate - wherever the government goes it is eventually captured by vested interests and will do great harm.
I don't know about your house, but I only have one choice of cable internet provider, and one choice of DSL internet provider (at least I believe that to be true in SE Portland, OR). I do, however, have several choices of wireless ISP (Clear and all the major mobile providers), but these are ridiculously expensive.
All of that is to say, are you sure internet is different that TV? Seems that, for the most part, they're both already state sponsored monopolies.
Currently I pay the website (or channel in your example) directly for premier content, but what is being proposing would involve me paying a marked up price to my ISP that passes that on to the website they choose. Or would there be a $10/mo for email/3 "content" websites? I can get everything for $20/mo currently (Roadrunner lite is $20). Broadband is SO cheap now, how could anyone justify paying less than $20/mo for way, way less access?
I don't really see any way that a free market could support a neutral Internet right now - these "schemes" will be forced down our throats.
Honestly, the way I think it'll play out, at least at first, is that now Hulu and YouTube and NetFlix will be able to guarantee the content owners that they can broadcast it uninterrupted by buffering problems (to the households that subscribe).
I'm torn... I do support net neutrality. But I guess I also believe that markets get the products they deserve. And if they choose to support operators that constrain their content choices then they are idiots.
I do wonder if net neutrality is supported by a small number of elite/intelligent folk who would be careful in their choices of which providers to support, but realise that given the wider stupidity of the market, their overall lack of market clout will lead to them having no option but to choose a crappy service.
sigh... gives the phrase 'Forcing people to be free' - yet one further dimension.
But I guess I also believe that markets get the products they deserve. And if they choose to support operators that constrain their content choices then they are idiots.
The problem here is that the market for mobile Internet service providers is rather supply-constrained. There aren't a whole lot of players in the game, sadly.
It's a lot easier to stifle competition when it's just you and 2-3 other companies providing service.
Yeah - but we're talking about a high-capex industry. Basically what net-neutrality is asking is that the infrastructure tier should subsidise profits at the content and interface tiers of internet services provision - keeping the barrier to entry low on the latter, and increasing the barrier to entry on the former.
Why does it increase the barrier to entry to the former? Because expected lower profit returns increase the risk on capex.
So your reply - while a necessary consideration to think through - sort of misses the whole point of the argument against net-neutrality. Net neutrality - according to this argument - will only serve to contribute to the lack of competition at the infrastructure level.
The real response to this argument is not to fight it on economic grounds - but to assert that the 'public good' which transcends merely economic considerations is put under threat. The primary way infrastructure providers will seek to increase profit margins is by bundling content and service delivery options. However, content - in this context - includes the entire political information flow of all the political structures in the world. Generally speaking, we don't believe it to be in the public good for this to be under the control of corporations. Since the 'public good' is frequently the sort of thing that can't be monetized - it's the natural place for government to step in to protect it.
I remain torn because it's never really clear if the actual aim of preserving the 'public_good' is best protected by intervention or otherwise. I say that ultimately we have to try both and then compare. Get empirical on the issue. A priori debate can only take us so far.
I honestly don't see how net neutrality decreases the profits at the infrastructure level. Content providers have to pay for bandwidth or secure peering agreements - that wouldn't change under net neutrality. Consumer ISPs have to pay for bandwidth or secure peering agreements - that wouldn't change either.
The only thing that net neutrality prevents infrastructure providers from doing is discriminating traffic based on content - they're still free to do things like charge StreamingMovieCDN higher prices than they charge SimpleHtmlHosting, or bill for actual traffic carried rather than a flat fee for the lines.
You're probably right - if net neutrality was enforced, the current pot of profits for infrastructure players probably wouldn't change all that much because of it - because the current status quo is effectively neutral.
But the argument is that this is artificially low from what it should be because service providers have so far held off from bundling because of the regulatory uncertainty. Because it's artificially low - so the argument goes - that's what explains (at least in part) the current levels of competition.
Infrastructure players claim that once regulatory certainty is provided (against net neutrality) - then, since the pot of profits for infrastructure providers will increase - this will in turn encourage more entrants to the market.
Actually - one way you might argue against their economic argument is say: okay, but if the profit pot is only being increased because infrastructure players are bundling content, then infrastructure players that want to give users completely free reign to surf where they want will be priced out of the market. Bundlers will be able to subsidise network access at a lower price because of income generated through the content. Non-bundlers won't be able to do this and will quickly go out of business... Since big media content is already tightly controlled by a few large corporations, only a few infrastructure players will be able to provide such subsidies. Ergo - competition at the infrastructure level will be as bad as ever if not worse, while competition at the content and user level will disappear completely.
And yeah - who doesn't believe really that corporations want to destroy the competition that the internet represents.
Basically from what I understand, all of this is happening now because of the Comcast Vs Netflix war, where Comcast is trying to pass network charges on to Netflix via sending a bill to Level 3. So if Comcast/AT&T and others get their way, Netflix subscriptions should go up due to the increase cost passed on to it by Level 3, and Comcast's eventual goal will be to put them out of business in a few years. The irony of this is that this encourages piracy because some consumers will be priced out and forced find their movie/tv show online if they want to watch. So then I predict Comcast will attempt to convince the government ban freeloder streaming tv/movie sites (probably via DHS/ICE DNS banning) after they take down Netflix.
57 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadOh well, hypocrite time: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ (which probably doesn't include DADT).
And considering that the President, you know, doesn't make telecom law. I have no problem complaining about a disconnected Congress and a corrupt FCC, but bashing Obama for this is silly and cheap.
0.) Cut taxes for 95% of America (EDIT: not referring to the most recent tax legislation... these are tax cuts Obama passed a while ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html. They truly are the tax cuts no one has heard of....).
1.) Reserved the policy of forbidding the media to photograph fallen soldiers and reversed Bush's torture policy.
2.) Signed legislation that provided health insurance to 4 million uninsured children.
3.) Prevented insurance companies from denying claims due to pre-existing conditions.
4.) Significantly expanded Pell grants.
5.) Expanded hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation and extended benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.
6.) Created the largest and most significant nonproliferation treaty with Russia in our lifetime.
7.) Credit card reform to stop abusive practices.
8.) Ended don't ask, don't tell.
Here's a fairly complete list with references: http://obamaachievements.org/list.
Note: I'm not pleased with the mapping between Obama's rhetoric and reality either. But you too are guilty of unsubstantiated rhetoric.
1) Increased government accountability 2) Any reduction in the military industrial complex 3) A completely ironic nobel peace prize.
Also, how is the Nobel Obama's fault? He knew he didn't deserve it (hint: read between the lines of his acceptance speech). The idiotic committee put him in that situation and I don't think you'll hear anyone arguing it was actually deserved.
Do you really expect people to engage in a conversation with you when you demonstrate such a clear lack of preparation and knowledge of the issues in question? It's a drain for all those involved. Dijkstra had something to say about this....
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates#Fiscal_restraint
[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870431490457525...
[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/VoluntaryDisclosure
[4] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memo...
[5] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/427...
[6] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/07/27/ClosingLobbyistL...
[7] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/420...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defe...
Naming a dozen good to decent things Obama has done, with or without citations, doesn't come close to dimming the fact that Obama ran on a platform of huge sweeping change toward a more rational, peaceful world--and has in fact delivered on some token items but not even touched the core issues of imperliasism, state distributed misinformation, and a corporate-government marriage (it remains to be seen if Obama's anti-lobbying bill will be followed/enforced/effective).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...
Your partisanism and preconceived notations are blinding you in this case, and I will say, it makes a conversation with you quite unenjoyable.
No it does not! It goes up when Obama becomes president. It isn't 2014 yet
6.) What good has it done? Obama's treaty signing seems to have done far less than a couple of coders and assassins on motorbikes.
8.) Grudgingly and with far more difficulty than it should have taken (assuming it sticks).
As for (8), how is that Obama's fault? He got the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs on board, he called for the removal during the State of the Union (note that the SotU is probably one of if not the most watched speech in the world), and then pressured Congress to take action. The difficulty comes from the Legislative Branch, which, thanks to the separation of powers, Obama has no control over.
[1] http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga11033.doc.htm
0) simply renewed a republican tax plan that was proven not to work since they helped put us into recession and caved on the idea of people making over $250k actually paying proportional taxes to help pay back their incredible gains
1) allows people to still be imprisoned forever without being charged and/or in solitary confinement with inhumane conditions - refuses to prosecute Valarie Plame leaks that got informants killed but now wants to go after non-citizens that republish leaks that only make his administration look bad
2) allowed insurance companies to drop children entirely before policy applied
3) allowed insurance companies to radically raise rates to compensate for imaginary loss of future profits - made the IRS an (even more powerful) enforcement agency that everyone will literally have to fear for their lives
4) allowed student loans to be "recovered" far more aggressively
5) insists on "partnerships" being "good enough" refuses to recognize gay marriage, setting a national tone that it's okay to discriminate like that
6) this won't be likely be signed because it's too late and democratic led congress is over - he let it drag out since April
7) allowed credit card companies to max out rates months before policy went into effect
8) asked courts to keep DADT on the books, setting national tone, allowed massive caveats in replacing DADT, 60 day nonsense waiting period from a dead-senator - military dishonorably discharged have to apply all over again and get all records reviewed without compensation
I like to consider myself very progressive but I cannot wait for Obama to be gone in 2012 so we can endure the dumbfounding insanity of 16 more years of far right rule, so FINALLY, FINALLY in 2038 when all these ancient a-holes finally die off and the young progressives will take over for a more enlightened country.
I just hope I live long enough to see it.
1.) Agreed.
2.) Agreed.
3.) Agreed.
4.) Strongly agreed.
5.) Disagree. Marriage is not a governmental institution and needs to be removed from our legislation and legal code in favor of civil unions.
6.) Strongly disagree. Sorry, how did he "let" that happen? Obama doesn't control Congress. He got the hard work done by, I don't know, negotiating with the Russia and writing the damn thing?!
7.) Agreed.
8.) I recognize what you're saying here, but to not support what Obama has done on DADT based on this feels like a stretch.
I'm not saying Obama has accomplished everything (my comment actually says the opposite and expresses displeasure in some parts of the job he has done). But do note that I was responding to someone who thought Obama was 100% rhetoric and no backbone, which empirically is not true. Also, I hope you realize that young people have thought the nation would be taken over by "young progressives for a more enlightened country" since the begininning of this nation. You do realize the people in power now grew up in the 60s, perhaps one of the most left-leaning decades this nation has seen?
Can you point me to any information regarding Obama's stance on the issue? I hadn't been following it until recently so I'd be curious to see what he's said on the matter.
Everyone else thinks that the recession was due to the collapse of housing prices and/or the credit markets.
> and caved on the idea of people making over $250k actually paying proportional taxes to help pay back their incredible gains
$250k is a pair of married mid-level individual contributors. It's also an engineering manager and a school-teacher.
BTW - what definition of "proportional" are we using? Both before and after, the marginal tax rates are progressive. (No, SSI doesn't count - it's a forced savings plan with better return for folks who contribute less.)
And, if you look at the difference between the Clinton tax rates and the Bush tax rates, you find that the Bush rates are more progressive.
Yes, compare someone who makes $300k with someone who makes $30k. You'll find that the $300k person got less than 10x the benefit from the Bush tax rate cuts that the person who made $30k.
You can play with numbers at http://www.giveitbackforjobs.org/
Curiously enough, that site's founders think that the tax rate cuts are a bad idea but suggests sending the savings to charity, which reduces tax liability, instead of sending it to govt....
Again, I agree with the sentiment, but not with the blame assigned.
That's what I blame the democrats for. They're shit at compromising.
He failed on his most important mandates? In the middle of a historic financial catastrophe which nearly triggered a full-blown depression (which under his watch the freefall was stopped successfully and the stock market is now largely recovered) he gets a historic healthcare law passed which had been attempted and failed at for more than 50 years. And because it's only 90% instead of 100% of the desired outcome it's a failure? Why not give credit for what it is, and opportunity for improvement it provides? Social Security, one of the most important social safety nets we have was not what it was when it first started either. This doesn't even get into passing the biggest financial reform laws (against powerful lobbies) since the Great Depression. No, I see it another way. This president has already had a very busy two years.
I'm not saying Obama is Jesus in the flesh, and that he never gets anything wrong. At the same time, I don't think it's helpful for people to sit back and criticize with broad strokes. Have you called your representatives about the 9/11 responders bill? Or net neutrality? Have we, the tech experts that hang out on sites like HN, taken concrete actions to make our voice heard on things like net neutrality, or do we just wait until the verdicts are nearly in from politicians who don't understand the ramifications as well as we do, and then complain when it's not what we want?
They've compiled a pretty good list of promises kept vs broken since he took office.
Because it threatens the nature of viral. More eyeballs being directed at fewer outlets is a recipe for ignorance.
Viral can't be viral under the oppression of corporate agenda. It's like the loudest voice in the room getting all the attention. This gives a megaphone to that person. Which wouldn't be that bad, if the loudest person was actually saying something interesting. But they rarely do.
Whatever the answer, I don't want to see Verizon or AT&T having a role whatsoever in dictating access.
Your title makes it sound like both Obama and the FCC have caved.
The article reads like this was a decision of the FCC commissioners appointed by the President. It's not clear that he had some hand in their votes or their decision, other than appointing them.
Though behind a registration-wall, here is an example of a more neutral source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/business/media/21fcc.html
My point was that I wanted to talk about the facts, not about the people. I did't want to criticize without offering something better, so I grabbed the NYT link.
I'm a pretty free market guy, but I'm pretty sure I support net neutrality regulation. Somebody please help me play it out. I'd like to think that there'd be a market for content neutral plans from ISPs, and that I'd be able to buy one, but isn't the fact that cable television has commercials evidence that people will do anything to save a buck? That is, I'd also like to think there would be a plan offering commercial free television programming, but with the exception of movie channels like HBO, I can buy no such service at any price (at least none that I know of)
I'd sincerely appreciate this community's thoughts on the issue.
I'm against net neutrality because I fear government interference in the network more than corporate - wherever the government goes it is eventually captured by vested interests and will do great harm.
All of that is to say, are you sure internet is different that TV? Seems that, for the most part, they're both already state sponsored monopolies.
I don't really see any way that a free market could support a neutral Internet right now - these "schemes" will be forced down our throats.
Coming from the folks who shut down websites for "copyright infringement".
I do wonder if net neutrality is supported by a small number of elite/intelligent folk who would be careful in their choices of which providers to support, but realise that given the wider stupidity of the market, their overall lack of market clout will lead to them having no option but to choose a crappy service.
sigh... gives the phrase 'Forcing people to be free' - yet one further dimension.
The problem here is that the market for mobile Internet service providers is rather supply-constrained. There aren't a whole lot of players in the game, sadly.
It's a lot easier to stifle competition when it's just you and 2-3 other companies providing service.
Why does it increase the barrier to entry to the former? Because expected lower profit returns increase the risk on capex.
So your reply - while a necessary consideration to think through - sort of misses the whole point of the argument against net-neutrality. Net neutrality - according to this argument - will only serve to contribute to the lack of competition at the infrastructure level.
The real response to this argument is not to fight it on economic grounds - but to assert that the 'public good' which transcends merely economic considerations is put under threat. The primary way infrastructure providers will seek to increase profit margins is by bundling content and service delivery options. However, content - in this context - includes the entire political information flow of all the political structures in the world. Generally speaking, we don't believe it to be in the public good for this to be under the control of corporations. Since the 'public good' is frequently the sort of thing that can't be monetized - it's the natural place for government to step in to protect it.
I remain torn because it's never really clear if the actual aim of preserving the 'public_good' is best protected by intervention or otherwise. I say that ultimately we have to try both and then compare. Get empirical on the issue. A priori debate can only take us so far.
The only thing that net neutrality prevents infrastructure providers from doing is discriminating traffic based on content - they're still free to do things like charge StreamingMovieCDN higher prices than they charge SimpleHtmlHosting, or bill for actual traffic carried rather than a flat fee for the lines.
But the argument is that this is artificially low from what it should be because service providers have so far held off from bundling because of the regulatory uncertainty. Because it's artificially low - so the argument goes - that's what explains (at least in part) the current levels of competition.
Infrastructure players claim that once regulatory certainty is provided (against net neutrality) - then, since the pot of profits for infrastructure providers will increase - this will in turn encourage more entrants to the market.
Actually - one way you might argue against their economic argument is say: okay, but if the profit pot is only being increased because infrastructure players are bundling content, then infrastructure players that want to give users completely free reign to surf where they want will be priced out of the market. Bundlers will be able to subsidise network access at a lower price because of income generated through the content. Non-bundlers won't be able to do this and will quickly go out of business... Since big media content is already tightly controlled by a few large corporations, only a few infrastructure players will be able to provide such subsidies. Ergo - competition at the infrastructure level will be as bad as ever if not worse, while competition at the content and user level will disappear completely.
And yeah - who doesn't believe really that corporations want to destroy the competition that the internet represents.