We now have certainty on this issue. Since it was one of the issues that republicans said was leading to uncertainty and therefore preventing the business community from investing their stored up trillions, they now have certainty on this issue.

The business community should also have certainty wrt to healthcare legislation. They can rest assured that President Obama will veto any legislation that threatnens to undo his signature achievement. The same can be said of financial reform.

Admitedly, detailed regulations are still being written so I presume that is the level of uncertainty that is preventing the business community from investing in America?

Dog bites man! Read all about it!

This is good news, because I don't want to muddy the waters with a mix of conservative and liberal policies.

I want Americans to see 1st hand how liberals economic policies effect the US economy.

-800,000 jobs per month was the effect of conservative policies.

Funny how the "we have to pay down the debt" crowd pisses their pants when someone actually wants to start doing it.

This is good news, because I don't want to muddy the waters with a mix of conservative and liberal policies.

I want Americans to see 1st hand how liberals economic policies effect the US economy.

#3 | Posted by 90c2cab at

well said//

-800,000 jobs per month was the effect of conservative policies.

#4 | Posted by 726 at 2010-09-08 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag

typical response...and of course OVERLOOKING the 18 months of job growth during one stretch of the bush years

I want Americans to see 1st hand how liberals economic policies effect the US economy.

You mean policies like allowing businesses to deduct 100% of capital equipment expenditures rather than depreciating or ammortizing over the life of the property?

We are seeing 1st hand how not to handle a recession.

This is one for the economic text books.

I hope everyone is taking notes.

"I want Americans to see 1st hand how liberals economic policies effect the US economy."

We did, the Clinton administration demonstrated it for us. Unfortunately he was succeeded by Bush who destroyed all of the progress we made and then some.

We did, the Clinton administration demonstrated it for us.

Clinton happened to be in the right place at the right time. The internet/dotcom boom would have happened regardless, and that is what made the Clinton years the Roaring 20s ver 2.0. If anything, the economy was too hot and should've been tempered a little bit, as we saw with the downturn towards the end of his administration.

Even the socialists in Germany cut taxes, cut spending, and deregulated during the recession.

How did the German plan work? German GDP is up.

It's pretty sad when you have to look at a socialist country as an example on how to handle a recession

Even the socialists in Germany cut taxes, cut spending, and deregulated during the recession.

Are you saying you would be wiling to adopt Germany's tax regime?

#10 | Posted by goatman
Clinton happened to be in the right place at the right time. The internet/dotcom boom would have happened regardless, and that is what made the Clinton years the Roaring 20s ver 2.0. If anything, the economy was too hot and should've been tempered a little bit, as we saw with the downturn towards the end of his administration.
-----
Goatman you didn't get the memo, the dot com boom was because of Clinton.

Before you answer that question regarding Germany you should review this very watered down description of Germany's tax system:

According the Chamber of Commerce 40% or more of small businesses will have a tax increase, if they let this tax expire.

We all know that small businesses account for the largest % of jobs, and currently they are not hiring, so how is raising their taxes going to reverse this trend?

If Obama is writing a book, I have the appropriate title "How not to Handle a Recession"

typical response...and of course OVERLOOKING the 18 months of job growth during one stretch of the bush years

Bubble economy nonsense.

Bubble economy nonsense.

#16 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

bullshit answer showing cant argue point.

According the Chamber of Commerce 40% or more of small businesses will have a tax increase, if they let this tax expire.

And Obama has proposed to keep the breaks in place for small businesses as well as allowing them to deduct 100% of capital equipment expenditures. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal to extend the tax breaks and his proposal on deductions for capex?

Good.

.

According the Chamber of Commerce 40% or more of small businesses will have a tax increase, if they let this tax expire.

The CoC has a point if no new legislation is put in place to extend the tax cuts for those small businesses with earnings less than $250K. The strategy of the democrats and the POTUS is to let the Bush tax cuts expire and replace them with new tax cuts for individuals/businesses with earnings less than $250K. Since congress is deadlocked, new legislation is not likely and the Bush tax cuts will expire without new legislation being put in place to eliminate the taxes for those under $250K. Republicans will campaign that the democrats have raised taxes and democrats will campaign that the republicans won't allow tax cuts (their signature issue) to be implemented. It will become very obvious that republicans are only looking out for the uber rich.

The argument that tax cuts for those earning $250K+ will result in job growth is specious at best. In many (most?) cases, earnings from small businesses flow through to their owners and is treated as business income by many owners when they file their personal income taxes. The tax bite that many small business owners that have $250K+ earnings would face could be mitigated by some of the small business initiatives that are being proposed by the POTUS. All the owners would have to do is reinvest some of their earnings in their businesses.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, which is predominantly a Republican lobbying organization, 40% or more of small businesses will have a tax increase, if they let this tax expire.

#15 | Posted by 90c2cab

FTFY

"40% or more of small businesses will have a tax increase, if they let this tax expire"

Translation: 4 in 10 "small" businesses are owned by folks who profit MORE than a quarter-million dollars a year.

Goatman you didn't get the memo, the dot com boom was because of Clinton.

LOL. No it wasn't.

In 1983 the telecom industry was deregulatged, 9 years before Clinton before took office. Until then it was only AT&T. At this time Judge Greene ordered the the breakup of AT&T into 7 "Baby Bells" and the single LD carrier which retained the name AT&T. But with regulation down the drain, competition began in earnest to provide long distance service. MCI, US TEL, GTE SPRINT, and others rushed into the scene.

Sprint seemed to be the visionary here. They laid the first coast to coast fiber optic cable in 1986. (still long before Clinton) As this was going on, emerging technologies such as ATM (Asynchronous Transer Mode) Frame relay, DWDM made these growing fiber networks dozens, if not hundreds of times more effecient. Self healing network technology like SONET made them reliable. There was suddenly more bandwidth than people know what to do with. If you were alive then, you probably remember how a LD phone call cost dropped by 90% almost overnight. This was why.

Still, gobs of cheap bandwidth out there. People became more and more clever on how to pass data on it and Darpanet evolved into what we know as the internet and the WWW. WIth the internet and the WWW in place, the stage was set for the dotcom boom. And boy did it take off. All this happened before 1990, before Clinton was president, BTW.

You are welcome for the history lesson.

You said, "Goatman you didn't get the memo, the dot com boom was because of Clinton."

Please explain how this is since the dotcom train already had plenty of momentum long before Clinton took office. The building of the data network necessary for it happened almost solely on Reagan's and 41's watch.

So I think you may have gotten a faulty memo, 90c2cab. You most certainly are not a studen of history.

Judge Greene

There's one thing Jimmy Carter got right.

There's one thing Jimmy Carter got right.

Agreed. If there is only one person for whom credit would go for the dotcom boom, it would be Judge Greene. Because without his deregulating the phone industry, the competition to build better technologies would not have been there. AT&T would still pretty much be today what they were then.

As Lily Tomlin said in the '70s, "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company"

BTW, trivia question. Does anyone know how Sprint got its name and why they had a heads up in creating the nation's first fiber network? The answers are related.

The answer in next post.

"Does anyone know how Sprint got its name and why they had a heads up in creating the nation's first fiber network? The answers are related."

I'm not sure of the answer, but IIRC, their first name was discarded because it meant something VERY NEGATIVE in another language.

Sprint is an acronym for Southern Pacific INTernal comm. The railroad had a primitive network in the conduit in their right of way they used for internal communications purposes -- as probably most railroads did. GTE telephone bought this network and named the company GTE Sprint. They exploited the railroads vast track network and corresponding right-of-way to lay their fiber.

That is also why in the early days of the modern telecom networks, before self healing networks were available, a train wreck almost always guaranteed a massive and lasting disruption in service.

US Tel went on to merge with GTE Sprint and called themselves US Sprint. With the winning of the FTS2000 government data and voice contract in the mid '90s, stunning industry analysts, they dropped the US and went back to just Sprint.

I'm not sure of the answer, but IIRC, their first name was discarded because it meant something VERY NEGATIVE in another language.

They probably dropped the GTE for that reason. GTE was very negative in English! LOL Worst telephone network this country ever saw. But they get credit for having the vision to build a digital fiber optic network to replace analog microwave which was very noisy, unreliable, subject to weather and snail pace slow. Even AT&T was caught off-guard by them.

18 months of job growth during one stretch of the bush years

18 out of 96 isn't bad.

Damn right... its fucking horrible.

His job-creation record won't look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton's administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

His job-creation record won't look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton's administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

But obviously kept more from evaporating, or his unemployment numbers would've been higher. If you want to talk fairly and unbiasedly about unemployment, please include all the variables.

18 out of 96 isn't bad.

"Damn right... its fucking horrible."

What is horrible is trying to tout the last eight months of job growth that isn't even close to keeping up with population. Not to metion the enourmous costs to create these underwhelming numbers.

"What is horrible is trying to tout the last eight months of job growth that isn't even close to keeping up with population."

It is once you compare it to what the guy inherited: bleeding a half-million jobs a month.

"Not to metion the enourmous costs to create these underwhelming numbers."

How high do you believe unemployment would've gone without those costs?

How high do you believe unemployment would've gone without those costs?
#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-09-08 04:12 PM |

Already answered that with it being above my paygrade. I am only speaking of the BS we are being fed about the jobs numbers as though they are positive, when in reality they are dismal.

that last line may very well prove prophetic.

Why Obama is going after John Boehner

Did you notice how President Obama kept mentioning House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) by name during his speech in Ohio? Obviously, he did it on purpose. But why?

Last week, there was that crazy Gallup poll that showed a 10-point gap in support between the generic Republican candidate and the generic Democratic candidate. Yesterday, Gallup's weekly tracking poll showed the two parties were tied. But, of course, elections aren't between generic candidates. By making Boehner the face of the Republican Party, Obama will force the electorate to no longer think in the abstract about whom they might send to Washington. He wants voters to see "Speaker" Boehner and think about the prospect of Republican control of Congress.

Obama was at the top of his game in Ohio. He's got to sustain that fire and focus from now until Nov. 2. He's got to keep hammering the Republicans and Boehner by name -- every day and often -- if he wants to keep a Democratic majority on the Hill.

Top House Democrat Slams Boehner's Economic Proposal

Geoff Holtzman Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 12:58PM

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) issued today a swift rebuke of Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) plan to lower government spending and create jobs.

"This morning, Leader Boehner said he wants to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest few for two years, costing taxpayers $36 billion this coming year alone," said Pelosi in a statement. "Boehner also supports permanently extending the tax cuts for the wealthy, which would add $700 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

"Mr. Boehner went on to say he wants to freeze spending at 2008 levels. That would cut critical funds for millions of Americans, including a cut of $13 billion in veteran health care and other benefits, even as the needs of our returning soldiers continue to grow."

Obama was at the top of his game in Ohio.
Posted by Corky

Did he sneak in a round before or after his teleprompter address?

You always make such relevant, substantive posts, Cheezy. Keep up the good work.

Keep up the good work.

#5 | Posted by Corky

Oh, I'm sorry. You really want to talk about the latest Obama stump speech. I know how newsworthy it is. Carry on.

Obama proposed four major pieces of legislation focused on helping businesses and creating jobs: an increased and permanent tax credit for businesses conducting research and innovation in the U.S.; a business tax write-off for the full value of new equipment purchases through 2011; a six-year infrastructure plan to rebuild and repair American roads, runways and railroads; and a small business bill -- stalled in Congress by GOP leaders -- that would give tax breaks, and increase funding and lines of credit available to small businesses.

The president also firmly stated his belief that the Bush-era tax cuts, set to expire on Jan. 1, should be permanently extended for the middle class (that is, families making less than $250,000 a year) but revert to higher, 2001-era levels for wealthier Americans. For Democrats in Congress waiting to see whether a compromise -- such as extending the cuts for both middle class and higher-income Americans -- might be a possibility, the answer was clear.

Drawing a line in the sand between Democrats and Republicans, Obama noted that most of the new legislative ideas -- the details of which have been discussed in days and weeks prior to his speech -- were likely to be rejected by the GOP. "I recognize that most of the Republicans in Congress have said no to just about every policy I've proposed since taking office," he said. "And on some issues, I realize it's because there are genuine philosophical differences. But on issues like this one, the only reason they're holding this up is politics, pure and simple."

Obama's going after "Man Tan" Boehner because under all the painted eyebrows and 'do, the skin as naturally orange as Ronald Reagan's hair, and the third-rate Bogey impersonation, John Boehner has said some remarkably stupid things, even for a politician; nice little bumper-stickerisms that may play well in buckshot commercials between now and November 2.

On Tuesday, Gallup released its latest numbers, which showed Democrats and Republicans tied at 46 percent on the generic ballot -- a stunning reversal that had Democratic operatives crowing that the media had jumped the gun on writing their party's political obituary.

"With eight weeks until Election Day, Republicans and Beltway pundits may want to hold off on calling the race for the House before voters cast their ballots," wrote Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee deputy executive director Jennifer Crider in an e-mail to reporters touting the latest Gallup findings.

Gonna be interesting watching Obama having to grovel to Boehner if he becomes the Speaker. Hey John, about that orange remark, it really is a healthy glow and I uh...

Grovel?

You mean the way Nutty Newty did when he "shut down the ebil gubmint"?

I think we all remember how that worked out.

John Boehner admits to giving bribes from Big Tobacco on the House floor...Why does the media consider him credible?

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2010-09-08 05:11 PM

I believe the recent primary turnouts is a more realistic guage than a daily or weekly poll. The repubs have almost doubled the dems in many districts where the dem incumbents are running.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2010-09-08 05:15 PM |

If Boehner becomes Speaker, what other term would apply if Obama needs something passed by Congress? Beg?

I would point out to you that St Reagan had 11 percent unemployment and 35 percent approval at this point in his admin, and still held onto Congress.... but that would put Wissy's panties in a bunch again.

The GOP would have to run the table to win 40 seats in the House and that ain't going to happen.

The fun has just begun.

what other term would apply

Notice that compromise isn't even in the vocabulary of a typical NOPer.

'Beg or do without'

You surmise your party's governing philosophy very efficiently.

"The GOP would have to run the table to win 40 seats in the House and that ain't going to happen."

Based on the paranoia speeches by Obama, he may have a different take.

"Notice that compromise isn't even in the vocabulary of a typical NOPer."

'Beg or do without'

Pretty much summed up my post there Sparky. Obama will have a hell of a time "compromising" after continually labeling them NOPERS.

Obama will have a hell of a time "compromising" after continually labeling them NOPERS.

Obama doesn't have to work real hard doing that. He has his jesters like corky to do it for him.

"He has his jesters like corky to do it for him."

And while the King was looking down
The jester stole his thorny crown
The courtroom was adjourned
No verdict was returned

"Watch Dick Gregory bitch slap John Boehner over and over and over and over and ......"

Turned out to be David Gregory. Now, Dick Gregory bitch slapping Man Tan is something I'd actually plunk down some change to see on pay-per-view!

#14 Corky -
Time will certainly tell, but that post looks like one for the official HANS archives for later use.

"I am only speaking of the BS we are being fed about the jobs numbers as though they are positive, when in reality they are dismal."

When compared to bleeding a half-million jobs a month, they're positive.

I agree, however, they're not keeping up with population. Hard for a car to grow wings after it's been careened off a cliff.

Hard for a car to grow wings after it's been careened off a cliff.

Or before

This is the latest "There are those who blah blah blah" and "some say blah blah blah" with a "let's be perfectly clear blah blah blah" thrown in for good measure. And to really make his point he adds "make no mistake blah blah blah".

WHY does Obama do this? Because this really pisses him off:

Next time I see Dick Gregory in the Majestic on Ponce de Leon at 2 AM would be a good time to give him the slap Boehner idea. He and his entourage pull up in front and park in the turning lane.

What the media isn't telling you:

"Tri-C students recruited to fill the seats for Obama's appearance"

"With less than an hour before President Obama's scheduled speech, 75 seats remained empty in the recreation center at Cuyahoga Community College's Western Campus.

So organizers went around campus and recruited more students to fill the seats.

... was working on her art work in the coffee shop in the basement of the building when the call went out for more guests.

After dropping off their stuff at a bag check, the newly invited guests cleared security and filed into the gym."

"ROFLMAO...You can't make this stuff up!"

Even the socialists in Germany cut taxes, cut spending, and deregulated during the recession.

We cut taxes and deregulated in Bush's first year, well before the recession. Are you suggesting that was not the right time to do so?

typical response...and of course OVERLOOKING the 18 months of job growth during one stretch of the bush years

#6 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

Only president in history to see a net job loss while in office...and he was there 8 years! Unless you count vacations like the Obama Haters, then he was there about 4 years. :)

Job Growth is the status quo, you dolt. To say Bush had only one 18 month period of job growth is pretty damn disturbing for an eight year presidency!

Can you imagine where we'd be if we hadn't cut the hell out of taxes under Bush? We were on track to pay off the debt by 2009. It wouldn't have happened because of the downtown and slower growth. But we would have been so close that spending a ton to jump start the economy wouldn't have been an issue. Ah...I miss Clinton...

Ah...I miss Clinton...

#64 | Posted by Sycophant at 2010-09-08 10:08 PM |

In a tingly way like Matthews?

If there is only one person for whom credit would go for the dotcom boom, it would be Judge Greene. Because without his deregulating the phone industry, the competition to build better technologies would not have been there. AT&T would still pretty much be today what they were then.

Then he gets credit for the dot-com bust too. And the neutering and near destruction of the once mighty Bell Labs.

The PC has much more to do with it than Judge Greene. Your modem doesn't care whether the network is provided by seven (now down to four?) Regional Bell Operating Companies or Ma Bell herself.

Most of the credit goes to Vint Cerf, DARPA and the federal government, for inventing the Internet (including Al Gore's role as evangelist for funding those projects). And to Tim Berners-Lee for HTTP and HTML.

Judge Greene replaced a stable government-regulated monopoly with seven companies who quickly demonstrated why regulation was necessary in the first place. WorldCom was, at the time, the largest bankruptcy in American history.

Then he gets credit for the dot-com bust too

Hardly.

The PC has much more to do with it than Judge Greene. Your modem doesn't care whether the network is provided by seven (now down to four?) Regional Bell Operating Companies or Ma Bell herself.

Clearly you missed my point. The point wasn't that the added number of BOCs facilited communications, the point is that the breakup of AT&T spurred competition, where there was none before. There is absolutely no argument that competition resulted from the divestiture. The technology exploded within months of it. Without bandwidth the PC is worthless. If untrue, why did the PC not do much more than simple word processing and Space Invaders for their first introductin in 1976 until 1984 or so when the internet came to life?

Most of the credit goes to Vint Cerf, DARPA and the federal government, for inventing the Internet (including Al Gore's role as evangelist for funding those projects). And to Tim Berners-Lee for HTTP and HTML

Without the available cheap and plentiful bandwidth, all of this (as well as the advent of the PC) would have been meaningless

Sorry, snoofy, you are off base here. Telecom was my past life. I worked for MCI when they were a young maverick company (my employee number was 60 something). My first job for them was a frame rat accepting loops from AT&T. Sometimes we would be shut down in the middle of an operation as a new judge made a different ruling on divestitutre.

I was an engineer (switching side) on the team that built the first fiber backbone on which the WWW was born. I was there (not physically, but on the common bridge) when that famous message was sent from California to DC on fiber for the first time: "We have light".

I am quite familiar with the industry and the ramifications divestiture. And I normally don't like to be so blunt, but in short, you do not know what you are talking about. I was there as it all unfolded starting in the early '80s and for the next 20 years. Were you?

the point is that the breakup of AT&T spurred competition, where there was none before.

In other words, it spurred a boom.
Followed by a bust.
See Also: WorldCom.
You proved my point.

I was an engineer (switching side) on the team that built the first fiber backbone on which the WWW was born.

Unless you did this at CERN, this statement seems impossible.

Judge Greene replaced a stable government-regulated monopoly with seven companies who quickly demonstrated why regulation was necessary in the first place.

there are hundreds of phone/internet companies. Billing is consolidated, high speed access to most homes (driven by competition), long distance rates near nothing, Christ, the advantages are many.

What are you talking about Snoofy? what is your beef?

high speed access to most homes (driven by competition)

Ahahahah. Seriously? Driven by competition?

You call a market where the two major players are a government mandated cable monopoly and a government mandated telephone monopoly "competition?"

government mandated cable monopoly and a government mandated telephone monopoly

what do you mean by "mandated"?

and internet access is only one aspect.

tons of CLECs with T-1 access, cheap LD rates, simplified billing.

again, what is your problem?

why don't you just cut the shit and vomit your personal issue?

It's obvious you have one....

......OUT WITH IT!!!

what is your beef?

Probably my biggest is that Bell Labs was once a pioneer of science and industry in this country, and now they're... we'll let's just go to the wikipedia article.

In December 2007, it was announced that the former Lucent Bell Laboratories and the former Alcatel Research and Innovation would be merged into one organization under the name of Bell Laboratories. This is the first period of growth following many years during which Bell Laboratories progressively lost manpower due to layoffs and spin-offs.

As of July 2008, however, only four scientists remained in physics basic research according to a report by the scientific journal Nature.[8]

On August 28, 2008, Alcatel-Lucent announced it was pulling out of basic science, material physics, and semiconductor research, and it will instead focus on more immediately marketable areas including networking, high-speed electronics, wireless networks, nanotechnology and software.[9]

That's my beef, sir. That, and people who think pissing all that away was a wise decision.

#73

so?

who cares? are you saying we are being cheated of advanced technological advances because of that?

"I was an engineer (switching side) on the team that built the first fiber backbone on which the WWW was born."

Unless you did this at CERN, this statement seems impossible.

I worked for Sprint. It was they, not CERN who put the first coast to coast fiber network in place. WTF are you talking about? Yes, CERN put the WWW on it, but Sprint built it.

Read, man, read. " I was an engineer (switching side) on the team that built the first fiber backbone on which the WWW was born."

Judge Greene traded decades of innovation and responsible stewardship for a boom-and-bust that burned itself out in less than twenty years. And now all that intellectual capital is gone.

The judge is responsible for economic cycles? LOL

Bell Labs was pretty much stagnant until they had lost their cozy little monopoly. Or is just one of the most bizarre coincidences in history that technology grew in exponential leaps and bounds after divestiture?

the point is that the breakup of AT&T spurred competition, where there was none before.

In other words, it spurred a boom.
Followed by a bust.

So a federal judge, following legal guidelines and enforcing anti-trust laws, broke up an illegal monopoly and he is responsible for the economic ramifications?

Good stuff, snoofy.

Or is just one of the most bizarre coincidences in history that technology grew in exponential leaps and bounds after divestiture?

LOL

ATT was a Government sanctioned monopoly. We are all better off for the end of that.

well.......apparently except Snoofy.

perhaps he will come clean at some point.

why would a hard core extremist lib be upset that a government sanctioned monopoly was broken up?

me thinks there is a very personal reason.

what do you mean by "mandated"?

I mean the government, not the market, decides which carrier can participate in the market. Either an RBOC or a cable franchise.

There's competition... now that technology has matured. There's Dish and DirecTV and Skype and Vonage, along with digital broadcast and cellphones. But surely you must be aware cable companies were awarded exclusive territories specifically to incentivize build-out without the financial burden of any competition whatsoever. And that the RBOCs just replaced one big monopoly with seven smaller exclusive monopolies.

You're ascribing all sorts of free-market goodness to the AT&T breakup, and it just didn't happen that way.

You're ascribing all sorts of free-market goodness to the AT&T breakup, and it just didn't happen that way.

I'm not arguing that it's perfect, I'm arguing that it's better. Considering the infrastructure needed to provide telcom services, some regulation and limited access is necessary.

But remember what my phone bill used to look like.

interlata
intralata
interstate

28 cent rates for LD...actually MORE expensive to call 5 miles away than to call 500.

are seriously arguing we would be better off with that?

Goatman -- that's like Eisehnower taking credit for the Ferrari. I mean, all Ferrari did was build a car... Eisenhower built the Interstate System!

There's a difference between the transport infrastructure the WWW and the WWW. Your fiber doesn't care whether it's carrying phone sex chatlines or data.

Or is just one of the most bizarre coincidences in history that technology grew in exponential leaps and bounds after divestiture?

"Technology" grew in exponential leaps and bounds decades before divestiture, dummy. Never heard of Moore's Law?

are seriously arguing we would be better off with that?

Are you seriously arguing the biggest ever bankruptcy in American history at the time was better?

You're ascribing all sorts of free-market goodness to the AT&T breakup, and it just didn't happen that way.

The state of today's telecom technologies prove differently. Yes, the pendulum has swung back from the post divestiture years (I envision the blobs of mercurial fluid reassembling like after the Terminator got shattered in T2) and the once independent RBOCs and newcomers on the block are getting swallowed up again. (not to mention, LD can once again do local and vice versa.) But this is hardly Judge Greene's fault as you maintain.

"Technology" grew in exponential leaps and bounds decades before divestiture,

sure it did.

here is a great example of it....

#80 I remember those days well, eb!

Are you seriously arguing the biggest ever bankruptcy in American history at the time was better?

when you add it into everything?

yes.

I didn't own any stock in it and I didn't work for them.

did it impact you in some way?

Are you seriously arguing the biggest ever bankruptcy in American history at the time was better?

when you add it into everything?

yes.

I didn't own any stock in it and I didn't work for them.

did it impact you in some way?

ATT was a Government sanctioned monopoly. We are all better off for the end of that.

I find it very unlikely you will be able to demonstrate the real-world gains you think occurred when one national monopoly was broken into seven regional monopolies, who have now gone trough sufficient metamorphoses to become just four regional monopolies, and one of the largest bankruptcies in American history to boot.

But, I'm willing to listen to you try.

Technology" grew in exponential leaps and bounds decades before divestiture, dummy.

Not telecom (read, monopoly) technology. As Lily Tomlin used to famously say in her Operator skit, "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company". Though fictitious, of course, it was an accurate sentiment.

And name calling doesn't help your case at all snoofy. In fact, it downgrades it. Just letting you know.

Never heard of Moore's Law?

Yes. Moore's law applies to PC computing power. And this has what to do with telecom technology?

I find it very unlikely you will be able to demonstrate the real-world gains you think occurred when one national monopoly was broken into seven regional monopolies, who have now gone trough sufficient metamorphoses to become just four regional monopolies, and one of the largest bankruptcies in American history to boot.

But, I'm willing to listen to you try.

It is sounding more and more like your beef is with the economic end of the divestiture. I still think you are off base, but in that context, some of your allegations are valid.

I, however, am arguing strictly the enormous technological benefits that arose after divestiture. Of that, there really is no argument.

I find it very unlikely you will be able to demonstrate the real-world gains you think occurred

I pay virtually nothing for LD. I used to pay 28 cents.

I pay less for a line than I did 25 years ago.

My bill doesn't look like it did then either.

ATT knows that if they piss me off.....I WILL FIRE THEM. I can also fire my cable company at will also.

why would a hard core extremist lib be upset that a government sanctioned monopoly was broken up?

Because goals like net neutrality are much more easily guaranteed when the entity providing the infrastructure is purposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people." Instead we've got infrastructure whose owners are vastly more concerned with profit than freedom.

Freedom of the press is our most important freedom, and the Internet is today's press.

Moore's law applies to PC computing power. And this has what to do with telecom technology?

Moore's law applies far beyond PCs to computing power in general.

Now, dummy, do you think computing power plays any role in telecom technology, or are there still girls working the switchboard in your world?

Because goals like net neutrality...

So coming full circle here: You are blaming Judge Greene for not foreseeing issues like net neutrality? LOL. That's like expecting William Shockley to have envisioned a iPod when he invented the transistor.

As Lily Tomlin used to famously say .....

One ringy dingy, Two ringy dingy --snort, snort, snort....

Because goals like net neutrality are much more easily guaranteed when the entity providing the infrastructure is purposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people." Instead we've got infrastructure whose owners are vastly more concerned with profit than freedom.

that makes no sense to me.

Now, dummy...

Later, snoofy. You delved into the name calling realm on a good and lively discussion. i warned you about it. You did it again. I don't go there. If you decide to grow up and discuss this like an adult and not a child who calls names, let me know and I'll be back. Until then, adios, man

I, however, am arguing strictly the enormous technological benefits that arose after divestiture. Of that, there really is no argument.

What enormous technological benefits are you talking about Fax machines? Three way conference calling? Caller ID? Call Waiting?

I'll give you fax machines. Those were huge, and are still a cornerstone for lots of business. And I would not be surprised if AT&T had wanted to charge a buck a page and a thousand dollars for the fax machine.

On the other hand, we probably wouldn't have had junk faxes either.

Until then, adios, man

If only I had known earlier how to get him to piss up a rope!

One ringy dingy, Two ringy dingy --snort, snort, snort....

I have the 2nd season SNL where she does that skit. Too funny. I also saw her live at the Fox Theatre in Atlanta in the mid '80s. She's a brilliant comedienne

"One ringy dingy, Two ringy dingy --snort, snort, snort...."

I loved Laugh In.

Arti Johnson cracked me up!

If only I had known earlier how to get him to piss up a rope!

Yep, tricking me into thinking you wanted to have an adult situation when all you really want is child-like antics will do it everytime.

but I take satisfaction that if it was my HS debate team, you would've lost. They didn't even let 16 year olds get away with name calling. LOL

What enormous technological benefits are you talking about Fax machines? Three way conference calling? Caller ID? Call Waiting?

Assure me that you want to discuss this on an adult level and apologize for your juvenile name calling, and I'll be glad to answer.

Eberly, what part doesn't make sense?

Either the carriers who provide your Internet connection can selectively block or re-interpret your requests for access to the Internet, or they can't.

Seems simple enough to me.

Yep, tricking me into thinking you wanted to have an adult situation when all you really want is child-like antics will do it everytime.

Goatman,

I see the censoring of Craig's List adult services section has taken a personal toll and now you are forced to advertise here.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with that.

Thank you, boyd

Either the carriers who provide your Internet connection can selectively block or re-interpret your requests for access to the Internet, or they can't.

I suppose one company can do that as well as several.

But this appears to be yet another lib-based parnoia fear trip.

I seriously can't believe this is all about your fear of such a thing.

And nobody who had anything to do with deregulation could have predicted something like this.

I find it very unlikely you will be able to demonstrate the real-world gains you think occurred

I pay virtually nothing for LD. I used to pay 28 cents.

I have that too. On my cell phone I just pay airtime. But that's got nothing to do with breaking up AT&T.

Quite the opposite, (real) competition from a (new) technology forced the RBOCs prices down.

Judge Greene just rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic... or something. He didn't instrument much of a a meaningful change... because cell phones changed it all regardless. Except, as I lamented earlier, the once-great Bell Labs was the goat at the altar of this pseudo-"free market" ritual in foolishly trading long-term investment for short-term gain.

I loved Laugh In.

Arti Johnson cracked me up!

#101 | Posted by Lisa

You bet your sweet bippy!!

I did the Arti attempt to pick up the old woman in the park skit in drama class in 8th grade.

I borrowed some girls purse. It didn't feel heavy--but when I smacked him with it --he got hurt! I didn't hit him that hard either.

We got an A....

But this appears to be yet another lib-based parnoia fear trip.

Well then. Explain, if you can, why the carriers are fighting tooth and nail against codifying the status quo that they remain neutral?

On my cell phone I just pay airtime. But that's got nothing to do with breaking up AT&T.

I didn't say anything about cell phones. are you trying to assign that position to me?

how much did you lose on Worldcom?

how much did you lose on Worldcom?

I lost a lot. I left MCI in 1986 with a few hundred shares. They now paper my bathroom

Well then. Explain, if you can, why the carriers are fighting tooth and nail against codifying the status quo that they remain neutral?

what are you talking about?

understand that we have taken this thread way off the tracks. Thats fine....but I don't know what you are talking about

And nobody who had anything to do with deregulation could have predicted something like this.

You'd have to be born yesterday to look at the receipts the phone company pulls in... lemme just check Qwest real quick... revenues of over a billion a month... and conclude "With all those billions flowing in, there temptation will never arise to behave unethically."

I think snoofy is getting drunk

Eberly,

You'd have to be born yesterday to look at the receipts the phone company pulls in... lemme just check Qwest real quick... revenues of over a billion a month... and conclude "With all those billions flowing in, there temptation will never arise to behave unethically."

and how would one company that has revenues of $30 billion a month be expected to behave ethically?

it would appear that your argument that we should have MORE competition.....instead of less.

Thanks Snoofy.

I still think you are 100% paranoid.

good night all.

g'night eb

Eberly,

My position is breaking up AT&T turned out to be in large part a window-dressing move which didn't have much of an upside for consumers, but was instrumental in the largest bankruptcy America had ever seen at the time, and the decline of a great American institution of innovation known as Bell Labs.

Maybe I'm wrong about the first part, but not the last two.

and how would one company that has revenues of $30 billion a month be expected to behave ethically?

it would appear that your argument that we should have MORE competition.....instead of less.

I don't see how increasing the number of competitors increases ethics. I do see how government oversight and regulation can enforce ethics.

My position is breaking up AT&T turned out to be in large part a window-dressing move which didn't have much of an upside for consumers,

Consumers used to pay 30c a minute for LD and now it's pretty much free. Nope, no benefit to the consumer there. Consumers used to have to pay for multiple phones in their house and they didn't even own them. Now, it doesn't matter how many they can have and they own them. Consumers never had any of the * services before divestiture. Now they have plenty. nope, again, no value added. Consumers never had data services from home. how they can have T1 speeds. nope, again no benefit there. Consumers used to have no choices in from whom they got their cable and phone services. now they have plenty. Again, no benefit. /snark off

Sober up, snoofy. You are truly making no sense tonight.

Put a dollar figure on all those "choices" and "benefits" and show me the actual economic benefit to the consumer.

Or, since you can't do that, pretend you're too butt-hurt to do it because I called you names.

People paid plenty for LD well after the breakup, in case you've forgotten how your boss got the money to pay you back then.

Hey Goat,

You're back! Last time I was hear I heard that you had left but might return.

Message to unwary liberals:

Goatman's back and you're gonna be in trouble.
Hey now, hey now, the Goatman's back.

hear=here Sheesh!

#18 | Posted by taxman
And Obama has proposed to keep the breaks in place for small businesses as well as allowing them to deduct 100% of capital equipment expenditures. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal to extend the tax breaks and his proposal on deductions for capex?
------
This is jut politics. He doesn't want to extend the Bush tax cuts, because that would look good for Republicans and Conservatives.

But he also knows that his Liberal policies are not working, so will put forth some back door tax cuts for small business which are the rich.

That said I support these tax cuts.

Why are Republicans fiscally conservative only as long as the rich aren't required to sacrifice or pay taxes?

Bush created war and put it on the credit card instead of requiring Americans to pay. The only Americans that paid were military and families, while Republicans profited but that's another story of hypocrisy.

The GOP likes that trickle down where all the money lands on the plate of the rich and the serfs get to scrounge around hunting for what might spill over. Hey but Limbaugh and Repubs tell us average Americans might even get a job based upon what product or services the rich spend it on, if in the USA, but not if it goes to China or a Swiss or Cayman bank account.

"Again, no benefit. /snark off"

Good post, we can all thank Jimmy Carter for that, he's the last president to actually break up monopolies. We need more of that kind of leadership and I readily admit we aren't seeing it right now though Obama's firm stand against extending teh crazy tax cuts for the rich is a good start.

#128 | Posted by danni at 2010-09-09 08:47 AM | Reply | Flag: still trying to make Jimmy Carter's reputation her little pet project

Um, Danni, Carter didn't break up AT&T. And although he appoint Judge Greene, he didn't do it to preside over The United States v AT&T" which happened 6 years after his appointment.

How you can make bold statements like, "we can all thank Jimmy Carter for that, he's the last president to actually break up monopolies." (obviously giving him credit for the breakup of that monopoly) is beyond me. Would you care to explain, please?

"Personally, and strictly from an entertainment standpoint, I am only slightly less eager to see Boehner as speaker than I would be to see Sarah Palin as president," writes Eric Alterman. "The man can barely hold together a coherent thought long enough to strangle it."

With fixed italics:

Um, Danni, Carter didn't break up AT&T. And although he appoint Judge Greene, he didn't do it to preside over The United States v AT&T which happened 6 years after his appointment.

How you can make bold statements like, "we can all thank Jimmy Carter for that, he's the last president to actually break up monopolies." (obviously giving him credit for the breakup of that monopoly) is beyond me. Would you care to explain, please?

Um, Danni, Carter didn't break up AT&T. And although he appoint Judge Greene, he didn't do it to preside over The United States v AT&T which happened 6 years after his appointment.

#132 | Posted by goatman

Because Danni denies history and substitues the left's.

Actually the break-up of AT&T became just another attack on consumers. Once as a regulated monopoly, AT&T provide the most reliable inexpensive telephone service on the planet. They even invented the transistor. Today, thanks to market collusion and political corruption, we have the most expensive unreliable telephone services on the planet. AT&T drops calls constantly and cannot support I-phones in many regions.

As Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts was given a choice by his boss Regan, investigate and possibly stop the break-up of AT&T, or stop stagflation. He didn't have time for both problems. He fixed stagflation and now regrets it. Eventually someone else could have fixed stagflation, but the break-up was an irreversible disaster.

#128 | Posted by danni at 2010-09-09 08:47 AM

OBAMA'S PLAN - Keeping the lower marginal tax rates of the BTC for joint returns under $250,000 and individual returns under $200,000 will cost the US government $1.2 trillion of lost tax revenue over the next 10 years (source: Joint Economic Committee).

Numbers are 'fun' right Danni?

obama has increased the debt more than ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED..at least through RR...so HEY why not listen to the lying bastard.....

"Make no mistake: He and his party believe we should ... give a permanent tax cut to the wealthiest 2% of Americans," President Obama said of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a speech Wednesday."

One would think this so called brilliant fucking thinker would understand he can stop any republican policy with the stroke of a pen. Are he and the dems shitting their pants, and have some inside knowledge they are going to not only lose the majority, but think repubs will gain enough seats to overide any veto? Or does this loser think he can just go back to blaming the other side, and fooling anyone dumb enough to listen that it will be 2000-2006 all over, and the repubs will be able to do anything they want again?

the Bush tax cuts have been in effect for some time, actually through this current recession. What have these tax cuts accomplished, how have they impacted the economy? They certainly did not help in the recovery>

Excellent question VMA224.

"Um, Danni, Carter didn't break up AT&T."

"It was the Carter Administration that also pushed the antitrust suit against AT&T, a move that ultimately led to the breakup of the telecommunications giant and the advent of new technologies and cheap long distance. This is NOT an endorsement of that suit. A better way to bring competition into the industry would have been to have deprived AT&T of its legal monopoly status. (Better yet, the monopoly privileges should never have been granted in the first place.)"

In a recession we need more demand for goods and services to stimulate business and create jobs, those earning less than $200K are much more likely to spend all or most of their income than those earning over $200K, thus not raising their taxes is a useful stimulant while raising the taxes of those earning more won't really change their purchasing decisions at all.

To be clear, you appear to be talking about disposable personal income.

Is that right?

"In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS' parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis' husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System's board of governors owe $1,076,733.

Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes.

Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts "man-caused disasters." Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a Dutch tourist is aboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants.

Within that department, there reside 4,856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37,012,174."

Those who earn high incomes invest their money, not spend it. It's only the Left that believes that spending every dime you have helps the economy. It's the savers that help. It's that capital that builds long-term investments and assets.

But O believes that putting a whole bunch of spending on the credit card to be paid back over 30 years is preferable to having us build factories and companies and brands.

So we'll see who's right. At the moment, America's capital markets are on strike, pending Obama's education as to how the world really works.

Democrats have been blasting tax cuts for the rich for decades, and haven't done a thing about it. Which only goes to prove both parties work for the rich.

"obamacide-to cause the collapse of the society that elected you."
lol. priceless.