billtodd

Last active
1 year, 1 month ago
  • billtodd commented on the diary post Congratulations unqualifying Obama supporters! by cassiodorus.

    2012-11-08 16:57:50View | Delete

    I’ve felt so for the past 8 years. Also, I forgot to mention just above that for the first time I helped count votes in our town, and the percentage of split-tickets (had to have been at least 30%, and I think it was more) astonished me. People (at least in this tiny town) ARE [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Congratulations unqualifying Obama supporters! by cassiodorus.

    2012-11-08 16:50:38View | Delete

    Thanks – your diary’s title made me wonder for a moment where you were coming down on this issue. There are one or two reasons to be a bit less pessimistic, though. My impression is that total voter turnout is noticeably down from 2008, which, when combined with the narrower margins of victory, suggests to [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Post-Election Watercooler by Kit OConnell.

    2012-11-08 10:12:05View | Delete

    Thanks for the multiple detailed responses: the policy you describe seems eminently reasonable and I’ve become increasingly fond of FDL over the years so would not like to think ill of you in this regard. As for Margaret’s comment, I’d also like to think that those actually responsible for policing could differentiate between ‘calling people [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Post-Election Watercooler by Kit OConnell.

    2012-11-08 00:15:12View | Delete

    Since I (apparently like you) wasn’t all that invested in the Presidential horse race but may be able to dredge up at least a little satisfaction that the hearts of the American people may – by a slim margin – be in a slightly better place than they might have been, I’ll take this opportunity [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Why I won’t be voting for Barack Obama, and you shouldn’t either by principlesoverparty.

    2012-11-07 10:33:11View | Delete

    Nice to see that the overwhelming majority of opinion here remains supportive of POP’s diary. That would not have been the case a few years ago, which IMO represents a significant step forward for FDL. One point that I don’t think has received quite sufficient support is the inclusion of ‘You don’t vote’ in his/her [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Why I won’t be voting for Barack Obama, and you shouldn’t either by principlesoverparty.

    2012-11-06 16:43:15View | Delete

    Gee, if ‘the FDL brand’ is measured by hits and income (both of which tend to suffer in today’s highly-polarized environment that tolerates no competition outside that deemed acceptable by the approved major parties) then I guess I really do have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. I always thought ‘the FDL brand’ [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Why I won’t be voting for Barack Obama, and you shouldn’t either by principlesoverparty.

    2012-11-06 16:13:47View | Delete

    Actually, the FDL brand seemed to be doing just fine here until you and a few other numbskulls decided to pollute the discussion with your unpleasant rants. Perhaps what you’re REALLY upset about is that ‘the FDL brand’ just isn’t to your liking as much as it was a few years ago. Well, tough.

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Why I won’t be voting for Barack Obama, and you shouldn’t either by principlesoverparty.

    2012-11-06 15:17:45View | Delete

    Wow – GREAT diary, let alone for what seems to be your first. And (with only a handful of exceptions, most of whom should simply have been ignored) good commenters as well. Makes me wish I had spent more time here recently. Living in NH I suppose my vote may actually count for something, and [...]

  • billtodd commented on the blog post Google Joins SOPA Strike with Homepage Action

    2012-01-18 11:59:23View | Delete

    Er – both the Moore site and Wikipedia appear to be up and running right now, despite the latter’s assertion that it isn’t (I just looked up an article directly from the home page that makes that assertion).

    ???

    Aha! It turns out that if you disable scripting both sites work as usual: only if you allow scripting are they blacked out.

    While the average Netizen probably has scripting promiscuously enabled, I’d still suggest that this leaves one hell of a big hole in the ‘blackout’. The question then becomes, is this hole intentional or inadvertent?

  • billtodd commented on the blog post Google Joins SOPA Strike with Homepage Action

    2012-01-17 17:08:56View | Delete

    I just dropped in to see what was happening in this area because I just received the following message from my Congressman (a normally disgusting creature for whom I voted only to ensure the eviction of a worthless Democrat):

    Dear William,

    Knowing your concern regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on my position regarding this legislation. I have appreciated having the benefit of your thoughts on this important issue.

    H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) on October 26, 2011. It has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The primary purpose of SOPA is to stop the theft of intellectual property from foreign-based websites.

    Although well intentioned, many have raised legitimate concerns regarding the legislation and believe the manner in which SOPA attempts to achieve its goals of stopping the theft of intellectual property from foreign-based websites is unworkable and includes many unintended and dangerous consequences. I am writing today to inform you that I have severe reservations with the legislation in its current form.

    One of the main issues regarding SOPA, is it would force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to websites that have been accused of facilitating copyright infringement. Blocking access will likely slow down internet connectivity, while eroding the necessary trust the system needs. It would also set a dangerous precedent of allowing our government – and others – to filter domains. Fortunately, all sides have signaled this provision should be dropped.

    Furthermore, the legislation would place a tremendous legal burden on websites accused of third-party copyright infringement and would cause them to be removed from search engines. Even if they made an honest mistake, they would be faced with litigation from the U.S. Attorney General. Fighting the accusations would cost an enormous amount of time and money, and smaller sites would likely go out of business. Private lawsuits could also be brought against the websites. This would open up the potential for massive lawsuit abuse – even though the vast majority of online piracy occurs through a small number of websites.

    While the federal government does have a role in protecting intellectual property rights, it should do so in a way that does not weaken internet security, disrupt growth, or restrict free speech and your First Amendment rights.

    (Followed by the usual Congresscritter closing boilerplate.)

    This represents a MARKED change from this Rep’s earlier position supporting SOPA. It seems that opposition is having at least some effect (unless we’re simply seeing the common charade that the bill’s passage is considered assured and therefore Reps whose seats are in danger have been given leave to take a more popular position on it).

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Should we fear Romney? by Alan Maki.

    2012-01-12 17:59:39View | Delete

    Since you ask, Alan, *I* don’t think that encouraging people to vote for Ron Paul in order to maintain prominent, public discussion of the important issues on which he is the ONLY major national candidate significantly to the left of Obama is the same as ‘working for him’. You appear unable to distinguish between underlying [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Should we fear Romney? by Alan Maki.

    2012-01-12 11:57:02View | Delete

    Hmmm, Alan. If indeed you don’t know what motivates Paul, then most of the personal attributes you’ve presumed to assign to him are inapplicable (since most of them apply much more to underlying motivation than to simple positions). On a different topic, I was particularly interested in your characterization of Paul as ‘fascist’. It strongly [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post President Obama Wooed Us Like a Cheap Date in 2008, But Failed to Give Us What We Wanted by ElliottRosenfeld.

    2012-01-12 01:23:58View | Delete

    Always happy to help.

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Should we fear Romney? by Alan Maki.

    2012-01-12 01:22:42View | Delete

    The answer to 4 is a definite ‘Yes’. Please provide very specific citations that literally do ‘prove’ your contentions – e.g., simply saying that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act and believes that abortion should be illegal are in no way proofs (respectively) of racism or sexism unless you can demonstrate [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post President Obama Wooed Us Like a Cheap Date in 2008, But Failed to Give Us What We Wanted by ElliottRosenfeld.

    2012-01-11 18:09:36View | Delete

    Actually, Elliot, I wasn’t requesting that you write ANYTHING for me – just observing that those who write here often strive for a bit more substance than you appear to have provided. But if it was intended to be content-free humor, I’ll instead just observe that it didn’t seem very funny. Perhaps I just take [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post President Obama Wooed Us Like a Cheap Date in 2008, But Failed to Give Us What We Wanted by ElliottRosenfeld.

    2012-01-11 17:22:57View | Delete

    I don’t want to discourage a relative newcomer to FDL, Elliot, but before jumping in with a blog post it’s sometimes prudent to do a bit more research than you appear to have done. Even a couple of years ago, the list of campaign positions which Obama had – often blatantly – reneged upon (and [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Should we fear Romney? by Alan Maki.

    2012-01-11 11:20:01View | Delete

    I’m certainly not afraid of Romney, and will be voting for him if he’s the nominee (as I’ll vote for ANY Republican nominee, since I pledged to the Democratic leadership back in early March 2010 do that for all national offices until such time as a strong public option is passed into law: getting rid [...]

  • billtodd commented on the diary post Obama, the Petty Careerist by mattreichel.

    2011-09-28 21:29:12View | Delete

    Wow. FDL has come a long way since its Obamabot days, but (at least as only a very occasional visitor) I’m not sure it’s quite ready for this yet.

    Thanks for helping lead the way. Only after we really become able to see ourselves as others see us will there be hope for real change.

  • I’m kind of late to this party, but as far as I can tell while the employee side of the payroll tax cuts conspicuously states that the Social Security revenue shortfall will be completely reimbursed from the General Fund, no such statement is made about the employer side of the cuts.

    Do you have information that the employer side will be similarly reimbursed, or does this constitute a rather major ‘bark’?

  • billtodd commented on the blog post Warren Buffett Makes the Case for Progressive Taxation

    2011-08-15 14:13:31View | Delete

    I was going to point this out, but thought I’d read the other responses first. It surprised me to get through 44 of them before finding someone who had beat me to it.

    David began here (and in his earlier post) with the over-simplification that raising tax rates ANYWHERE was counter-indicated right now. A bit later he did manage to understand that “the rich park their money rather than spending it”, but then apparently lost the significance of that before ending with the apparent conclusion that eliminating at least the higher-bracket tax cuts RIGHT NOW might limit any recovery.

    Until such time as we’ve seen sufficient recovery that our idle production capacity gets used up and we need to encourage investment to create more, raising tax rates for the wealthy will have no effect whatsoever on any recovery (and therefore even the minor positive effect it might have compared to just borrowing or creating more money makes it desirable). The wealthy parlayed their wealth into additional income during the ’70s when top-bracket rates averaged 70%, during the ’60s when they averaged 80%, and during the ’50s when they averaged 90%, so they’re not about to be discouraged from such activities if the top-bracket rate is raised not only to its 39.6% Clinton-era level but up to at least 50% (the first step down from 70% that Reagan took).

    So if we can afford to borrow (or create by fiat) $X, then we can raise an additional $Y by raising tax rates on the wealthy and use that additional revenue to create even more stimulus by distributing it to those most in need who WILL spend it immediately and thus create the normal multiplicative effect of that kind of stimulation (as contrasted with the kind created by tax cuts where such a large portion goes to those who will NOT spend it but just sit on it). A real no-brainer, at least from an economic viewpoint (unless, of course, your economics is of the voodoo variety).

  • Load More