The ToyBox

Ricardo Bilton & Gloria Sin

White House plans to free up 500MHz of spectrum, bring 4G to 98% of Americans

By | February 10, 2011, 11:09am PST

Summary: Big tech news out of the White House today: President Obama has announced plans to expand wireless access across the United States with some serious initiatives.

Big tech news out of the White House today: President Obama has announced plans to expand wireless access across the United States with some serious initiatives.

The intention behind the proposal is to realize the benefits of speedier 4G networks for everything from spurring innovation to public safety alerts. Here’s a rundown on the big points:

  • Free up 500MHz of spectrum for mobile broadband use (i.e. smartphones, laptops, etc.) in the next 10 years (Estimated to raise $27.8 billion)
  • $3 billion of those spectrum funds raised will go to “research and development of emerging wireless technologies”
  • Bring 4G access to at least 98% of Americans (leaving out some rural areas; one-time investment of $5 billion)

If all goes to plan, these initiatives should help cut the U.S. deficit by $9.6 billion over the following decade. Do you think it’s possible?

Boosting 4G networks nationwide could provide many benefits, but it runs the risk of costing more money that we can afford right now. Nevertheless, we don’t want the U.S. to fall behind the rest of the world when it comes to 4G and wireless technology. (Just look at what has happened with high-speed rail.) Do you think this the White House is putting too much of a focus here or not enough?

Before you answer, here’s the White House press release in full so that you can get a better understanding of the projects.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Rachel King is a staff writer for ZDNet based in San Francisco.

Disclosure

Rachel King

Rachel King has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted in this blog.

Biography

Rachel King

Rachel King is a staff writer for CBS Interactive in San Francisco. Before serving as a contributing editor at ZDNet in New York City for two years, she previously worked for The Business Insider, FastCompany.com, CNN's San Francisco bureau and the U.S. Department of State. Rachel has also written for MainStreet.com, Irish America Magazine and the New York Daily News, among others. Rachel has a B.A. in Mass Communications and History from the University of California, Berkeley and a M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University, where she served as art director for the student magazine, Plated.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
49
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: White House plans to free up 500MHz of spectrum, bring 4G to 98% of Americans
jordanhawk 1st Oct
The bottom line is that Congress has been redirecting airport and highway money away from infratructure for decades. It's even sorse with Social Security and Medicare. Life Experience Degrees
Associate Degree
Graduate Degree
bachelor degree
0 Votes
+ -
Let the businesses spend their money
CobraA1 10th Feb 2011
Well, my suggestion is to free up the bandwidth and let businesses spend their money on the infrastructure to make it happen. I don't think the gov't itself is in a financial position to put up their own towers or invest in infrastructure.

IMO this is one place were the gov't, the businesses, and people can work together to make it happen.

Eventually, I *do* want to push for more rural access, but we simply can't afford it right now. Maybe later, when our finances are under control.

. . . and to anybody who has stock in any of the wireless carriers: Please push for more rural access! Please!
0 Votes
+ -
@CobraA1 ... haven't been "under control" for over forty years!

Long ago, the US Government established a Highway Trust Fund, an FAA, trust fund, a Social Security trust fund, and a Medicare trust fund. Then, every year for the last fou-plus decades, money was "borrowed" from the trust funds so those deficits we have been screeming since the 1960's didn't look so bad. Even those "Clinton surpluses" of the 1990s were schduled to "run out" in a dozen or so years - regardless of who was elected in 1980.

The bottom line is that Congress has been redirecting airport and highway money away from infratructure for decades. It's even sorse with Social Security and Medicare.

The Government has to stop 'borrowing from Peter to pay Paul' and start raising revenues. Americans are severly under-taxed. Getting government "out of our way" means that there will be no pot o'money big enough to take on these massive projects and our national infrastructure will continue to crumble.
0 Votes
+ -
You have things backwards!
adornoe@... Updated - 11th Feb 2011
People are not being undertaxed. They're being overtaxed, and that's why the economy can't produce enough wealth to produce enough tax revenue.

High taxes inevitably leads to a stagnant economy, because wealth taken from the private sector leads to an economy with less money to invest and less growth and more unemployment.

The fact is that, lowering taxes ALWAYS ends up generating more wealth which also generates more in tax revenue for government.

It's simple economics, which you are quite obviously unfamiliar with.

Furthermore, when taxes are raised, bringing the cost of doing business even higher, businesses, if they have a choice, like they do now, will look for friendlier and less costly environments in which to do business, such as overseas, or offshoring. So, there again, raising taxes will cause an even smaller tax base because, jobs and businesses will have the option to move operations overseas. And, that's precisely what's been happening in the last 50 years or so, with many of our manufacturers opting to take operations and jobs to other countries where taxes and other costs of operation are much lower.

So, take some lessons from reality and wake up!
  • Flagged
@mwagner@...

UNDER taxed???
The gov't is borrowing from China to pay government cronies.
If there's no pot o'money big enough to take on these big projects, then there's not enough profit in them to make them worth doing, and therefore they shouldn't be done

The best thing the government can do for us is to stop doing things for us!
The bottom line is that Congress has been redirecting airport and highway money away from infratructure for decades. It's even sorse with Social Security and Medicare. Life Experience Degrees
Associate Degree
Graduate Degree
bachelor degree
0 Votes
+ -
Do you think its possible?
klumper Updated - 10th Feb 2011
No one knows. But hope springs eternal when socialist activists rule the roost. [Just don't hold your breath in rose-colored anticipation, as but another bill of taxation will soon be due to weigh the emasculated masses down ever further.]
0 Votes
+ -
Rose-colored anticipation?
SAStarling 11th Feb 2011
@klumper

Why the snark? I just KNOW that the 4G will not only be accompanied by a huge tax increase and cost over-run(about which the government will act surprised), but there will be sprinkled pixie dust along the new 4G routes to show the sheeple the way.

/sarc
@klumper You're right, it would be much better to fall way behind the rest of the world. Then when we become a third world country, the manufacturing and call center jobs will come back. Of course we'll have to make do with living in tar paper shacks ...
@spambox@...

Actually, the call-center jobs are already coming back.

If you want to fall way behind the rest of the world... keep confiscating money from the innovators and entrepreneurs and giving it to the social engineers in Washington.
0 Votes
+ -
Third world country, really?
SAStarling Updated - 14th Feb 2011
@spambox@...

It would take a HELLUVA LOT more than the government NOT doing this 4G thing to bring us anywhere near what a "third world country" is. Stop with your faux outrage and whining, will ya?
0 Votes
+ -
It's not that easy
TechDesign 10th Feb 2011
First where is this bandwidth going to come from and what "financial incentives" (according to the press release) are going to be given for the government to acquire these frequencies?
Once a company acquires a new block of RF spectrum, it's not like they can just push a button and use it. Cell phones and the "cells" they connect to use very specific frequency blocks. In order for a cellular service provider to begin using a new frequency, the phones, cellular antennas, and the repeaters must be redesigned.
Now for the fun part: 4G doesn't even exist yet (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/technology/4g_myth/index.htm) so how can President Obama expect to give us speedier 4G?
0 Votes
+ -
It IS that easy if...
SAStarling 11th Feb 2011
@TechDesign

It is that easy if all you want the people to hear is a promise, whether or not it can be fulfilled. You really think the government knows as much as what you put in your comment above? You're smarter than they are. But they don't let that get in the way.

Heck, if they can't figure out the Muslim Brotherhood, how do you expect them to figure out something as complex and technical as "4G?" Something tells me they really DO think there's just a button you push somewhere and it magically turns on.
0 Votes
+ -
Look as the basics doofus
spambox@... 11th Feb 2011
@SAStarling Wireless is spread spectrum. Make more spectrum available and bandwidth and connections improve. Why wouldn't we do that?
@TechDesign ITU level 4G doesn't quite exist yet. But it will with LTE Advanced, and that is expected to be a software upgrade only, at the cell end of things. So, for the time period in question, thewy are very much talking real 4G.

The radio protocols are the difficult part. Most Wi-Max radios can run at multiple frequencies, and that's likely the case with LTE devices as well. That doesn't mean your new Motorola Xoom will automatically move beyond 700Mhz. But does mean that subsequent harxdware will, easily, without the need for new chips. And yes, incidently, I am a radio designer .. my current design does a modified 802.11n mesh anywhere in the 400-2000MHz range. No, not cellphone sized, but it would work just dandy on a rural rooftop.
Given just as much time, the Federal Government just might do it. As pointed out by TechDesign, 4G does not yet exist. Thus neither does the Physical layer.
0 Votes
+ -
@Sagax-

...the private sector could do it better and cheaper. Plus, it is not the federal government's role (much less that of the "White House") to provide 98% of Americans with high-speed internet.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh, I see
spambox@... 11th Feb 2011
@SAStarling

You mean the way the private sector invented the Internet, or the web, right? Or the way that the free market safeguarded our financial system, right? Or the way that the free market protected our environment, right? Clearly the private sector is magic! Let's abolish government and everything will be magical!
@SAStarling

Yes the private sector could do it better and cheaper, but they're not. They are happy to gouge users for all that they can with the networks they have. Also, it has always been the governments job to ensure that essential community services exist such as water, sewers, electrical power, telephones. The government does not accomplish the build out of those essential services by doing the work themselves. They hire private contractors to do the work who then gouge the government for all that they can get.
0 Votes
+ -
While it's an accepted talking point that the government built the internet, that's not the whole truth.

The federal government did in fact organize and finance the initial infrastructure for the internet, but the actual work was done by contractors, most of them with the expertise and ideas to get it done. Those same idea people who still possess the expertise, did take it from there to build the massively interconnected infrastructure that benefits the entire world. Thus, while government saw a need for the network, the ideas and work and build-out that came afterward was mostly from the private sector. The private sector can continue building on the infrastructure without government intervention, and in fact, the private sector has been doing that. And, if it ends up being more expensive than some people can handle, well that's the way free-enterprise works. If it's not free enterprise, then it's a government works project, which ends up, ultimately, being more expensive, and not free at all. Government uses money from the private sector to get its work done, and, if that money were to be left in the private sector so that they can do the work themselves, then, no matter what the project, it will end up being better and less costly in the long run. Government is never efficient and is always more costly. That's why government's are so deep in debt.
  • Flagged
@spambox

the private sector DID invent the internet. The defense department invented Arpanet. But everyone seems to have forgotten Compuserve and other services that sold time on their systems prior to general public access to the internet.

The gov't didn't invent the web, either. Nor did it invent the airplane, the assembly line, electric lighting, the telephone, interchangeable parts, Coca-cola, deepwater drilling rigs, Dawn dishwashing detergent, the personal computer, television, the telecommunications satellite, chewing gum, "tennis" shoes, the radio, the ball-point pen, or even the pencil.

The government turns darpanet over to the private sector and leaves its hands off, and *then* we get the internet.

The free market would guard our financial system, if the social engineers in the government would get the hell out of the way, stop trying to save companies that they deem "too big to fail", picking winners and losers, and trying to control a system they can't understand and in most cases loathe.

The private sector has done a lot better job of protecting various environments than has the government. It was the government that banned DDT, resulting in millions of deaths. Meanwhile, the alligator made it back off the endangered species list because there's money in belts, boots, purses, hats and other items made from their skins.
Sitting in the forest wailing over the death of a tree, able to live off a government grant to do so, isn't going to help a darn thing.
@SAStarling The private sector hasn't done it. Anywhere, the US has fallen very far behind on internet connectivity because, in most Western countries, the governments have had a hand in it, Usually in concert with private companies, too, but that's not enough. Private enterprise has already failed on the internet in the USA, relative to the rest of the world.
@Sagax- ... and LTE+ will comply with the officially recognized 4G specification when it is finally out of draft. Spring is using WiMax right and ATT and TMO are using HSPDA+ whcih is more like a 3.5G specification.

Eventually all carriers will be 4G and using some derivative of LTE.
@mwagner@... Sprint will probably stick with Wi-Max for the near future, and they have lots of bandwidth, up to 90Mhz in some areas. But its unfortunately at 2500Mhz, so its lossy, and paticularly bad through foliage. So, no-go for rural.

Verizon is LTE at 700Mhz, and has at least 20Mhz everywhere, more in most areas. That's good, but still limited enough that they're going to keep low caps and other limits on it... not comparable to wired. The government could mandate proper fixed infrastructure rules for new spectrum, and they'd still get plenty of takers. Verizon claims they'll complete their LTE network in 2013.

AT&T followed T-Mobile's lead in calling HSPA+ a 4G texhnology, even though its only an evolved 3G. But they are also rolling out LTE at 700MHz, maybe this summer. They also have lots of spectrum, but really only focused on expensive mobile "phone plan" serviices.

T-Mobile just finished their 3G rollout, one reason for the "fake 3G" move. They don't currently own any spectrum for 4G, but are expected to make an LTE moce with a partner, like Sprint did (Sprint's Wi-Max network is the same as those marketed by Cleae and Comcast... Intel and Google areee also minority partners).
0 Votes
+ -
... is putting too much of a focus here or not enough?

It tooks the Great Depression for the U.S. Government to invest in national infrastucture in a massive way. Those efforts electrified America, provided a robust national highway system, allowed for massive expansion of our agriculture capabilities through flood control, and massiviely expanded mass-transit through our national system of railroads.

Since the 1930's, we have left such massive efforts to the private sector - which has done a deplorable job of maintaining or modernizing that infrastructure.

This has left us far behind the rest of the industrialized world. Piddling away national resources on small projects is wasteful and to fragmented to make a big difference.

The U.S. Governement needs to move forward without delay to rebuild and expand our infrastructure.
0 Votes
+ -
I'd settle for 3G
ParrotHead_FL 11th Feb 2011
4G? Heck, I'd settle for 3G now. I live in a rural area with very poor coverage. AT&T did just bump us up from Edge to 3G a couple of months ago, but large swaths of the county have no coverage at all.
@spambox@...

LOL The government caused the financial collapse cuz it meddled in free market economics! What is wrong with the environment? Additionally note that government has been meddling in environmental concerns for a long time now.

The government invented the internet technologies, yay? That means they the free market created superior technologies never had the chance to come to fruition.
0 Votes
+ -
What happened to free enterprise?
jscott418 11th Feb 2011
So now the Government is deciding Wireless? I think its fine to open up frequency bands. The FCC should have done this already. But let business do business. I am always skeptical when Government gets involved in projects it has no business in.
Private sector investment is the ONLY solution. I personally favor a competitive form of capitalism in this instance. But before the government spends their money, they should at a minimum consider a limited monopoly scenario as was granted to AT&T prior to the 1984 judgement to break that up. I'm not sure we have entirely served our selves well since that fateful Modified Judgement Order by Judge Greene with respect to telecommunications. Companies that invest in national infrastructure need some form of protection to allow them to capitalize on their investment. The Federal government has no clear reason as a Republic governed by a constitution to be involved. It is dangerous to nationalize industry. Once you give up control to a government, it is not easily taken back, is it? Power is a corruption that will outlast any technology.
I am all for high-speed internet in rural areas. I live in a rural area. It's either satellite broadband or dial-up out here.

But I am hella opposed to cannibalizing more of the TV spectrum for broadband use. Find some way to incentivize DSL for Rural America instead.

http://gigaom.com/broadband/obamas-wireless-plan-favors-broadband-over-tv/
it doesn't lower it.

If all goes to plan, these initiatives should help cut the U.S. deficit by $9.6 billion over the following decade. Do you think it?s possible?

That's a fantasy!

Any kind of spending by government, inevitably increases spending and the deficit and the national debt.

The democrats are always looking for ways to justify government spending, and lying about how spending lowers the deficit, is something that just the ignorant would believe.
It is about time they wake up. Like with the high speed rail where they finally woke up. And with the plans that VP Biden announced they will have an infrastructure in 25 years from now that France had 25 years ago. So they will be 50 years behind the leader. Let's hope that will not happen in the communication sector.
0 Votes
+ -
High speed rail?
SAStarling 14th Feb 2011
@whs37

So you think this "high speed rail" is going to be the answer? If so, then the question must have been really stupid. It's going to be nothing more than a huge boondoggle, with our taxpaywer dollars being poured into it, and it will be nothing more than an abject failure. Seriously are you kidding me?

And just because VP Biden said we would have an "infrastructure in 25 years from now" does not make it so. Every president since the 70s, I believe, has said they were going to get the U.S. off of foreign oil. How's that workin' out for us?

Good grief, man! If getting high speed rail is America waking up, I think we'd be better off going back to sleep in this case. What a waste!
This is such a crock of s%$t. While the idea is "great", the Gvt is going to sell spectrum to our "friends" the mobile broadband companies, who will then SCREW US OVER with nitpicking fees, bandwidth caps, and the like, which totally invalidate the presidents idea. Mr. O should become more aware of what the Verizons, AT&Ts, and Comcasts are doing now...
AT$T has had fiber only a mile down the road from here since 1997. Do we have DSL? Are we ever going to get DSL? NEVER! Why? AT$T says, they are not putting in anymore DSL in NW Arkansas. Why? Because they are making tons of money gouging folks with wireless. Can we get AT$T wireless 3G here? Only in the past two months. Verizon is our only other 3G wireless Internet source, which we have, and being grandfathered in when Verizon bought Alltel, we have no bandwidth caps. Satellite didn't work very well, which we tried. Will this new 4G be affordable and have reasonable or no caps? Probably not. Our only hope for decent Internet is for AT$T to sell their rural land lines. Most folks around here on other phone systems have DSL.
@esrick Yup,,,same here. And I'm in South Jersey. I can see the local telecom node from my driveway... my phone lines come from this. Its DSL capable, but Verizon will never put in the DSL boards? Why? There's no incentive to wire in everyone, even when its trivial. They spend their money fighting to steal away Comcast customers. Usually, if you can get one form of wired broadband, you can get two or three. Meanwhile, I have to spend $120/month for 1.5Mb/s satellite. With a 500MB/day download cap.

And newaely everyone in South Koerea can get 50-100Mb/s. And even Iceland is way ahead of us.
Sounds like Obama math. Open spectrum, charge fees, raise 28 billion, then spend 8 billion needlessly so we only get 20 billion, and then get another 9.6 billion, spread out over 10 years.

Meanwhile, our debt climbs to 21 *trillion* within the next 5-6 years. We don't *have* 8 billion to spend on it, and the 29.6 billion expected to be generated, assuming it actually *is* generated, will have to go to pay off a fractional percentage of a fraction of our debt. And 2.96 billion a year isn't even going to put a dent in the deficit.

How about this... open up the 500 mhz spectrum.

He still doesn't get it. He still has this top-down model where the government *has* to do everything, or at least control everything.

Instead of interfering with the internet, he should focus on working with the House to reduce spending by 2.1 *trillion*.
to do anything about the national debt, and even the federal deficit.

The 2.1 trillion dollars you mentioned, won't do anything to bring down the debt, because, while that spending cut happens, more spending will be occurring and the national debt will have increased even more.

The $14 trillion dollars in the national debt will continue to increase, even if we "cut" spending by 2.1 trillion. Remember that those cuts aren't for a single year, and are spread out to between 5 and 10 years. In those years, we'll have "overspent" a lot more than those 2.1 trillion, and the national debt will be way over the $14 trillion that we currently have as the national debt.

The only solutions, if we want to continue existing as a country, is to make massive cuts in all government spending, including massive cuts for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security (Social Security should be privatized in order to save it), Defense and any other program which is unnecessarily eating away at the economy and at our country. To go along with the spending cuts should be a cut or the elimination of borrowing from China or anywhere else, because, what is borrowed has to be paid back with interest, and the interest on borrowing is also a major expense for government.

Those $2.1 trillion sounds like an unimaginable amount, but it's a very minor part of what needs to happen, and government needs to be shocked into reality, and so do the people who have come to depend so much on government to do for them what they should be taking care of themselves.
We need these infrastructure projects. The Naysayers fought the interstate highway system tooth and nail during the Eisenhower years but luckily for us General/President Eisenhower stuck to his guns and we have all profited from it.
0 Votes
+ -
Who were they? The "Naysayers"
SAStarling 14th Feb 2011
@myavalon

Please, I'd like a citation for this. The only thing I could find out is that most critics were those who fought them being run through existing neighborhoods. So what? That still happens today!
0 Votes
+ -
More "Investment" is not needed
Speednet 11th Feb 2011
I'm so sick of this Obama White House treating the country like a bunch of morons and coming up with more "clever" ways of saying the same idiotic things again and again.

Um, like we all don't know that "investment" is code for more government deficit spending.

If Obama wants to do something useful, how about proposing a new law that outlaws the creation of any new laws for the next five years? I think we can muddle through with the ones we've got.
Yeah and The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 proved that we can trust the private sector and the market to develop new technologies to benefit the American people. NOT! It will again be third rate services that cost more than the other developed nations pay while corporate fat cats line their pockets by exploiting our country's resources ... add don't pay any taxes.
0 Votes
+ -
have, indeed, come from the private sector, with no assistance needed from the government.

Microsoft or Apple or IBM or Google don't need a hand from uncle Sam in order to "innovate", and the telecommunications companies have been creating a lot of their bandwidth and new technology without intrusive government getting in the way.

There is no doubt that the country, as a whole, would be better off without so much government intrusion into our daily lives and/or into how businesses should be run.

And, hey, there is no such things as "country's resources". The resources are the people's resources, and it's the people who make or create and grow things. Government just creates more problems which hinder the growth of business and the creation of jobs, while all along the way, creating more and more dependency by a huge number of people on government support.

Furthermore, those "fat cats" you speak of, should reap the rewards of their hard work and leadership skills and innovative spirit. Those "fat cats" are also rewarding the country as a whole, because, what they create always trickles into the whole economy to benefit countless others beyond the "fat cats" immediate surroundings.

Socialism, which is apparently, your preferred method of government, has never worked, and you are witnessing that around the country and all around the world. It's time to face the reality that, it's government that has created the problems of which you speak of.
@adornoe@... Thanks for the quick summary of republican talking points and the anticipated name-calling. "Socialism, which is apparently, your preferred method of government." Are you actually trying to make us buy into "trickle-down economic theory" again. Ha! That is so last century. Keep up the good work though; you managed to regurgitate all the right buzz words. Hey, is that you W?

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
George W. Bush --Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks for the quick summary of republican talking points and the anticipated name-calling.

That's not really an intelligent response to the truth, and as long as you continue to deny the reality, the country will continue to sink further than it already has.

I don't need to use talking points, and I don't even bother to use them or memorize them. I just use common sense and logic before making any statements or conclusions. Talking points are strictly for the mentally challenged, which is what the democrats use all the time to mesmerize their mentally challenged followers.


Are you actually trying to make us buy into "trickle-down economic theory" again.

That kind of economics, though it may sound not very sociable and not too appealing, and even sounds very politically incorrect, is what has worked and created the greatest economy and greatest country that ever existed. Socialism, even if you don't want to hear it, has never worked, not anytime and not anywhere.

The wealth creators are the businesspeople and the innovators and the entrepreneurs and the ambitious, and if they didn't exist, there would be no wealth to create jobs and to grow an economy and to create what the founding fathers envisioned for the American people, namely, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Socialism has always killed any economy and has always brought misery and poverty anywhere it's been tried.

Ha! That is so last century.

Capitalism worked in the last century and it worked before that century and will work again in the future, as long as government gets out of the way and allows the private sector to create and grow businesses and create jobs. Socialism only serves to kill businesses and jobs. You are witnessing that all over the U.S. and even around the world, but, because you very likely have your head in the sand, you probably aren't noticing.

Keep up the good work though;

I'll do that anyway, even without your urging.

you managed to regurgitate all the right buzz words.

You can call my comments talking points or regurgitated buzz words, but, they are common sense facts that can't be denied or refuted. The only thing you've done so far is use the never-ending false assumptions that, government has the answers to solving the needs of society, but, you, quite obviously aren't bothering to engage your mind to do even the simplest kind of analysis about how government intervention has caused the vast majority of the problems which plague the economy and people's lives.

Hey, is that you W?

No, I'm not W, but I do wish that I had his money.

However, it's quite apparent that you never even paid attention to what really transpired during the Bush years. During his years, he managed to reverse an economy that was left by Clinton in recession, and brought the economy to the greatest growth it had ever seen in history. During his 2 terms, the economy created some 8 million jobs. He also brought the national deficit to within 160 billion dollars of getting balanced, and that happened because, with a hugely successful economy, the tax revenues to government were at the highest levels ever.

Democrats and Clinton claim that, Clinton left a balanced budget, but that was far from the truth and what did actually occur was a lot of budget gimmickry in order to show a "balanced budget". However, even if during Clinton, the budget did get close to being balanced, it was not because he had anything to do with it. It was a republican congress which forced his hand and brought spending under control and the budget close to getting balanced. Facts are hard to overcome, and what Clinton and the democrats are best at is, lying. But, since you apparently don't even bother to ask even the simplest of questions, you will accept those lies.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

That is the same, no matter who the politician is and no matter what party or ideology they represent.

But, that line is most appropriate with the socialists and liberals and democrats. In fact, it's part of their party platform to twist and deny and lie, in order to get the people to swallow their ideas. The fact is that, if the democrats never lied and told the truth about their plans and ideology, they'd never win any major positions in government.

All things considered, and even considering that Bush was not my first republican choice to run for president in 2000 or even 2004, he was a much more decent person and a much better president than either Clinton or Obama.

Clinton skated through his 8 years, and Obama is turning out to be the most disastrous president ever in American history.

So, take your pick: face reality and the facts in front of you, or keep your head buried deep under ground.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
You must me striking a nerve, adornoe...
SAStarling 14th Feb 2011
@adornoe@...

You've got the zombies flagging your comments as spam. LOL @ them. Simpletons.
"can't handle the truth!".
0 Votes
+ -
@SAStarling spambox: The private sector did not invent the internet, but they did build it out for us to use. The web WAS invented by a couple of individuals (immigrants actually). The free market couldn't safeguard our financial system, because it had been severely distorted by the Community Investment Act, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (read The Government). The Free Market is definitely not setup to protect our environment. I don't think anyone wants to abolish our government, it's just way too big. Our founders and the Constitution are all about limited government and checks and balances. One of them is companies versus government.

Think about that. A little regulation is good. That does not mean that alot of regulation is good. A good example might be water. 20 gallons of Aquafina is good. 20 feet of water, while wearing cement boots is bad.
Those dreaded words; "I'm here from the government and I'm here to help you."

Just throwing spectrum to the wireless companies will only encourage them to NOT be spectrum efficient. They'll buy it up to keep others out of the market so they won't have to compete as hard. There's even one bill in Congress that'd take away ANY small two-way radio frequencies to give it to the big wireless companies. Taxicab radios, oil trucks, delivery vehicles now use these two-way radios, and their only choice will be to use cell phones for everything. So much for efficiency. More money to the cell carriers and their big time lobbies.
Aside from the above expressed doubts of the government's ability to successfully tie shoelaces, it has already demonstrated ineptitude. Or maybe some "Powers that Be" own stock in a certain company. Google "4G interferes with GPS"

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix