A Liberal Supermajority

[dalegg 143]

As a Democrat, I'll say this - I don't think Nancy Pelosi is the best Rep. for Speaker. I am a bit fearful that many of the establishment Dems in Congress will want to steer legislation to their liking rather than being open to the new Dems who ran on the idea of shaking things up in Washington. If the Democratic Party is going to make any substantial progress, they've got to undo what the GOP has done with K Street, but not replace it with their own.

uh oh. He's moving back to the Green party. I can feel it. Going for Nader again. No more Obama pics in the signature either.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed" [OP quote]

And yet Republicans have held the balance of power in the White House for most of the years following 1965... It is a real head scratcher how putting another Republican in the White House is the 'fix' while electing a *gasp* Democrat will doom our nation...

The horror... The horror...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As a Democrat, I'll say this - I don't think Nancy Pelosi is the best Rep. for Speaker. I am a bit fearful that many of the establishment Dems in Congress will want to steer legislation to their liking rather than being open to the new Dems who ran on the idea of shaking things up in Washington. If the Democratic Party is going to make any substantial progress, they've got to undo what the GOP has done with K Street, but not replace it with their own.

uh oh. He's moving back to the Green party. I can feel it. Going for Nader again. No more Obama pics in the signature either.

LOL...hopefully it won't come to that. The Democratic Party is re-energized right now with all the newly registered voters. There are a lot of party members waiting with anticipation that issues like health care and the economy will be the focus of Congress and the President (if Obama gets elected).

[IAMX 3,055]

Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

What's this? Another conspiracy theory.

You just had 8 years of a Republican President, and more than half of those was with a rubber-stamp Republican Congress who bent over to King Bush.

I see nothing wrong with these either:

Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

I wonder what you thought about the filibuster back in 2005.

God, I'd love to have smeared that #### in your face. Too bad you didn't join until after.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

I sure as #### hope so! I'd say it's about goddamn time to join the rest of the first world.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

Sounds awful prophetic. How terribly are the Canadians doing? They seem so unhappy.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

With AT&T receiving a MAJOR immunity backing with their illegal wiretaps upon Americans, in collusion with the NSA, this is more alarmist nonsense. Democrats have shown to be in the pockets of the telcom industry. PLUS, the absolutely STUPID franchising laws across many Democratic-governed states, but none more prominent than the one with a Republican governor, and a high majority Democrat state Congress which has been shown to be in the pocket of the telcom and recording/movie industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

Again, I sure hope so! If we're going to have business they must have an employment base with say-so as well. Especially that in many companies employers are also common stock holders. Even more of a reason to see the company succeed.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

Duh. With baby boomers rapidly retiring soon, we'll need lots more in SS funds. And health insurance on top of it means quite a bit in the short term. In the long term, the retirees are going down after the boomers start dying, in all likelihood retiring age will be pushed upwards, and it will level out.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

More conspiracy theory scare nonsense. While I fear it may favor certain companies (I really despite no-bid contracts of any sort) or organizations, the cap and trade system is a must. Done right, of course.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

Ahh yes, even better. One thing I do know is Clearchannel does need to have itself broken up. Competition needs to be forced, and indeed views diversified. Although, one thing I doubt is Republicans are the voice of free speech. Equal chances for both parties here.

[IAMX 3,055]

......

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

That's because without net neutrality, internet websites that aren't approved by the ISP would be forced to pay a tax or be shut down. The service is paid for by the consumer, it is them who decides where they go and what they see. Content providers like Google or Youtube or NHL Gamcenter Online already have servers and bandwidth of their own to pay. The suggestion that they need to pay a tax on top of it to already rich ISPs is absolutely stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Net neutrality is a must.

and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left

Uh, no. In fact, they've moved to the right. With the support of the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, harsh war rhetoric on Iran, telcom immunity and shielding, there's nothing to suggest these Democrats have moved at all to a perceived left.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Uh, no. In fact, they've moved to the right. With the support of the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, harsh war rhetoric on Iran, telcom immunity and shielding, there's nothing to suggest these Democrats have moved at all to a perceived left.

So, could JFK have been elected by today's Democrat Party?

[IAMX 3,055]

Uh, no. In fact, they've moved to the right. With the support of the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, harsh war rhetoric on Iran, telcom immunity and shielding, there's nothing to suggest these Democrats have moved at all to a perceived left.

So, could JFK have been elected by today's Democrat Party?

Could Jesus have been elected by today's Republicans?

[dalegg 143]

That's because without net neutrality, internet websites that aren't approved by the ISP would be forced to pay a tax or be shut down. The service is paid for by the consumer, it is them who decides where they go and what they see. Content providers like Google or Youtube or NHL Gamcenter Online already have servers and bandwidth of their own to pay. The suggestion that they need to pay a tax on top of it to already rich ISPs is absolutely stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Net neutrality is a must.

I don't know that's its really a tax so much as a payment. There is another side to this you know. The internet was not actually built to accomodate the amounts of streaming that is going on now. The idea behind high speed connections was faster downloads, and as such there would be less simultaneous users so a managable number of subscribers could all enjoy these downloads. Constant streaming of 1080p hd streams was not counted on, and not only is it very difficult and expensive to maintain a network capable of doing this, its actually damn near impossible. The expense laid out to maintain this system is just that- expense. Cable and Phone companies get absolutely no return for the millions that is spent in expansion other than hopefully retention of existing customers. Meanwhile, online movie PPV companies use this network and collect all profits for it- not to mention eating into cable companies' own PPV revenue, so essentially the broadband companies are footing the lion's share of the bill of their competition! Its like United Airlines building an airport in a city that really needs it, and all other Airlines are granted free access, while United continues to have to pay 100% of the airport maintenance costs and even has to build the terminals for its competitors. To me, THAT sounds stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Heracles 417]

That's because without net neutrality, internet websites that aren't approved by the ISP would be forced to pay a tax or be shut down. The service is paid for by the consumer, it is them who decides where they go and what they see. Content providers like Google or Youtube or NHL Gamcenter Online already have servers and bandwidth of their own to pay. The suggestion that they need to pay a tax on top of it to already rich ISPs is absolutely stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Net neutrality is a must.

That is rubbish. Compare the cost of Verizon's Fios roll out, for example, to a google data enter. The initial roll out cost is $23 billion for Verizon. What is Verizon's ARPU?

They should be charging those major content providers a gateway fee. Especially providers such as youtube who are utilizing huge amounts of bandwidth. Why should Verizon pay for the network upgrades to support this and barely break even on it while Google makes billions off pretty much nothing. There should be no free lunch for the content providers and the carriers should have a right to charge the large content providers some sort of fee.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Aficionado

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Uh, no. In fact, they've moved to the right. With the support of the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, harsh war rhetoric on Iran, telcom immunity and shielding, there's nothing to suggest these Democrats have moved at all to a perceived left.

So, could JFK have been elected by today's Democrat Party?

No.

Uh, no. In fact, they've moved to the right. With the support of the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, harsh war rhetoric on Iran, telcom immunity and shielding, there's nothing to suggest these Democrats have moved at all to a perceived left.

So, could JFK have been elected by today's Democrat Party?

Could Jesus have been elected by today's Republicans?

No, because they are turning into Dimocrats.

[Heracles 417]

Could Jesus have been elected by today's Republicans?

He certainly would have been stoned to death by modern liberal Americans. Unless he was a minority, gay and a reformed atheist.. Apparently once you met those three conditions you are allowed to have an opinion.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Aficionado

[Heracles 417]

With AT&T receiving a MAJOR immunity backing with their illegal wiretaps upon Americans, in collusion with the NSA, this is more alarmist nonsense. Democrats have shown to be in the pockets of the telcom industry. PLUS, the absolutely STUPID franchising laws across many Democratic-governed states, but none more prominent than the one with a Republican governor, and a high majority Democrat state Congress which has been shown to be in the pocket of the telcom and recording/movie industries.

I am still waiting on you to tell me, using your 'infinite wisdom', how else they are supposed to proactively catch actual terrorists. As profiling out. Phone tapping is out. Interrogation of prisoners is out. So now what??

Seemed to work well in London preventing the air hijackings a few years ago.. No?

Edited October 21, 2008 by Aficionado

[IAMX 3,055]

That's because without net neutrality, internet websites that aren't approved by the ISP would be forced to pay a tax or be shut down. The service is paid for by the consumer, it is them who decides where they go and what they see. Content providers like Google or Youtube or NHL Gamcenter Online already have servers and bandwidth of their own to pay. The suggestion that they need to pay a tax on top of it to already rich ISPs is absolutely stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Net neutrality is a must.

That is rubbish. Compare the cost of Verizon's Fios roll out, for example, to a google data enter. The initial roll out cost is $23 billion for Verizon. What is Verizon's ARPU?

They should be charging those major content providers a gateway fee. Especially providers such as youtube who are utilizing huge amounts of bandwidth. Why should Verizon pay for the network upgrades to support this and barely break even on it while Google makes billions off pretty much nothing. There should be no free lunch for the content providers and the carriers should have a right to charge the large content providers some sort of fee.

This is easily mitigated by the Canadian cap system (already making it's way to Comcrap) and better / more efficient backbones, as Verizon's FIOS system will be.

Then it will be the user's responsibility, much akin to remote computer intrusion, to monitor their own bandwidth consumption, and pay for a plan which better fits their data consumption. I told people it was inevitable that we were going to get the Canadian cap system that was in place for almost a decade.

Then we can add, on their costs and revenues, the fact that they get tax payer money to help them in rolling out POTS, both Verizon and AT&T, and both cable and DSL get government subsidies, or even government aid in the form of franchising laws, which are aimed at knocking out CLECs to compete with infrastructure TAXPAYERS helped pay for. #### you, taxpayers.

This is why I'm so much more, over the last few years, favoring municipal broadband. #### these for-profit #######.

Edit: I forgot to mention their cost savings in outsourcing their IT/CS departments, and who knows what else. I can't tell you their ARPU because I don't have access to their financial statements.

Edit 2: You'll also find the irony in how low prices have gone for DSL. 10 years ago, they used to be $55, minimum. Now you see $14.95 and $19.99 plans. There's your other problem.

Edited October 21, 2008 by SRVT

[Heracles 417]

Google had the chance to bid for the 700Mhz spectrum and offer as much bandwidth and data as they liked, but they obviously didn't.

Installing and running IP networks costs billions and is NOT subsidized by the tax payer. I don't think it is fair that the telcos fork out the cash to upgrade their networks while the content providers earn billions off it. The Telcos should have the right to charge a resonable fee to any content provider who is using a large percentage of their network to distribute their content.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Aficionado

[Scott & Lai 12]

Uh, no. In fact, they've moved to the right. With the support of the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, harsh war rhetoric on Iran, telcom immunity and shielding, there's nothing to suggest these Democrats have moved at all to a perceived left.

So, could JFK have been elected by today's Democrat Party?

Could Jesus have been elected by today's Republicans?

Jesus wouldn't be elected by either party. He was neither a Republican nor a Democrat; he wasn't a political leader at all. So it's a complete non sequitor to bring him up in this context.

You claim the Democrats have moved to the Right. So, would they elect JFK?