Username:
Password:






 
Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record
Posted by Mike (Shmoo) on August 24, 2008 at 8:35 PM   (printer friendly)

Source/Link

Posted by Declan McCullagh

By choosing Joe Biden as their vice presidential candidate, the Democrats have selected a politician with a mixed record on technology who has spent most of his Senate career allied with the FBI and copyright holders, who ranks toward the bottom of CNET's Technology Voters' Guide, and whose anti-privacy legislation was actually responsible for the creation of PGP.

That's probably okay with Barack Obama: Biden likely got the nod because of his foreign policy knowledge. The Delaware politician is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee who voted for the war in Iraq, and is reasonably well-known nationally after his presidential campaigns in 1988 and 2008.

Copyright
But back to the Delaware senator's tech record. After taking over the Foreign Relations committee, Biden became a staunch ally of Hollywood and the recording industry in their efforts to expand copyright law. He sponsored a bill in 2002 that would have make it a federal felony to trick certain types of devices into playing unauthorized music or executing unapproved computer programs. Biden's bill was backed by content companies including News Corp. but eventually died after Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, eBay, and Yahoo lobbied against it.
Biden

Sen. Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee, whose anti-encryption legislation was responsible for the creation of PGP.
(Credit: Biden.senate.gov)

A few months later, Biden signed a letter that urged the Justice Department "to prosecute individuals who intentionally allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks." Critics of this approach said that the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, and not taxpayers, should pay for their own lawsuits.

Last year, Biden sponsored an RIAA-backed bill called the Perform Act aimed at restricting Americans' ability to record and play back individual songs from satellite and Internet radio services. (The RIAA sued XM Satellite Radio over precisely this point.)

All of which meant that nobody in Washington was surprised when Biden was one of only four U.S. senators invited to a champagne reception in celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hosted by the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the RIAA, and the Business Software Alliance. (Photos are here.)

Now, it's true that few Americans will cast their votes in November based on what the vice presidential candidate thinks of copyright law. But these pro-copyright views don't exactly jibe with what Obama has promised; he's pledged to "update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated." These are code words for taking a more pro-EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) than pro-MPAA approach.

Unfortunately, Biden has steadfastly refused to answer questions on the topic. We asked him 10 tech-related questions, including whether he'd support rewriting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as part of our 2008 Technology Voters' guide. Biden would not answer (we did hear back from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Ron Paul).

In our 2006 Technology Voters' Guide, which ranked Senate votes from July 1998 through May 2005, Biden received a mere 37.5 percent score because of his support for Internet filters in schools and libraries and occasional support for Internet taxes.

Privacy, the FBI, and PGP
On privacy, Biden's record is hardly stellar. In the 1990s, Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and introduced a bill called the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act, which the EFF says he was "persuaded" to do by the FBI. A second Biden bill was called the Violent Crime Control Act. Both were staunchly anti-encryption, with this identical language:

It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law.

Translated, that means turn over your encryption keys. The book Electronic Privacy Papers describes Biden's bill as representing the FBI's visible effort to restrict encryption technology, which was taking place in concert with the National Security Agency's parallel, but less visible efforts. (Biden was no foe of the NSA. He once described now-retired NSA director Bobby Ray Inman as the "single most competent man in the government.")

Biden's bill -- and the threat of encryption being outlawed -- is what spurred Phil Zimmermann to write PGP, thereby kicking off a historic debate about export controls, national security, and privacy. Zimmermann, who's now busy developing Zfone, says it was Biden's legislation "that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups."

While neither of Biden's pair of bills became law, they did foreshadow the FBI's pro-wiretapping, anti-encryption legislative strategy that followed -- and demonstrated that the Delaware senator was willing to be a reliable ally of law enforcement on the topic. (They also previewed the FBI's legislative proposal later that decade for banning encryption products such as SSH or PGP without government backdoors, which was approved by one House of Representatives committee but never came to a vote in the Senate.)

"Joe Biden made his second attempt to introduce such legislation" in the form of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which was also known as the Digital Telephony law, according to an account in Wired magazine. Biden at the time was chairman of the relevant committee; he co-sponsored the Senate version and dutifully secured a successful floor vote on it less than two months after it was introduced. CALEA became law in October 1994, and is still bedeviling privacy advocates: the FBI recently managed to extend its requirements to Internet service providers.

CALEA represented one step in the FBI and NSA's attempts to restrict encryption without backdoors. In a top-secret memo to members of President George H.W. Bush's administration including Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and CIA director Robert Gates, one White House official wrote: "Justice should go ahead now to seek a legislative fix to the digital telephony problem, and all parties should prepare to follow through on the encryption problem in about a year. Success with digital telephony will lock in one major objective; we will have a beachhead we can exploit for the encryption fix; and the encryption access options can be developed more thoroughly in the meantime."

There's another reason why Biden's legislative tactics in the CALEA scrum amount to more than a mere a footnote in Internet history. They're what led to the creation of the Center for Democracy and Technology -- and the Electronic Frontier Foundation's simultaneous implosion and soul-searching.

EFF staffers Jerry Berman and Danny Weitzner chose to work with Biden on cutting a deal and altering the bill in hopes of obtaining privacy concessions. It may have helped, but it also left the EFF in the uncomfortable position of leaving its imprimatur on Biden's FBI-backed wiretapping law universally loathed by privacy advocates. The debacle ended with internal turmoil, Berman and Weitzner leaving the group and taking their corporate backers to form CDT, and a chastened EFF that quietly packed its bags and moved to its current home in San Francisco. (Weitzner, who was responsible for a censorship controversy last year, became a formal Obama campaign surrogate.)

"Anti-terror" legislation
The next year, months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place, Biden introduced another bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of "terrorism" that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detection of non-U.S. citizens without judicial review. The Center for National Security Studies said the bill would erode "constitutional and statutory due process protections" and would "authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations."

Biden himself draws parallels between his 1995 bill and its 2001 cousin. "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill," he said when the Patriot Act was being debated, according to the New Republic, which described him as "the Democratic Party's de facto spokesman on the war against terrorism."

Biden's chronology is not accurate: the bombing took place in April 1995 and his bill had been introduced in February 1995. But it's true that Biden's proposal probably helped to lay the groundwork for the Bush administration's Patriot Act.

In 1996, Biden voted to keep intact an ostensibly anti-illegal immigration bill that outlined what the Real ID Act would become almost a decade later. The bill would create a national worker identification registry; Biden voted to kill an Abraham-Feingold amendment that would have replaced the registry with stronger enforcement. According to an analysis by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the underlying bill would have required "states to place Social Security numbers on drivers licenses and to obtain fingerprints or some other form of biometric identification for licenses."

Along with most of his colleagues in the Congress -- including Sen. John McCain but not Rep. Ron Paul -- Biden voted for the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act (which was part of a larger spending bill). Obama voted for the bill containing the Real ID Act, but wasn't in the U.S. Senate in 2001 when the original Patriot Act vote took place.

Patriot Act
In the Senate debate over the Patriot Act in October 2001, Biden once again allied himself closely with the FBI. The Justice Department favorably quotes Biden on its Web site as saying: "The FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists."

The problem is that Biden's claim was simply false -- which he should have known after a decade of experience lending his name to wiretapping bills on behalf of the FBI. As CDT explains in a rebuttal to Biden: "The Justice Department had the ability to use wiretaps, including roving taps, in criminal investigations of terrorism, just as in other criminal investigations, long before the Patriot Act."

But Biden's views had become markedly less FBI-friendly by April 2007, six years later. By then, the debate over wiretapping had become sharply partisan, pitting Democrats seeking to embarrass President Bush against Republicans aiming to defend the administration at nearly any cost. In addition, Biden had announced his presidential candidacy three months earlier and was courting liberal activists dismayed by the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping.

That month, Biden slammed the "president's illegal wiretapping program that allows intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on the conversations of Americans without a judge's approval or congressional authorization or oversight." He took aim at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for allowing the FBI to "flagrantly misuse National Security Letters" -- even though it was the Patriot Act that greatly expanded their use without also expanding internal safeguards and oversight as well.

Biden did vote against a FISA bill with retroactive immunity for any telecommunications provider that illegally opened its network to the National Security Agency; Obama didn't. Both agreed to renew the Patriot Act in March 2006, a move that pro-privacy Democrats including Ron Wyden and Russ Feingold opposed. The ACLU said the renewal "fails to correct the most flawed provisions" of the original Patriot Act. (Biden does do well on the ACLU's congressional scorecard.)

"Baby-food bombs"
The ACLU also had been at odds with Biden over his efforts to censor bomb-making information on the Internet. One day after a bomb in Saudi Arabia killed several U.S. servicemen and virtually flattened a military base, Biden pushed to make posting bomb-making information on the Internet a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in jail, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

"I think most Americans would be absolutely shocked if they knew what kind of bone-chilling information is making its way over the Internet," he told the Senate. "You can access detailed, explicit instructions on how to make and detonate pipe bombs, light-bulb bombs, and even -- if you can believe it -- baby-food bombs."

Biden didn't get exactly what he wanted -- at least not right away. His proposal was swapped in the final law for one requiring the attorney general to investigate "the extent to which the First Amendment protects such material and its private and commercial distribution." The report was duly produced, concluding that the proposal "can withstand constitutional muster in most, if not all, of its possible applications, if such legislation is slightly modified."

It was. Biden and co-sponsor Dianne Feinstein introduced their bill again the following year. Biden pitched it as an anti-terror measure, saying in a floor debate that numerous terrorists "have been found in possession of bomb-making manuals and Internet bomb-making information." He added: "What is even worse is that some of these instructions are geared toward kids. They tell kids that all the ingredients they need are right in their parents' kitchen or laundry cabinets."

Biden's proposal became law in 1997. It didn't amount to much: four years after its enactment, there had been only one conviction. And instead of being used to snare a dangerous member of Al Qaeda, the law was used to lock up a 20-year old anarchist Webmaster who was sentenced to one year in prison for posting information about Molotov cocktails and "Drano bombs" on his Web site, Raisethefist.com.

Today there are over 10,000 hits on Google for the phrase, in quotes, "Drano bomb." One is a video that lists the necessary ingredients and shows some self-described rednecks blowing up small plastic bottles in their yard. Then there's the U.S. Army's Improvised Munitions Handbook with instructions on making far more deadly compounds, including methyl nitrate dynamite, mortars, grenades, and C-4 plastic explosive -- which free speech activists placed online as an in-your-face response to the Biden-Feinstein bill.

Peer-to-peer networks
Since then, Biden has switched from complaining about Internet baby-food bombs to taking aim at peer-to-peer networks. He held one Foreign Relations committee hearing in February 2002 titled "Theft of American Intellectual Property" and invited executives from the Justice Department, RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft to speak. Not one Internet company, P2P network, or consumer group was invited to testify.

Afterwards, Sharman Networks (which distributes Kazaa) wrote a letter to Biden complaining about "one-sided and unsubstantiated attacks" on P2P networks. It said: "We are deeply offended by the gratuitous accusations made against Kazaa by witnesses before the committee, including ludicrous attempts to associate an extremely beneficial, next-generation software program with organized criminal gangs and even terrorist organizations."

Biden returned to the business of targeting P2P networks this year. In April, he proposed spending $1 billion in U.S. tax dollars so police can monitor peer-to-peer networks for illegal activity. He made that suggestion after a Wyoming cop demonstrated a proof-of-concept program called "Operation Fairplay" at a hearing before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.

A month later, the Senate Judiciary committee approved a Biden-sponsored bill that would spend over $1 billion on policing illegal Internet activity, mostly child pornography. It has the dubious virtue of being at least partially redundant: One section would "prohibit the broadcast of live images of child abuse," even though the Justice Department has experienced no problems in securing guilty pleas for underage Webcamming. (The bill has not been voted on by the full Senate.)

Online sales of Robitussin
Around the same time, Biden introduced his self-described Biden Crime Bill of 2007. One section expands electronic surveillance law to permit police wiretaps in "crimes dangerous to the life, limb, and well-being of minor children." Another takes aim at Internet-based telemedicine and online pharmacies, saying that physicians must have conducted "at least one in-person medical evaluation of the patient" to prescribe medicine.

Another prohibits selling a product containing dextromethorphan -- including Robitussin, Sucrets, Dayquil, and Vicks -- "to an individual under the age of 18 years, including any such sale using the Internet." It gives the Justice Department six months to come up with regulations, which include when retailers should be fined for shipping cough suppressants to children. (Biden is a longtime drug warrior; he authored the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act that the Bush administration used to shut down benefit concerts.)

Net neutrality
On Net neutrality, Biden has sounded skeptical. In 2006, he indicated that no preemptive laws were necessary because if violations do happen, such a public outcry will develop that "the chairman will be required to hold this meeting in this largest room in the Capitol, and there will be lines wandering all the way down to the White House." Obama, on the other hand, has been a strong supporter of handing pre-emptive regulatory authority to the Federal Communications Commission.


User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)

pepe512000  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 5:57 AM
A vote for Obama is a vote for the RIAA.

independentm...  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 8:44 AM
I disagree. (Unless he dies while in office and Biden takes the helm.) McCain is much more likely to do the RIAA's bidding. Obama at least has the likes of Barlow and Lessig in his ear.

medwardl  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 10:37 AM
and now hes got the likes of biden in his ear combined with excepting campaign money from riaa companies like timewarner and there are others. why do obama supporters every time something negative or serious question about him come up they say hey look but mccain why cant i ever get a strait answer instead of blame shifting and topic shifting. how about some specific that counters said negative "ex.. ------NOT REAL--------" "obama chose biden who is pro riaa but obama voted for this bill here which helps artists and diminishes the legal foot hold of the riaa". are specific rebuttals against a specific topic instead of the shiftiness too much to ask for???

pessimist  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 12:05 PM
re: accepting campaign money from RIAA-affiliated companies

Both major political parties are doing that, but I wonder as to which is getting more and how much more.

Dreddsnik  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 12:32 PM
" and now hes got the likes of biden in his ear "

Yes, he does, but McCain ONLY listens
to the likes of Biden. Doesn't bother
with the likes of the Lessig, etc..

We seem to forget, we hate the Mfers
but they do have the right to exist, and
have a voice. Before, THEIRS were
the only voices being heard. For what
good it does, Obama at least pays
attention to both sides. McCain isn't
even aware of little plebes like us.

" A vote for Obama is a vote for the RIAA. "

A quick, bumper sticker sound byte for
a complex issue. A vote for Obama
MIGHT be a vote for the RIAA, but a
vote for McCain DEFINITELY is.
The McCain camp has been pulling this
junk through the whole campaign.
Taking what McCains knows he WILL
do and trying to get people to FEAR
the Obama MIGHT do it too.

A vote for McCain is a vote for fear.

Dreddsnik  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 12:34 PM
Regardless who the RIAA are giving
THEIR money too, their owners are
getting NONE of mine.

mgarc1125  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 1:01 PM
Are you Obama supporters serious? Obama is much more in the pocket of the RIAA than is McCain.

http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-america/contact-information-for-50-politicians-who-take-campaign-money-from-the-riaa-264638.php

pepe512000  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 1:58 PM
Maybe McCain has got more of a bone to pick with the RIAA than we realize.
RIAA sues John McCain: rumour
Jackson Browne sues McCain, RNC over song in ad
McCain just may be a little renegade :)

Dreddsnik  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 2:19 PM
" Are you Obama supporters serious? Obama is much more in the pocket of the RIAA than is McCain. "

*sigh*
I am serious as anyone else.
McCain is in some much worse pockets.

I've already seen what a guy like McCain
can do.

medwardl  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 2:47 PM
"Obama at least pays
attention to both sides. McCain isn't
even aware of little plebes like us.

A vote for Obama
MIGHT be a vote for the RIAA, but a
vote for McCain DEFINITELY is.
The McCain camp has been pulling this
junk through the whole campaign.
Taking what McCains knows he WILL
do and trying to get people to FEAR
the Obama MIGHT do it too

A vote for McCain is a vote for fear.

I've already seen what a guy like McCain
can do."

again more blame shifting and dodging the issue give me some specifics tell me specifically what mccain has done and what obama did differently. then you go on to group mccain with bush which is the common theme with obama supporters. instead on saying mccain is like bush tell me how obamma is different and don't tell me he stands for change or hes not a republican or hes not a bush clone give me specifics tell me what hes done or hasn't done because of something he didn't like and tell me what it was he didn't like and what he would do differently or what he liked. so far what iv seen is obama supporters have blind faith in obama with no real reason except hes not mccain and wont see his bad points and they have blind hatred for mccain without seeing his good points all they see is he is republican and he has voted for some bills that bush wanted and mccains supporters are just voteing along party lines not giving it any thought except what religeon he practices. and another thing i don't hear from obamma supporters is a single word about bob barr are they afraid that if they mention his name that people that are iffy about supporting obamma might take a look at him and defect to barr or give hillary supporters someone to back besides obamma or mccain. all iv seen this whole election is blind faith or blind hatred and not an ounce of thought or reasoning except by a handful of people.

tired of seeing fear mongering and that's all iv seen from both sides except mccain will tell you what his plans are obamma wont atleast so far and if he doesnt start soon he will loose this election.

mccain=riaa=obamma damned if you do damned if you dont.

independentm...  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 3:30 PM
I don't hate McCain. In fact, I'd rate him in the top %10 of people currently in politics.

But Obama would be better for the country (and Boycott RIAA type issues) IMHO.

Yup, he pissed me off voting for telecom immunity AND Biden is horrible for our issues.

But in the real world you can't have everything.

In the real world we must pick the better choice.

Dreddsnik  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 3:45 PM
" mccain will tell you what his plans are obamma wont atleast so far and if he doesnt start soon he will loose this election. "

Not this shit again.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

It's his website .. so what .. blah blah.

But it outlines his stance on all of the
ISSUES.

The only fear mongering I have seen
is from the republican side.

OBAMA WILL RAISE OUR TAXES.
a lie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

IF OBAMA IS ELECTED WE WILL BE ATTACKED
bullshit

OBAMAS AN ELITIST
what horse poop.
If ANYONE doesn't understand the
average joe, it's 'how many houses
do I have' McCain.

Anything to create fear of Obama.
From Hussein to Secret Muslim, it's
one desperate scare tactic after another.

Nothing but lies, fear and non-issues.

He's still the better choice.
No, I don't think he's going to lose.

If he does .. we are so fucked.

Dreddsnik  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 3:51 PM
What sickens me the most ?
Some of my freinds finally admitted to
me that they KNOW all of that stuff
is crap.

It's just a lot easier to say that in public
than 'I won't vote for a nigger'

Their words.
Pretty common around me in Corn Country.

We deserve to go down the toilet.
We deserve to go straight to hell,
if it exists.
I just wish my kids future had a fighting
chance, but I already know, it doesn't.

Dreddsnik  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 3:52 PM
If it weren't for my family, i'd swallow a bottle and sleep the eternal sleep.
I'm so fucking sick of all of this.

goodnight

autodidact  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 5:05 PM
Oh c'mon Dreddsnik, doesn't Obama just fill you with hope??? There'll be rainbows and unicorns when he's elected.

Here's the thing, I watched the whole forum at the Saddleback Church a week ago. Actually listened, not watched. I'm pro-life, and Obama says that defining when life begins and deserves human rights is "above his pay grade." I'm completely opposed on that point. But on most other answers, I found some common ground with him. However, the fact remains that he was quite vague, and in answer to one question he said, "the Devil is in the details." There was a lot of hesitating, stammering, and language that could be interpreted many ways.

That is really the problem, and it may be a problem with both candidates -- promises are too vague. I hope they both get thoroughly grilled, so we could know more precisely what to expect. I believe we're going to get more of that specificity from McCain as the campaign progresses, judging from his directness in answering the Saddleback forum questions. I could be wrong though.

Yes, I've looked at Obama's issues on his website. I think that for someone who is so inexperienced at this level of government, he needs to be a LOT more specific before people will entrust the country to his program. I think a lot of his taxes will indirectly, if not directly, affect a lot more middle class people than many people suppose.

Here's another criticism, and it applies to both candidates. They claim they have the ideas to fix the country. Well, both of these bozos are in the US Senate TODAY. Why cannot they submit their fixes for America to the Congress right now, so we could see in detail what they have in mind for energy, managing and overseeing government, and other domestic issues? Submit the legislation right now! Don't wait for the election. (Foreign policy is tougher, because that is the purvue of the Executive.) Why should we have to settle for vague platitudes? And if they have great ideas and programs, why haven't they been developed into legislation and submitted to the body in which they are already serving???

Hmmmm?

medwardl  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 5:12 PM
well the rhetoric looks great but hows it going to be paid for we are in debt up to our eyeballs and its affecting the value of our dollar if you stop all pork spending and stop the Iraq war you still are going to make up enough money for what obamma says hell do. health care at 60 billion alone if were lucky Massachusetts tried something like it and its costing them 400million more than they expected then you have the military upgrade promises increased school and energy spending bailing people out of mortgages they shouldn't have taken increased homeland security spending more job training spending cutting taxes for middle class and shifting them to rich which will only be added to the cost of products windfall tax on oil companies anyone who has a mutual fund or 401k owns oil and please show me one company that isn't non profit or not for profit or a charity or church that doesn't redistribute all of its costs to its customers.

"Let's recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability. Let's make college more affordable, and let's invest in scientific research"

but that's what im talking about hows it getting paid for America cant afford it. sure lets borrow more, tank our dollar and leave financial hell for the next generation.

and before you even post it you are going to point out how mccain is just as bad and the war is costing trillions and pork is costing millions all the while both republicans and democrats are knee deep in pork spending with exception of one or two who i don't feel like looking up right now. but frankly as much as "I DON'T WANT EITHER" of them elected i want obamma to be elected out of the two just so when its all said and done when he leaves office and leaves us with a whole new set of problems possibly worse than we already have i can sit here with a grin on my face and say i told you so.

but ill be voting for bob barr more than likely unless one of the 2 main candidates grows a set of balls and tackles the problems we have while trying not to create new ones telling all the special interest groups to go to hell and do whats right for the country instead of what will get them elected.

medwardl  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 5:15 PM
autodidact said it allot better than i did

pessimist  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 8:54 PM

"I think a lot of his [Obama's] taxes will indirectly, if not directly, affect a lot more middle class people than many people suppose."

I think the Republicans' penchant for favoring the pocketbooks of major corporations such as big oil have indirectly, if not directly, affected a lot more middle class people than many people realize.


" ... judging from McCain's directness in answering the Saddleback forum questions ..."

I'm guessing you don't mean this one:
Saturday night, during an appearance with the Rev. Rick Warren, an evangelical leader, McCain was asked to define the word "rich" and responded:
"I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?" Warren and the audience laughed, and McCain quickly added: "But seriously, I don't think you can --
I don't think seriously that --
the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously -- and I'm sure that comment will be distorted --
but the point is that we want to keep people's
taxes low and increase revenues."

Even if we could use a merciful eraser on all his stammering, I'd be interested to see how revenues can be increased when he and other like-minded Republicans don't believe in making fat-cat corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
But it sounds nice politically to pretend they can be magicians anyway. In reality, we can look at Bush and see just what kind of spending-spree mess his administration has perpetrated . . . unparalleled deficits for government and unparalleled low taxes for big biz. And a major mess unnecessarily attacking Iraq, not to mention causing caustic diplomacy that tarnishes America's image in the world.

And there's more that could be said.

pessimist  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 8:59 PM

Re: "... we are in debt up to our eyeballs, and it's affecting the value of our dollar ..."

Correct, and who's responsible for that?
Possible clue: Check how things were eight years ago
compared to how they are now.

pessimist  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 9:09 PM

"Let's borrow more, tank our dollar and leave financial hell for the next generation."

It's funny how the Republicans often seem to skate when it comes to financial irresponsibility and making government bigger. Reagan was a big spender. GWB is a super spender, and big brother has gotten gigantic under his direction. But then, notice when election time rolls around, it's the Democrats who are labelled big spenders who want to raise taxes [mostly against the Repubs' beloved fat-cat corporations who are so dear to their hearts].


pessimist  
Date: August 25, 2008 @ 9:14 PM

But you're right about both candidates being bozos.

As long as America continues to put up with its flawed political system, government won't get better.

pepe512000  
Date: August 26, 2008 @ 12:32 AM
~~~ (Unless he dies while in office and Biden takes the helm.)~~~

3 held in possible plot to kill Obama: U.S. media reports

In this race, I won't count anything out.

medwardl  
Date: August 26, 2008 @ 2:44 AM
the point i was trying to get across was that all the stuff obama is promising, providing he is telling the truth and isn't just politics as usual is far more expensive than what we have been dealing with in the bush war years i don't know why i bother every time i try to point something out the negatives about mccain are ignored as if i hadn't said anything at all and the following obama supporter post is but mccain this or gwb that. gwb has been horrible for this country mccain will be too but when/if obama takes office there will be no counter balance anything the left wants they will get there will be no checks and balances with bush he had to contend with the senate and house who did everything to oppose him including doing nothing. i hate our current government structure its either far left far right or dead locked i just want a government that more worried about the country than saying the right thing so they can get elected as both sides have done. yes if obama wins lots of things will get done some good some bad i wonder what will weigh more.

i know when i post this everything will be ignored except one or two snippets that will make it look like im picking on obama and then they'll say but mccain this or gwb that.

medwardl  
Date: August 26, 2008 @ 3:19 AM
but either way i give up.

nothing i can say will change the view of die hard fans at the same time i would be doing this if it were mccain with supporters failing to recognize his faults i like playing devils advocate i will also admit when i am wrong. earlier when i said obama has givin no details on his plans i was wrong however he hasn't provided many significant details on how he plans to do the things he promises.

if iv done nothing at all except to get someone to look past the hope and change smoke screen then it wouldn't of been a waist of time and effort.

autodidact  
Date: August 26, 2008 @ 5:31 AM
I'm tired of hearing about a fair share of taxes. Will someone define exactly what that means? If a corporation is getting a special break from legislation, like the ETHANOL industry, or domestic SUGAR growers, then I'll agree they are not paying a fair share. But let's assume I invent a widget, set up a corporation, and sell a billion of them. I don't get special tax breaks, and my corporation has to pay 35% tax rate. That means dividends to shareholders are lower, and they also must pay tax on dividends (though under Bush this has been reduced, and Obama threatens to raise taxes on this, which would affect many middle class dividend-receivers, if I am not mistaken). That's a lot of tax.

I don't think any company or individual should have to pay more than 20% tax, but also I think all industries should be on the same footing, without special deductions and credits for certain industries or companies. This is far from the case today, as lobbyists trade campaign dollars or other favors for tax code minutiae that benefit the whoremongers they work for.

That's my definition of fair share of tax. If 20% isn't enough, then the government should lower its expenditures accordingly.

However, I would note that corporate tax rates in many countries are lower than USA now. In UK it is 28%, lower than USA. That makes the US a less attractive place to do business. In Ireland the last I know corporate tax was 12% or 25% depending on the source of profit. Many businesses moved to Ireland in the wake of tax decreases and the economy boomed.

The USA in general does not have a low corporate tax. Whether this is fair or not you will have to decide. I think it is unfair that our rates are so high. The government never shares a loss when we as individuals or corporations lose money on an investment. Why do they take such a big chunk when an investment pays off? That's not fair!

It's easy to look at rich corporations and covet all that they earn. But you have to think of the secondary effects of increased taxation. You will kill the engine that created our growth -- and the income that Washington has squandered in our name.

pessimist  
Date: August 26, 2008 @ 7:50 AM

"I'm tired of hearing about a fair share of taxes. Will someone define exactly what that means?"

It should mean that the U.S. corporations (2/3 who currently pay little or no taxes) should be paying at least 10%. Tax rates on the books don't translate to actual tax liabilities and revenues.
There could be a 10% flat rate. What ought to be done is to find out which Senators and Representatives would be opposed to the fairness of that (and the real reasons WHY). That should be quite revealing.

"It's easy to look at rich corporations and covet all that they earn."

I don't covet them. I'm just disgusted that so many don't pay a reasonable amount of taxes from their fat-cat profits.
"corporate tax rates" you refer to don't translate to many of them actually paying much taxes when their forms are completed.
If you want verification on this, it'll take awhile, but I promise to locate the information when I get an opportunity.

autodidact  
Date: August 26, 2008 @ 8:44 AM
Well, I agree with you in principle, pessimist. But don't you think they should get deductions for depreciation, and such?

In a way, I think corporations should pass benefits onto the shareholders, and the shareholders should pay the taxes when they realize a profit, be it dividend or capital gain. We shouldn't have double taxation of profits.

The whole system is too complex, too many companies have special tax breaks. Let's face it, the system is crooked. I don't think raising tax rates or lowering tax rates solves that. But personally, I'd rather have the government getting less money than more money. And then having to control spending and reduce government. Still, Obama hasn't said anything that I know of about a massive tax simplification -- changing the system fundamentally. And that's what we really need to make it fair, whatever the rate is.

pessimist  
Date: August 26, 2008 @ 1:48 PM

"Well, I agree with you in principle, pessimist. But don't you think they should get deductions for depreciation, and such?"

Okay, let's grant some compelling (financially justifiable) deductions, yes.

"In a way, I think corporations should pass benefits onto the shareholders, and the shareholders should pay the taxes when they realize a profit, be it dividend or capital gain. We shouldn't have double taxation of profits."

Interesting perspective. I'll consider that and comment later.

"The whole system is too complex, too many companies have special tax breaks. Let's face it, the system is crooked. I don't think raising tax rates or lowering tax rates solves that."

Agreed! Hopefully, the associated provisions of a flat rate tax of, say, 10% could address those important concerns (complexity and too many tax breaks).

"I'd rather have the government getting less money than more money. And then having to control spending and reduce government."

You and I think a lot in common!
I'm for less government, reasonably controlled spending, and for preserving individual liberties . . . I'm rather confident you feel similarly.

Re: "changing the system fundamentally -- that's what we really need to make it fair, whatever the rate is."

I'm with you all the way!

medwardl  
Date: August 26, 2008 @ 2:13 PM
"changing the system fundamentally -- that's what we really need to make it fair, whatever the rate is."

its also the only way to fix the country

INeedAlover  
Date: August 27, 2008 @ 2:19 AM
"A vote for Obama
MIGHT be a vote for the RIAA, but a
vote for McCain DEFINITELY is."

There is no "MIGHT" about it. As long as America continues to vote either Democratic or Republican, this country will never change. Obama is likely the lesser of two evils when it comes to copyright law. But why do we have to limit our choices? Both parties get so much lobbying funds from the RIAA, do you really think either will protect our rights as consumers?

If you want to effect real change, then vote for anything that is not Democratic or not Republican. It's the only solution that has a chance of working. And I predict that America will continue to follow like sheep and that one of these two men will get elected.

gdZiemann  
Date: August 27, 2008 @ 3:07 AM
"when/if obama takes office there will be no counter balance anything the left wants they will get there will be no checks and balances"

Checks and balances have been eliminated already. I think there was a "signing statement" that took care of that.

-----

The greatest problem I see, and I see it everywhere, is the polarization.

I'm not right or left. I'm probably more liberal than conservative on social issues, but that's because of my conservative tendency to favor smaller government.

I think abortion is something that males should have no voice in.

I support the right to bear arms, mostly to protect ourselves from the government or the foreign invasion we are inviting by sending all of our troops on the other side of the world to provoke violence and hatred.

The energy problem needs to be solved by forward thinking scientists and engineers who are free from worrying about political considerations, corporate influence and who will and won't profit from it.

When gas prices went up, I started conserving gas. Is conserving liberal or conservative?

Air America and Fox News are equally revolting to me. Irrational extremism. I don't believe either one of them.

In this election, neither party's technology position is attractive. Neither of them have any interest in the music industry, and if they do, they're listening to what celebrities and lobbyists are telling them. No one is there asking for rationality. No one will fund that.

To politics, there are two sides to the music wars: The RIAA; the pirates selling copies on the streetcorner.

This is not correct, of course. Given the above constraint, I'd support the RIAA. But it conveniently omits the RIAA vs. Audience and RIAA vs. Musicians debates, which are what we are more concerned about.

For our specific concerns, Obama or McCain, it doesn't matter. Once again, Dave Barry might be a better choice in the long run.

For the country, well, to me, I see Obama as a well-educated young man in a suit filled with idealism and the desire to change our country. His youth is an obstacle in the face of such responsibility and a position of world power.

I see McCain as a war veteran with great love and respect for his country. He has been my Senator for decades. He's likable, witty, and has always been open to reason. During the Clear Channel hearings, in particular (Feb. 2003), I was cheering for the beat-down he was putting to Clear Channel's execs. Sure haven't seen Obama do anything like that.

One problem: McCain is turning into a moonbat. He's losing it. Bad case of CRS (can't remember shit), very common among the Sun City population. He'll end up looking like Yelsnick sometime during the first term.

This makes the young guy look good again, but damn, he's black. Yeah, I was surprised, too, especially since my speech pattern seems to have more ebonics embedded in it than his does, but take a close look. This WILL be a problem in Corn Country, but the nature of Corn Country dictates that there aren't many people out there.

I have independently verified this.

So, young energentic black guy who speaks eloquently or crazy old white guy looking for pancakes who can't remember what he said the night before?

Dreddsnik  
Date: August 27, 2008 @ 4:40 AM
" The greatest problem I see, and I see it everywhere, is the polarization. "

Yup, the problem is indeed US.
Not all the politicos fault. It's ours.
It's our your with mr or against me
mentality with no room for any middle
ground, no possible acceptance of
compromise.We disagree we're either
stupid, we're 'sheep', we're ignorant ..
etc .. , failing to realize that the
namecalling convinces no one, and only
serves to reinforce our own position that
we're the smart one and everyone ELSE
is extreme.

Keep calling those that diasgree sheep.
Keep calling everyone that won't vote
how you like stupid.

Keep us polarized.
keep us fighting.
Keep us stupid.

Keep THEM in control.
It's been working for a very long time.

Dreddsnik  
Date: August 27, 2008 @ 4:43 AM
" but the nature of Corn Country dictates that there aren't many people out there.

I have independently verified this. "

Lived there all of my life.
More people than you might think.
More influence than I like to think about.

independentm...  
Date: August 27, 2008 @ 8:13 AM
"

The Democrats have a HD broadcast of their convention, but only on some platforms, through a Microsoft product. Those fortunate enough to own the most modern technology (and (contrary to the norm) fortunate enough to have fast broadband) can get full convention coverage.

The rest of America (to the extent they care, and the point may be related) are stuck with broadcasters coverage. From NPR to the networks, "coverage" means some ridiculous unprepared interview with a party has-been, while a prepared speech by someone currently significant is being given in the background. (e.g., Jim Leach, former GOP Congressman from Iowa, speaking in the background as NPR interviews Walter Mondale. Leach's speech was fantastic. Mondale's, well, you get the point.)

Please, networks, and especially, NPR, can you please just cover the convention -- both the Democratic and Republican. Obviously, it is party propaganda. But it is also American politics. It is ridiculous that the only people who actually get to see what each party believes it should say are those who are at the Convention, or those with powerful computers and fast technology."
- L. Lessig

-----

I agree with him.

medwardl  
Date: August 27, 2008 @ 8:47 AM
im beginning to think people are starting to understand the problem with the US although not enough to make a difference yet but maybe before i die of old age the current government will be chased out of office by the people and replaced with people that care about the country rather than their political agenda or career.

independentm...  
Date: August 27, 2008 @ 10:13 PM
Folks,

Who cares? (I mean, REALLY!)

I'm sure all of us agree, when it comes down to it, NOBODY who is trying AND actually has a chance of being elected to such a lofty office is WORTHY of said office.

Dem or Rep, it is two piles of the same sh*t stacked in different corners.

--------------

I can't solve those kind of problems/ills in our society. I can't even solve the "RIAA" problem.

(Hell, I can't even find a permanent drummer for my own insugnifficant band!)

What the hell do I know?

independentm...  
Date: August 27, 2008 @ 10:16 PM
But we can always keep trying.

After all, SOMEBODY has to be the winner of the damn lottery.

Keep playing!

(Even when you loose it is fun trying!)

independentm...  
Date: August 27, 2008 @ 10:18 PM
Now, let's talk about quantum physics and the really weird stuff.

lol

compmore  
Date: September 1, 2008 @ 6:50 AM
I just LOVE this new change in politics

pessimist  
Date: September 1, 2008 @ 12:25 PM

?