You quoted the first sentence and said I was not for accountability.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to manipulate your words in any way. I would have made the same point even with the full quote. I was just trying to keep from quoting the entire post. I am sorry that it had the effect you describe. It certainly was not my intention.

Medicare Part D has to count among the worst corporate welfare programs ever created.

I couldn't agree more. It is awful on every level. I cannot understand why so many people bash Bush on what he has tried to do in the war on terror, but don't seem to be able to muster the energy to go after him on this. If someone really wants to remove Bush and the Republicans from power, this is a program that very few people support and that is confusing the heck out of everyone involved. His own base never supported this for an instant, and those on the liberal side who often support government programs don't seem to like it much either. If the Dems want a good result this fall, this is where they should aim, not the war.


No Child Left Behind has to count among the worst uses of statistics ever.

Again, I totally agree. It has created a huge burden on our local schools because of all the reporting and red-tape. It has done nothing to improve education or to help the disadvantaged. Again, another big failure for Bush, yet the Dems can't figure out how to use it to their advantage.

No child left behind, so far seems to be an empty promise, it has never been funded at the level they said it was going to be. A lot of costs seem to be passed on to the states. Reason for this is politics. No child left behind was the cornerstone in Bush's persona as a compassionate conservative.

Presciption Drug Act was political too. People wanted it and the administration realized this was going to go through, in fact, the Democrats version of it might go through. So the Administration came up with their own version. This bill is a godsend to corporations. Unlike the Veterans Administration it does not bargain for lower prices, so the pharmaceutical compainies benefit. It also includes direct payments to large corporations who are already providing this benefit for retirees. The passage of this bill seems openly criminal. The vote was held open for hours. Tom DeLay was accussed by a fellow Republican of using bribery and extortion on the floor of house during the vote. The Administration deliberatedly decieved Congress on the cost of the bill. The main actuary for Medicare was threatened that if told Congress the true cost, he would be fired. The benefit is not subject to level of income so Warren Buffet gets it as does my grandmother which seems a bit wasteful, but it's not the really expensive part of the bill. The giveouts to corporations are. A Repbulican House member from Texas called it "Republican socialism."

Total tax revenues may have gone up in whole dollars for A SINGLE YEAR, but they have been falling when measured against the economy. Also the revenues for that single year, is still lower than 2001. Revenues measured against the economy fell for the three years after Bush's tax cuts to the lowest levels since Eisenhower. In other words the tax cuts have made more financially insecure. This is why the government keeps raise the amount of debt it can legally have and why borrow and spend is our current fiscal policy.
Evidence can be found here, and here.


This year's healthy tax take follows three straight years -- the three years after the Bush tax cuts were first passed -- of falling tax receipts. Last year, tax revenue was at its lowest level as a share of the economy in 40-plus years. And even this year's receipts are far less than the administration had projected they would be in 2002. In short, the unexpected increase is good news only in comparison to the disappointing performance of the recent past. The notion that the tax cuts would somehow magically pay for themselves hasn't proved true; instead, taxes have come in far lower than was anticipated when the cuts were passed.

John,

I figured that you had just got it off Google. I didn't think you subscribed to the views on that site. I've had that happen myself. Google just puts up whatever has the most links to it.

By the way, here is a graph of government spending and revenues as percent of GDP. Social Security is not included here, because, its surpluses have been used to camoflage the real the state of the budget.

Notice the steep fall in government revenues this decade. Accompanied by a rise in federal spending. Which is the opposite of what was going on at the beginning of this decade.

Not only is supply side economics not working again. The Laffer curve has been proven wrong once again. The deficits it's creating are strucural and long term. It will have to followed by tax increases.
Reagan cut taxes massively and a giant deficit ensued, he then had to raise taxes several times during his presidency. The deficits persisted into the 90's Bush had to raise taxes. Then deficts still persisted. Clinton raised taxes on the top bracket, and signed deficit reduction bill. Republicans like Gingrinch and Armey said these would lead to economic ruin. Thus began the greatest postwar expansion and and eventually a surplus. Bush's tax cuts are a luxury item. A luxury that is affordable in the revenue/spending picture looks like 1999 and 2000. They are unaffordable with the current revenue spending picture.

Sorry to have to dampen your parades about free speech. I am one who yells in its defense all the time, but there is a simple enough way to FORCE anyone who uses the internet to disclose their identity.

Since the vast majority of the expense of running the internet is funded by the US Government, all they have to do is threaten to withhold access to any IP or such that doesn't verify identities of the users.

Further, the users can, in effect, be licensed to use the internet, just like the "public" highways. The state (nation or local state) has an indisputable right to control access and use of all that it funds, highways, internet, whatever.

You just watch next time some law school threatens to throw the military off campus and cites freedom of speech as their means of enforcing the eviction. (Opps, they lost that one, the military has now been scheduled for the last week in March and will now be admitted.) Smiles, hand me the money.

for the Drug Bill.

In the Senate only 9 Democrats voted for it and only 11 Republicans opposed it.
In the House 190 Democrats were against it and only 16 were for it.
204 Republicans were for it and only 25 against it.

The house vote was held from like 3AM to 6AM. President Bush and the Health Secretary personally lobbied for it. Deay and Hastert did too. It was truly a Republican Bill.


By the way above I identified DeLay as the one who tried to bribe Nick Smith, but he didn't mention DeLay by name, he mentioned "house leadership."

One of the fastest growing internet services are ones that provide total anonaminity. Could this bill be a covert way to boost their business even further, not that they need it, since going online their gateways have been totally swamped

Bob.

Since the vast majority of the expense of running the internet is funded by the US Government...

Priceless statement, makes my day! :O)

Actually, the internet is not an entity per se. It's a loose federation of connected networks, with some separate administrative entities (ICANN, etc.) that are largely unaccountable to anyone, and funded by user fees.

Perhaps you are thinking of the domain name administration? No, that's also paid for with user fees.

The U.S. Government is certainly doing what they can to control the Earth's Internet, but they are not "funding the vast majority of the expense of running the internet."

They aren't even funding the vast minority of the expenses.

They did toss in some moola for the development of the forerunner of the Internet (the military DARPANET and civilian research use that followed), and a few other bits and pieces since then, but as a percentage of the "expense of running the internet," I don't think it even approaches 0.0001%.

When quoting statistics, I prefer those from the government, rather than those from "independent" sources. Here's the link to the original source:

Congressional Budget Office Historical Budget Data, January 2006

Yes the Congressional Budget Office figures confirm what I said. Since the chart I posted was based on CBO figures. From page 7, outlays in 2001 were 18.5% of the GDP. In 2005, they were 20.1%.

From page 5, in 2001, revenues were 19.8% of the GDP. IN 2005 revenues were 17.5%.
In 2004 revenues were 16.3% of GDP. The only figure close to that was the 16.5 percent in 2003. The next closer figure on the chart in 17% from 1965. The chart doesn't show anything else near 16.3% because it stops during the Kennedy administration.

So the CBO figures fully support the chart I posted and the claim that it's been 40 years since tax revenue was this low. Also note that we did go from 16.3 % of GDP to 17.5 last year, a lot of that is ONE-TIME only. To get a tax break you had to declare the revenue. So revenue got moved up.

I repeat
Moreover, there's every reason to think that much of this year's more bountiful tax take could be temporary. A big chunk of the increased revenue comes from the expiration of an investment tax break, a one-time bump-up. Similarly, last year's tax bill created a one-year tax break for multinational corporations' overseas profits; this is also a once-only boost and could reduce tax revenue next year.

It's a credit card mentality. It's like even though I still have a lot of debt, I decided to work only four days a week so my income goes down, but I decide to spend that day shopping, so my spending goes up.

Also, I am not engaged in rhetorical sleight of hand here. % of GDP is how economists measure revenues and outlays and it's how they speak of taxes.

Here's Douglas Holtz-Eakin who was the head of the CBO until last year writing in an op-ed in the Washington Post.

To appreciate the true size of the fiscal problem, dig down one layer in official budget forecasts. Government forecasts predict that budget deficits will narrow as revenues rise from the current level, which is below the post-World War II average of 18 cents on the dollar, to a level near the postwar peak of 20 cents. Is that realistic? Historically, when taxes reach that level, U.S. politics drive them back down.

Another stupid law trying to get passed. Don't these idiots have something better to do with their time?

How about unlisted phone numbers? Is that not a type anonymity?

Even if they were to pass it, it would likely be about as useful as the CAN-SPAM act. We all know what a roaring success that was... :-p

If it is just in NJ then they will be the only state bound by the law. The rest of us will be able to impune them while completely anonymous. :-)

If the US does adopts it, then the rest of the world will be able to impune us anonymously. Just because it is US law doesn't mean everyone else will follow - and we will have no way to force them into compliance.

So what are the advantages of this?

While there may be some bad things associated with lack of accountability, there are more advantages. With the amount of whackos in the world, do you really want somebody to know who you are and where to find you? God forbid you should say something bad about the Packers!

Anyway, if the government or law enforcement wanted to get your real identity, they can get it. What the use of things like Carnivore if they don't know who your are?!

IMO, this boils down to techno-morons trying to administer the net. This is a freakin' joke! It's just a politician trying to get some press...

John, I agree with you, but you forgot some crucial aspects: Rudeness is not the problem. Criminality is. Denial-of-service, etc... Major problems exist because of anonymity.

I would love to see an internet where anonymity is not allowed. The technology exists in software today. Doesn't require any hardware changes.

OTOH, we won't solve all the problems. In particular, zombie computers. Computers which are not anonymous (i.e., would pass any bill or technology restrictions applied), but are remotely controlled by a criminal.

Still, I'm 100% for it. Not that we'll get the legislation "right" the first few attempts.

Free speech is indeed free. Even if there are consequences, free speech is still free. I don't have earn it. I don't have to pay a cent for it. It's mine. It's yours too. I still have it, if I sign my name or I don't

I understand what you're saying, but I think what is meant by "free speech isn't free" is that many, hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) have paid the ultimate price for you, me, and others to speak freely in this country.

Indeed, free speech comes and is maintained at a very high price.

Here comes Big Brother

Will those who have been harmed by an anonymous person or persons please raise your hand?

Hackers, liars and cheats are the ones causing the harm are they not?

I know - lets give up our rights to get these guys!

Lets make up some laws to prosecute these guys! No wait we already have that.

Lets get some smart guys to track down these nefarious individuals and get em off the streets! No wait we already do that.

Lets forget about property rights and let the "government" decide what is the best use of our land - its all about making more money! No wait we already do that

Lets let the government eaves drop on telephone conversations without accountability. No wait we already do that.

Lets forget about due process and throw people in jail - someplace out of the way - hard to visit. No wait we already do that.

Lets make some laws that abridge free speech near an election - who cares about the first amendment. No wait we already do that.

Lets make some laws to stop legislatures from using their position to enrich themselves - cause I'm too busy to pay attention to that. No wait we already do that. Well lets make some more then by golly!

Sooner or later we'll get it right - RIGHT?

Will those who have been harmed by an anonymous person or persons please raise your hand?

I have, on many occasions. Both my son and daughter have been threatened online. I'm noted for long posts, and I could make this one of my longest, if you really want me to give you all the examples.

I know - lets give up our rights to get these guys!

Your right to what? Anonymity? If someone calls your house at three in the morning and threatens to murder everyone in your house, is his anonymity guaranteed? I don't see why the Internet, and the milder forms of insults and abuses, as well as legitimate threats, should be any different. This then, also should extend to spam -- which has major consequences to all of us. Do you think my son and daughter should have their email boxes stuffed full of lewd come-ons? Do you have any idea what this is doing to our children?? If wanting to control this by forcing people and companies out in the open is "Big Brother," then we've had "Big Brother" since the beginning of this country. This is about standing up and taking personal responsibility for your own conduct. If you take an action, you darn well better be able to stand up, in public, and take responsibility for it. If you say or do something that is outside of community standards (like swearing in public) or outside of the law, then you will pay the consequences.

What worries the heck out of me is that some think that statements like I just made should be mocked as being harsh or radical in some way.

The great hope in all of this is the generation now in college. What do they rebel against? I think you'll all be very surprised.

I have been threatened online as well. On political forums. The worst was when the Iraq mistake broke out. I had been arguing against it for two years and when it broke out one of the neanderthal's who supported Bush threatened to "get me".
There was a lot of testosterone logic at the time on their part.

I simply reported it to the forum administrators. It didn't stop me from posting and certainly didn't cause me to want to strike down anonymity. The police can track down a criminal who posts on the internet and threatens people without my having to give up my right of privacy to worse criminals than that idiot who propose such nonsense.
John

Our armed forces protect the security of the nation against external threat. However, freedom of speech and other freedoms are an internal debate. Black soldiers in WWII came back and still found they were second-class citizens under segregation. Free speech was established, not by a soldier but by a publisher and a jury of his peers. Soldiers protect the Republic, but they do not shape what's it's like to live in Republic.

We currently have troops under fire in foreign lands, at the same time, the President and his lawyers are making the argument, they can ignore the 4th Ammendment wherever they choose to and that the other branches of government cannot encroach on their right.

However, freedom of speech and other freedoms are an internal debate.

No, that isn't entirely true. Had Japan or Germany or Korea or The Soviet Union or the radical Muslims had their way, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Any time any one threatens the sovereignty of the United States, they threaten our freedoms and liberties.

Jay, that is the point of the first sentence of my post.

So what's your point? Sounds like we're in agreement.

John - just so you know - I am sorry you have been harmed and that you and your family have been threatened. I am sorry your children have received bad email. I wish it never had happened and I hope it never will in the future. I appreciate your passion and concern for the State of the Union.

We can agree to disagree on the way to deal with the problem - and I think thats okay and what makes America great.

Phone numbers and email addresses can be changed - screening services are available for them as well. Obviously we disagree on whether there is enough technology to go after the bad people. I read stories of police tracking down internet criminals and this comforts me - perhaps there is not enough of those success stories to comfort you.

Spam - like telemarketing and pornography and drugs- proliferates because it is profitable. There are enough "ordinary" people (suckers if you ask me) out there engaging in business with them to encourage them to continue. So how do you tackle a problem perpetuated by the general public - yes - We The People? Make more laws? We seem to disagree on this.

I agree with you that there is great potential in the youth of today.

I believe the changes both you and I seek begin with the heart, morals based upon respecting and loving God and your fellow man, and actions based upon those ideas. It remains to been seen exactly what is instilled in today's youth. It is my sense that there is a drift away from these things - and in that - I hope you are right and I am wrong - and that I am pleasantly surprised - and we are all the better for it.

p.s. I don't think your a radical - although I would be willing to bet you attended woodstock!