Users who Dugg This
Regina Rodriguez
1644 Followers
Rodrigo Tabarez
2288 Followers
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
The Amplifier
7745 Followers
Adnan Shaffi
2940 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
Skateboard
3879 Followers
ReginaRodriguezFeb 11, 2011
Will it be with music? Oh wait wrong Usher
/s
davidnivenFeb 11, 2011
And he wants to do it with YOUR tax money. Yeah, he's a liberal alright.
4bitFeb 11, 2011
FTA: "The plan could net up to $27.8 billion dollars over the next ten years, with roughly a third of it going to reduce the budget deficit."
That's 9 Billion on deficit reduction. So yeah... that's how I'd like my tax dollars spent. What was your plan?
linuxpersonFeb 11, 2011
Any plan to reduce the deficit that involves deficit spending is idiotic at best. If you really want to reduce the deficit, then STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4bitFeb 11, 2011
That's one answer. But it's not sustainable after that. The goal is not only to end the deficit, but to put us on a path of sustainability. This policy would work along those lines. It would cut deficit, and create a way for more people to do more things and get themselves, personally, out of debt.
Are there things that need to be cut. ABSOLUTELY. And we can disagree about which ones all day, but agree that it needs to be done.
So, if you're in debt do you not fill your car with gas to get to work so you can pay off the debt?
Not spending money will keep us from making new debt, but it won't stop old debt. At some point we need to invest in things that do both.
linuxpersonFeb 11, 2011
"It would cut deficit, and create a way for more people to do more things and get themselves, personally, out of debt."
That's speculation. It will increase the deficit up front, but in theory it will reduce the deficit in the long run. Again, that is speculation.
"So, if you're in debt do you not fill your car with gas to get to work so you can pay off the debt?"
That depends. If I have no money saved and I've exhausted my credit (which the Federal government is about to do) then no, I won't fill my car with debt because I will have no money to buy the gas. The Federal government gets around this by artificially increasing it's credit (i.e. raising the debt ceiling) and then requesting more money from the Treasury which in turns sells the Fed tbonds.
"Not spending money will keep us from making new debt, but it won't stop old debt."
You seem to lack a basic understanding of how to pay off a debt. If you are unable to pay your credit card debt because you blow all your pay check at the bar, you stop going to the bar. That results in you having more money to pay your debt.
Likewise, if the Federal government would reduce its deficit spending, that would mean more dollars to service the existing debt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ninjab3arFeb 11, 2011
"If you are unable to pay your credit card debt because you blow all your pay check at the bar, you stop going to the bar. That results in you having more money to pay your debt"
Thats a very biased analogy. One can spend a portion of that paycheck in a well thought out investment that can yield returns that not only pay off the debt, but continue generating money.
If accruing debt for the purposes of generating more money was a bad idea, business loans, mortgages, and college loans would not exist or be profitable enough for it to exist in today's market.
JewstinFeb 12, 2011
you seem to lack the understanding though when it comes to debt. You can also defeat debt by making strategic investments that will give you a higher rate of return. My family used 100,000 dollars borrowed from the bank in order to buy stocks that were at the time 2$ a piece, which now in the present are worth around 65$ a piece. Did we have some debt yes, do we have any debt now because of that investment no, infact we now have a surplus of around 300 thousand dollars.
entroperFeb 12, 2011
"That's speculation. It will increase the deficit up front, but in theory it will reduce the deficit in the long run. Again, that is speculation."
It won't increase the deficit up front. They're paying for it by auctioning off the wireless spectrum. They're actually expecting to get 50% more from the auction than what the plan costs.
So an apt analogy would be, you're in debt, and you have two cars. You sell the car you're not using, and put 1/3 of the proceeds directly toward paying down your debt. You invest the other 2/3 into a fund that you expect to appreciate more quickly than the interest on your loans. You can call that speculation if you want, but they have data to back up their predictions. Either way, the investment is paid for by the proceeds of the sale. It does not increase the deficit.
linuxpersonFeb 17, 2011
@ninjab3ar
There is no portion left, do you not understand what a deficit is? Any investment that does not help to offset any accrued interest or new debt will cease to be a investment.
@Jewstin
Your family has to work within the market where they are directly responsible for the money that they invest. If they lose out on their investment, they might end up homeless. That's a big incentive to invest wisely, no?
Government, on the other hand, is not a person and is therefore subject to a certain degree of moral hazard.
@entroper
Citation needed.
linuxpersonFeb 17, 2011
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32752036/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
"Obama took a strong swipe at his predecessor, President George W. Bush, in arguing that his proposal — whose price tag he himself put at $900 billion — would actually save money."
http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/30/900-billion-house-health-care
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/video/health-care-whos-footing-the-900-billion-bill/341379/
Denial is one sweet river.
roguegeniusFeb 17, 2011
"STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE."
Great idea! Tell you what, stick that into an envelope and mail it to the 2001 White House when we HAD A FREAKING SURPLUS!!
After your boys spent like drunken sailors on NOTHING, now you want to stop spending on what we need. Screw that. We have to rebuild the nation and people after being held down for a generation. That's going to cost money, so freaking deal with it.
fxspec06Feb 11, 2011
Don't listen to the republicans. This guy is getting it done.
harrisbradleyFeb 11, 2011
First let us ask: "Has any financial estimate the U.S. federal government given us ever even been close?" No, not ever. We're not dealing with facts, we're dealing with a sales pitch.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantFeb 11, 2011
Actually, no, he doesn't. The proposal is to do it with the money raised auctioning off broadcast rights in the wireless spectrum.
I had to go deep, deep . . . almost an entire half-sentence . . . . into the article you didn't bother reading to discover that fact.
dirtyfriesFeb 11, 2011
Ha, you and your facts. People might make a mistake and listen to reason instead of their knee-jerk reactions with talk like that.
trollspottingFeb 12, 2011
-----there's one------------------------------^
friday1970Feb 13, 2011
Or, would you consider a troll as a digger who inputs absolutely nothing to a debate and instead chooses to just name call?
eraptorFeb 12, 2011
Dave,
How do you suppose we'll ever advance the national interest if we subscribe to your full privatization theories of running a country? Your political/economic theories have never worked in the history of mankind. So, what makes you think they would work now?
By the way, U.S. global competitors (i.e., China, India, Brazil, etc.) aren't using YOUR political/economic theories to advance their countries economic interests.
metazareFeb 11, 2011
nice....but aaaaahh nice
michdeFeb 11, 2011
For as many reasons as the masses may hate him, most of us nerds think he's pretty cool and this is yet another reason why :)
jrod4040Feb 11, 2011
I applaud this. Needs to be done.
unrealfanFeb 11, 2011
GObama
vigrocoFeb 11, 2011
You would think an effort like this would generate no controversy at all, but alas the power of the pundits will overtake all rational thought.
ghostof2010Feb 11, 2011
So do we get national free broadband yet?
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
Oh sure! Because he is black you are calling him an usher. Real mature! You racist bastards!
fxspec06Feb 11, 2011
Yeah! Go Obama! w00t I'm so effing glad I voted for him.
relengaFeb 11, 2011
No thanks, how about letting those that want it get and let the government stay out of our lives.
4bitFeb 11, 2011
Um. No one would force you to connect to it. Just have it available to you. You know... let you get if if you want it...
professorpeakFeb 11, 2011
Didn't he just tell me to stop listening to my XBOX or IPOD or something?
kolop1Feb 11, 2011
He needs to usher us out of this recession first.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
Please not another one of them glowing, rosie scenario brought to you by Govco. They should have stopped at "auction of wireless spectrum". But no, can't do that. Lets get out the crystal ball , make up a few numbers and make promises that never turn out like we say.
Obama could say s**t with his mouth full.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
piratearggghhhFeb 11, 2011
I'd rather have investments in high-tech and infrastructure that have enormous returns over the bottomless pit of war and defense spending.
kasha34Feb 12, 2011
Yeah, making sure you can get internet porn wireless in your car is FAR more important than stopping people that openly declare their intention to kill us and then proceed to work towards realizing that intention.
friday1970Feb 13, 2011
That was the purpose of the stimulus. But, that purpose never happened, did it.
specimen7Feb 11, 2011
Just a nice way of saying he wants to make it easier to spy on everyone.
kasha34Feb 12, 2011
And to have a govt-required pipeline for propaganda into every house.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
Any time Obama does anything that would remotely help poor people he is a evil socialist, so clearly, this is more evidence of that.
I think this would be great for America. Its almost impossible to find a place like retail or restaurant or almost any job that still does paper applications. Its all online now. You can better market yourself through Monster and other job sites. This is very good for people looking for work. People can pick up odd jobs through Craigslist, or sell items. Find things cheaper on Ebay. Set up online banking so late fees are very easy to avoid. It can better help people balance their check books.
People can educate themselves. The internet is a great education tool, tutorials on everything.
I support this.
gkiltzFeb 12, 2011
There are a lot of dead spots out there.
Most food is produced in places with no wireless signal.
Existing technologies can solve the problem, we just need a lot more of them.
The build-out can be a big help getting unemployment down!
gkiltzFeb 12, 2011
Remember, all those wireless "Hot Spots" will have to be tied together, and all ultimately connected to the internet, and also to the PSTN.
98% of the interconnections are going to have to be fiber, at least for permanent connections.
Laser can serve as a useful "quick turn up" or emergency back up.but it has a lot of issues for longer hauls, and in some weather conditions.
kasha34Feb 12, 2011
"40% of the nation lacks a broadband connection..."
A leetle bit misleading. Makes it sound as if Time-Warner hasn't wired their block.
The truth is, these are Americans who CHOOSE not to pay for a service.
Maybe they have a reason. Maybe they CHOOSE to spend their money on something else. And Obama-the-socialist thinks we should all chip in to buy broadband for people who could care less if they have it.
Ever see the kids with the govt - paid free lunches at school? Half of them grab the chips and throw all the rest away. So Obama would force us all to give up our money to put broadband in people's houses who don't want it.
teebirdFeb 17, 2011
The fact is that the initiative to extend broadband service in the US is partly driven by the concept of "universal service" that has been officially part of federal telecom. for over 70 years...look up the Telecommunications Act of 1934.
You're quite right, however to question the way broadband service is counted in the article because, as you correctly state, not everyone wants the service. A better statistic would be the percentage of homes "passed" by broadband, meaning homes that have broadband available and could access it if they desired the service.
kasha34Feb 17, 2011
You're right, that would be a better statistic. And here's what I'm saying:
Obama and his supporters quote the meaningless inflated number on purpose.
teebirdFeb 17, 2011
I don't believe the intent is to deceive so much as to simplify. The problem with simplifying numbers, however, is that simplified statistics can mislead and in a broadcast setting, which is where most people get their news, numbers and statistics can be difficult to present effectively.
I'm a data networking specialist and I wrote my masters dissertation on municipal networking, so I'm familiar with the terminology and the different ways the userbase can be counted. In a previous career, I was a radio journalist, so I know something about the problem of presenting numbers to an audience. It can be an ugly choice. Present a simple percentage and it will be misconstrued or won't properly reflect the facts. Present a more sophisticated statistic in a broadcast piece where there is no way for the audience to back up and consider the meaning of the number and you risk the information escaping them entirely. Take the time to explain the meaning of the statistic and you've just burned a significant percentage of the allotted airtime for your story explaining the meaning of one number.
None of this, however, negates your basic contention that people and groups will use the numbers that best make their case, often without due regard to context.
fxmulderFeb 13, 2011
Obama wants control over the Internet..usher this!
teebirdFeb 13, 2011
Are you a real ignoramus or do you only play at being one on the Internet?
The federal government has had substantial control over telecom in the US for over 70 years. It's called The Communications Act of 1936.
roguegeniusFeb 17, 2011
This is a great idea. I'll tell you, it is so nice not to be ashamed of my president for a change.