21% of Americans Aren't Using the Internet

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sidebar Sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]oboelcke[/nom]Elistist much? Or is it projection? Most TEA party members can recite the Constitution clause for clause, amendment for amendment. You do realize that many groups have Constitutional/BoR/American History study sessions. Many could also recite just about every Federalist paper along with much of the Founding Father's correspondence.Polls by the NYT, Gallup and other pollsters statistically state that TEA party members have a higher than average education, tend to be middle/ middle upper class, and are more informed than the average voter on world affairs. The also tend to ve fiscally conservative but socailly moderates who want the Constitution followed to the letter.[/citation]

wrong ! ha ha!

Tea Party members and supporters are
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-on-pledge-of-allegi_n_122965.html

and yet they invited that dumb **** to speak at TP events
ha ha
morons !
 
[citation][nom]george21546[/nom]so what does that have to do with anything. Both my mother and mother-in-law used the internet into their 80's. The problem is no rural service that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.[/citation]

It's called humor. I used some conveniently aligning numbers to invoke a common stereotype that old people are afraid of new technology.

But it's okay. The 2000 census actually said 21.05% of Americans were aged 55+. So we can easily account for your mom, your mother-in-law, and about 149,998 of their closest friends.

 
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]I wish that the average American would stop the government from running up trillion dollar debts that can never be paid. I wish that the Average American would have prevented the trillion dollar secret bailouts of wall street and the banks. $23.7 trillion! The interest on the debts can never be paid in full and future generations will live on their knees in poverty.[/citation]
You mean the debt that was generated by the fiscally irresponsible policies of the Bush administration? The dept that continued to grow exponentially throughout the eight years of the Bush presidency? You realize that there was actually a surplus, a budget surplus of around $300 billion at the end of Clinton's second term that could've been used to begin paying off our debt. Within four years, by the end of Bush's first term that surplus went over $1 trillion in the other direction, and the deficit only grew from there.

All this while the Bush administration decided to enact huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while deregulating many key industries such as the banking and oil. Yes, some of those policies led to short term economic prosperity, deregulation and tax cuts (the Republican answer to practically everything) tend to do that really well. But much of the money generated by these policies wasn't real, and eventually led to the housing crash and the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. And only when a bailout is necessary, to prevent the country from tanking into a Depression, do republicans begin to prioritize and criticize fiscal responsibility (coincidentally it was around the same time Obama took office). There was no perfect solution to such an ugly situation, and it's difficult to explain to people that it could've been a lot worse had there been no bailout. But most economists agreed that simply allowing the largest banks in our country to fail would've cost us a lot more then even the long term price of the bailout.

And when economic reform is passed by the Obama administration in an attempt at preventing situations where huge bailouts are necessary in the first place, the biggest criticism is that it will "over regulate" the banking industry... lol. When health care reform is passed in an attempt at expanding coverage and reducing costs, the biggest criticism is that it'll increase the deficit, and every republican screams "deficit spending!"... lol. I'm sorry, but it just sounds extremely illegitimate and hypocritical of them to be saying that now. The enacted health care reform bill was shown by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget office to significantly reduce the deficit over the next decade, while expanding coverage to practically every American. But "long term" and "social responsibility" just don't seem to be in the Republican vocabulary right now. Yes, the government isn't free. It costs money to maintain and run a country. But coincidentally a well funded government is sort of necessary for a functioning and prosperous society. Would you and some of the others on this thread honestly like nothing better then to do away with taxes, social security, medicare and government programs in general, and just have it be every man for himself?

Much of the anger and discontent over many of these policies is being fueled by misinformation campaigns and the selective short term memories of the ill informed. It's a government take over of health care, right? You'll be forced into government run health care plans, right? Obama isn't a US citizen and practices Islam, right? If any of the above is or ever was "true", I honestly suggest moving to a more legitimate news source.
 
[citation][nom]Xenophage[/nom]I'm a huge technophile, and I'm one of the 26% that says government has NO BUSINESS doing a god damn thing with the internet. It is not government's prerogative to provide access to the internet to anybody.[/citation]
The government isn't trying to run or take over the internet! The FCC is simply expanding the telecommunications infrastructure and laying the foundations for private expansion. Basically it's giving strong intensives for increased growth and competition in this stagnant industry.
 
What a laugh, dragonsqrrl. You talk about short term memory, yet seem to think the world began with the last Bush presidency. Our government's fiscal irresponsibility began long before Bush. Much of the modern mess we find ourselves in can be traced back to the 1930s, with special mention going to Carter in the 70s. However, just to answer some of your Progressive nonsense:

Yes, we were running surpluses under Clinton, due of course to the policies implemented under his predecessor. No, I am not a Reagan fan, but he turned the horrible mess he inherited from Carter into a robust economy that coasted along quite nicely under first Bush and then Clinton. By the end of the Clinton administration taxes had been raised and the wheels were beginning to come off.

What happened under Bush? Well, first of all we were attacked and got mixed up into wars. Without arguing the merits of those wars (which is another topic altogether), the combined affects of the attacks and the wars caused damage to our economy, not to mention that war is expensive. Add to that the tendency of Bush to spend money like a drunken Democrat and you had the recipe for a financial disaster. Of course, before you heap all the blame on Bush, remember that the Democrats assumed power of Congress in 2006, and were more than happy to support Bush in his fiscal insanity.

Now, the Democrats control everything in Washington and are burning through money (our money, by the way) at an unsustainable rate. They are funding every little pet Progressive project they can think of, and growing the government at a rate that even China will soon be unable to afford. What happens then? If you studied history, the answer would be obvious: Collapse.

The Founding Fathers warned us about the danger of allowing a central government to grow out of control, and even built safeguards into the Constitution to prevent what we see happening today. The Tea Party has awakened to the dangers we face, but you Progressives (in both Parties, by the way) are merrily driving us towards the precipice. While I applaud the Tea Party for sounding the alarm, I fear that it is too little, too late.

Oh, well, it was nice while it lasted.
 
The notion that viable internet access should be available for all is worth discussing. We already have pretty much universal phone coverage, availability of power, etc, and I can see the argument that internet access should be considered as a basic utility. Where we would probably disagree is on the concept that it should be free. Electricity is a basic necessity, yet I still have to pay for it. Same for my phone, cable TV, etc. Why should internet access be any different? Besides, its not like there aren't libraries and others available that provide free access for those "less fortunate".
Click to expand...

itpro, please forgive me for not being able to quote your whole response.

One of the important things that I would like to point out, is that never would I even consider making the internet free to everyone. From my experience, if someone doesn't have to put something in to it, then it has no value to them. Like electricity from the rural electrification program during the great depression, I think we can have a middle ground where the government helps roll out the system, but people still must invest in their own access. If you don't pay your electrical bill, then you don't get any electricity.

On another note, I definitely realize that government is not always the solution. I used to work for a state university and believe me, I had many many many face-palm moments there. My concern though, are corporations and pure capitalism any better? I'm afraid I just don't see, in a society as greedy as ours has become, any corporation that has the countries or the communities best interest at heart.

Personally I prefer easy to understand, quality regulations that are not subject to the whims of the controlling political parties. Those regulations make a level playing field for small startup businesses so that we can truly have competition in this country. I'm not a socialist, because socialism stifles innovation, I'm not a capitalist, because capitalism is pure greed and lacks any moral compass, I'm a pragmatist that understands you need both, one to keep the other in check so that neither can ruin everything.

What I ask from you, is why is all of your effort directed to one side of the political spectrum? I firmly believe it was the Republicans that spent us into the mess we are in now, yet they seem to get a pass on whatever they say? you'll get no argument from me that the democrats can be just as bad as the Republicans, but I would hope you would be disbursing your disapproval equally amongst the parties.
 
[citation][nom]anaxamenes[/nom] I firmly believe it was the Republicans that spent us into the mess we are in now, yet they seem to get a pass on whatever they say? you'll get no argument from me that the democrats can be just as bad as the Republicans, but I would hope you would be disbursing your disapproval equally amongst the parties.[/citation] There is definately blame enough to go around to both parties. However your assumption that the Rs spent us into oblivion is erroneous.
You see Congress controls the purse strings and in doing so are the real ones that the onus of deficit should be laid. The Deficit was actually in decline from 2003-2007 after the intial war time expenditures. It was not until 2008/08 that the deficit swung back the other direction and now seems to be in a full blown death spiral.
At this juncture IMO what is needed is full austerity measures to get this out of control deficit spending and debt under control. Europe decided to go this route instead of the imbicilic Keynesian crap that the U.S. decided to pull and is rebounding a much more significant pace than we are.

One of the most common mistakes made in the debt/deficit argument is that the blame solely lies with the President while some certainly does most has to be laid at the feet of Congress.
This is why Checks and balances is so important to a healty Government.
 
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]You mean the debt that was generated by the fiscally irresponsible policies of the Bush administration? The dept that continued to grow exponentially throughout the eight years of the Bush presidency? You realize that there was actually a surplus, a budget surplus of around $300 billion at the end of Clinton's second term that could've been used to begin paying off our debt. Within four years, by the end of Bush's first term that surplus went over $1 trillion in the other direction, and the deficit only grew from there. All this while the Bush administration decided to enact huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while deregulating many key industries such as the banking and oil. Yes, some of those policies led to short term economic prosperity, deregulation and tax cuts (the Republican answer to practically everything) tend to do that really well. But much of the money generated by these policies wasn't real, and eventually led to the housing crash and the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. And only when a bailout is necessary, to prevent the country from tanking into a Depression, do republicans begin to prioritize and criticize fiscal responsibility (coincidentally it was around the same time Obama took office). There was no perfect solution to such an ugly situation, and it's difficult to explain to people that it could've been a lot worse had there been no bailout. But most economists agreed that simply allowing the largest banks in our country to fail would've cost us a lot more then even the long term price of the bailout. And when economic reform is passed by the Obama administration in an attempt at preventing situations where huge bailouts are necessary in the first place, the biggest criticism is that it will "over regulate" the banking industry... lol. When health care reform is passed in an attempt at expanding coverage and reducing costs, the biggest criticism is that it'll increase the deficit, and every republican screams "deficit spending!"... lol. I'm sorry, but it just sounds extremely illegitimate and hypocritical of them to be saying that now. The enacted health care reform bill was shown by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget office to significantly reduce the deficit over the next decade, while expanding coverage to practically every American. But "long term" and "social responsibility" just don't seem to be in the Republican vocabulary right now. Yes, the government isn't free. It costs money to maintain and run a country. But coincidentally a well funded government is sort of necessary for a functioning and prosperous society. Would you and some of the others on this thread honestly like nothing better then to do away with taxes, social security, medicare and government programs in general, and just have it be every man for himself?Much of the anger and discontent over many of these policies is being fueled by misinformation campaigns and the selective short term memories of the ill informed. It's a government take over of health care, right? You'll be forced into government run health care plans, right? Obama isn't a US citizen and practices Islam, right? If any of the above is or ever was "true", I honestly suggest moving to a more legitimate news source.[/citation]

You left a LOT out such as the $23.7 trillion dollar bailout thanks to the FED. Second Clinton sold military secrets to Russian and China that have compromised our entire military even the black projects such as the TRB-3 program. Third both Clinton and Bush setup Northcom and made even more deals then established 600,000 foreign troops on American soil that are trained in martial law ect. More so that the land and resources have all been sold while seizing of those assets has yet to take place. Private property as I type is slowly being taken away by the big banks and government. By the Way the US gove owns through the banks 40%+ of all real estate both residential and commercial.

So think outside the box and wake up... We all being shafted!
 


I'd have to dispute your claim of the government owning property through the banks. I work at a bank, and we are constantly being reviewed by the FDIC as all banks are. The ones who fail, are taken over, and sold to other banks. The government isn't in the habbit of owning these banks that are sinking.
 
like most of all pseudo-sceince today this actually is NOT a fact, its a data sample that some article (or many) will use as a blatent fact. The problem w/ surveying/polling is that the demographic means EVERYTHING, meaning that there is Z E R O truth behind any of these USELESS statistics. But sadly, large companies live and die by these ancient/meaningless numbers that don't anything but make investors feel better about their money being used.

in other words, the whole industry is a croc of crap.
 
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-d [...] 03785.htmlummm, no not really... are you? Improving the country's aging and largely outdated telecommunications infrastructure really should be amongst the federal governments four top long term priorities right now, along with healthcare, education, and energy. And in fact the Obama administration has made it a priority, although it has taken a backseat lately to more immediate issues like the BP oil spill and immigration. Something has to be done soon to jump start the stagnant and overpriced state of the US ISP industry. Part of the problem is that many Americans are completely unaware of this issue. The US ranks around 17th in the world in terms of broadband availability, bandwidth, and price per Mbps. I think that places pretty much every other developed nation in the world ahead of us, except for maybe Australia... lol. I remember reading an article around three years ago that listed average nation wide bandwidth for certain countries and being struck by just how low the US was. At the time it was around 1.3 Mbps, being lead by practically all of Europe and with South Korea and Japan on top. Japan was around 60 Mbps. While at the same time the US GDP is over twice that of Japan, the second largest economy in the world. I think we can do a little better, and again something has to be done soon to salvage the situation.[/citation]


good god no!

1. it is a total waste of resources to try to push the rural areas to get high speed internet. If they wanted it, it would be there. that's the magic of the free market system.

2. the healthcare system is so messed up it needs massive help, yes. However, the Obama plan addressed none of the problems with the current system and only served to increase the cost. 2 years ago, health insurance cost me $170/month. With Obama's changes, the same plan with me in the same age group (35-44, I was 36 when I started on this plan, and now I'm 38) it has gone up to $299/month, and I've had to cancel it because I can't afford it. By 2014, it will cost me less to just take the fine from the government rather than lose my apartment because health insurance will take away my rent money.

3. the problem with education is the very source of the push for reform: teachers. The teachers want to push all sorts of liberal agendas, as evidenced by my recent attempts at English Comp 2 and Intro to Criminal Justice which I failed for not agreeing with their liberal viewpoints, without any real world value. (I'm trying to finish my degree, but some teachers jsut won't let me pass key classes because I'm a conservative.) The private schools of this country, which have become less of an elitist money pit and more of an alternative for the middle class, have been doing great compared to public schools. I wouldn't trust public education for my kids if I had any. They've totally failed. We need a total revamp, which will never happen with the current government system.

4. our energy system has been working well, until the econuts came into being. The big problems have come from econut idiots pushing for changes that don't need to be made. If we follow the econut way, we'd all be in the dark with 3/4 of the people starving to death because of lack of distribution for food. I'm sick of hearing from them. The biggest problem is that there are just too many people on this planet. Nothing is going to change that except a massive war, famine, or plague.

Obama hasn't addressed a single problem properly. He's screwed up the economy, wasted money, and started costing us all far more than any other president in his first two years. If he continues for the next 2 years, the country won't be able to pay the interest on the debt by 2014. We'd have to say goodbye to all those special programs that pay lazy bums to vote democrat as the country goes bankrupt. With the amount of US public debt owned by China, they'll come in and lay claim to the country in short order as a form of "repossession." I'm sure that would be great to the idiots that think communism is a good way of life, but I'm not one of those people. I don't want to live under Chinese rule by 2025.
 
[citation][nom]Xenophage[/nom]I'm a huge technophile, and I'm one of the 26% that says government has NO BUSINESS doing a god damn thing with the internet. It is not government's prerogative to provide access to the internet to anybody.[/citation]

I'm also sure you want government to stay away from your Medicare?

Last I checked the internet was invented for the military to facilitate communication between government funded research institutions. Government bodies have also set protocol standards and in general communications have been heavily regulated throughout the world since telegraphs!
 
dgingeri:

You do realize that Obama's plan hasn't even been kicked off yet?
You price increase can be attributed to greedy insurance company using lame excuse to raise prices.

To all you "fiscal" conservatives: your true fiscal conservatism comes to light as soon as someone brings up military expenditures. In FY2009 we will spend about $750 billion on military (not including wars in Iraq and Afganistan, they add another 200 billion). Total GLOBAL military expenditure is about $1.5 trillion. That means we spend as much on military as rest of the world combined. We spend 10 times as much as China, and twice as much as Russia, Germany, Great Britain and France combined. Now how many of you fiscal conservatives are willing to take a chunk out of this government spending? How much badly needed infrastructure ovehaul can be done with 10% of that money?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

admin
70% of Americans commute every week – here's why a VPN is your ideal companion
Replies
0
Views
83
Article Commentary
admin
admin
admin
43% of Americans use VPNs – should you?
Replies
0
Views
121
Article Commentary
admin
admin
admin
News Would you pay to access the internet anonymously? One third of Americans would
Replies
0
Views
216
Article Commentary
admin
admin
admin
58% of Americans make this common lawn mowing mistake — experts share how to do it right
Replies
0
Views
101
Article Commentary
admin
admin
admin
38% of Americans can’t sleep in silence, so what sounds help them fall asleep quickly?
Replies
0
Views
89
Article Commentary
admin
admin

TRENDING THREADS

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom