Slashdot Mirror
Gingrich: No taxes on e-commerce, T1s for all
P.J. Hinton writes "Newt Gingrich, of all people, is made some interesting
remarks at the Internet Commerce Expo. He warned attendees to keep an eye on government efforts to regulate the net, exhorting them to keep the politicians and the press educated so that we don't have the "ignorant creating the impossible." He also drove home the need for high speed access in the home. His remark, "to have every home in America have a T1 line," is something that sounds good to me ;-).
" No, not every home. Even just my home would be fine.
Geeze you american, all afraid of communism and socialism because you don't understand it, have "leaders" claiming T1s for all? Screw the T1s why not proper medicare...
t1's for all simply implies high speed access available to all.. like the phone line is. thats what he is talking about. and the comment about american's being "afraid" of comunism.. hahahah.. of course we are.. tell me one place in the world that is has been sucessful. thats all i am aware of is failures. ie, argentina, russia, etc. when will people realize that without motivation for sucess production will falter. and don't write back telling me how russia and soviet block scientists have great scientists because they had incentive of military grade pay.
If the unwashed masses too stupid to know how to complain about SPAM effectively or even wanting it all have a T1 line waiting to be stuffed with SPAM, the "information highways" will be busted. There would quite probably be less bandwidth available to the average user wanting to download something important than there is now.
The interconnection structures are laboring under enough strain already as things stand now.
well... putting a T1 in each home would requre
like a little OC3 network for every single town
in America; and that's just if you want to go
at LEAST 50KBytes/sec per home....
Keep in mind what the debate is.
It is not, "do we tax Internet commerce companies?" Instead, it is "do we tax Internet commerce companies in ADDITION to the taxes they already pay."
Amazon does:
1) Provide local jobs.
2) Pay local, state, and federal taxes.
3) Pay taxes on the services and supplies they use. (Last time I checked, the money we pay for phone service is over 50% tax.)
4) Directly pay taxes on items not for resales, and indirectly pay taxes on everything else. (I.E. the manufacturer of the chairs they purchase factor in the prohibitive cost of taxes when deciding what to charge.)
5) Pay their half of employee witholding taxes.
6) And on and on and on and on.
It warms my heart to see that the majority of the responses to this thread have been from a Libertarian/Conservative perspective. The people who vote Democrat don't realize that they are sealing their own fate.
The Democrat/Socialist party is hell bent on regulating everything from Internet content to Internet commerce. Free speech is a dangerous thing to a party that desires to restrict freedom.
The Internet is the modern day Atlas, and baby I feel a Shrug coming on.
Michael
(Who is too lazy to register.)
Israeli didn't too to bad because US dumps shit loads of our tax money there :-(
Geez lookit, the Drudge Report, WorldNetDaily, how would all this stuff have been possible before the Internet? Despite what they might consider objectionable all this free speech has certainly been a boon to true Goldwater conservatives...
A true libertarian, conservative, or classic liberal stance is to never restrict any speech or any kind.
Keep in mind it is the socialist left wingers who advocate censorship.
Lest we forget that is was Al and Tipper Gore who started and pushed the entire censor the music industry program.
Lest we forget that Al Gore and Bill Clinton are both in favor or regulating content/access on the Internet.
And on and on and on...
Michael
(Who is too lazy to register.)
There has never been in the history of the world a poltical authority which has remained entirely stable without the intervention of the people who own it. (The people, for you socialists out there.)
Put simply, because we were born into something does not require that we shut up and accept it.
Certainly, the unprecedented levels of taxation that have been thrown upon us in recent years are as much an example of this changing (or in your words, a violations of the contract) as getting rid of or reforming the tax system would be.
Think about this one little statistical fact.
Currently, there are three employees paying for every one person receiving social security benefits. When the baby-boomers hit retirement in the next decade, there will be only ONE employee paying for THREE baby-boomer-retirees.
But these idiot politicians keep telling us we need to "save" social security. What it needs is a complete overhaul.
Of course, in your case, perhaps abiding by the contract, doing nothing, and going down with the boat is a better course of action.
Ponzi schemes never work.
Ayyyyyyyyyyyyy!
Michael
If I'm not mistaken, there are entire communities and towns in the midwest that don't even have phone lines run to them. They rely on some kind of wireless/cellular pool to make phone calls. I think Newt might be jumping the gun a bit here.
Now if only Cablevision would get off their butts and bring cable modem service outside of Long Island and Connecticut instead of buying up sports arenas and electronics chains, I'd sign up. I'll have a hard time convincing the wife to go $80/month for DSL/ASDL service.
Capitalism does not mean "money by talent/willingness to work for it, luck." It can mean that, but all too often it also means being more persusasive, better at marketing and politics, knowing how to take advantage of people, or even being willing to break the law (which, in Microsoft's case, have nothing to do with quality of what is produced).
Some of the biggest "capitalists" got their money by inheriting it, and then investing that (which has little to do with talent and nothing to do with hard work, but I guess you could put it under "luck.")
You know why he said this, of course. To get your vote. He doesn't actually care one way or another: its all part of some fundraising effort in the ISP community. I'd take anything that came out of a politician's mouth with a grain of salt, except maybe Clinton, he wouldn't get the salt.
Uh, no. Ted Kennedy became liberal and pro choice after a little romp over a bridge at Chappaquidick that cost the life of a young woman. Leaving the scene of a fatal accident, and all that.
The same people who looked the other way with Bob Packwood to get a dependable pro choice vote in congress are willing to do the same for Teddy.
There are plenty of pro life Democrats, but if you've got something nasty in your background, you'll stick around a lot longer if you come down on the other side.
Can you get a cable modem then? In the experiences of many people I know, the cable companies only make cable modems available when they know they can get at least 200 or so people in one area to sign up.
That means most people I know get ok speeds when they're on at 3am... but if they try to use their modems between about 6pm and 12am they get only slightly higher speeds than a fast modem.
And forget about the 10Mb/s. The fastest I've ever heard from anyone was under 2Mb/s.
And liberal politicians are the only politicians that practice doublespeak and have weak moral, ethical, and intellectual bank accounts? Wake up, my friend, there are prime examples of people like this on any side of the fence.
Clinton was originally against the Communications Decency Act. He thought it was unconstitutional (which it is).
He eventually bowed to intense, prolonged pressure from the Republicans. There is fierce support for the CDA, and for controlling what people see on the Internet in general, among the religious right.
You are correct, however, in your first post you were framing the discussion as should Amazon be taxed or not taxed. To people that don't understand our business system, the implication is that currently companies on the Internet are not taxed - something which is very far from the truth.
As far as sales tax goes...this is an issue which has been debated for years because of mail order companies. It's just getting more attention now because the Internet is booming far past what mail order has done.
Myself, I am for elimination of the IRS and a strict consumption based tax. I'll happily pay 20% sales tax if it means I get to keep and extra 1/3 of my paycheck.
Michael
When I say Republicans, Libertarians, and Classic Liberals, I mean the PEOPLE which make up the party, not necessarily the POLITICIANS which represent them.
And if you think the Dems are for freedom of speech...wow...is all I can say. Read some of Gore and Clinton's speeches, and look at their voting records instead of believing what you're told.
Michael
11Mbps/11 users = 1Mbps/user in the broadcast world that is wireless. No thanks, I'll take a couple of T1's.
Your argument doesn't hold water.
By your definition of "consent," I would be consenting to EVERYTHING which is policy and/or occurs in the country.
So, for the sake of making you feel like you've made a point (grin), I'll concede that certainly I consent to everything...however I disagree strongly and will/am doing everything in my power to stop the insanity.
Michael
Ok.
Because I wanted to make sure I was completely right on this, I went and did the research.
The actual vote on the CDA was overwhelming:
House 414-9, Senate 91-5
Now, because the Republicans held the majority in both the House and Senate, you can say that they were the main backers, however those number make it clear that it was both parties who were pushing for it. Both were wrong.
Add onto that, the first House members to come out vocally against the CDA were:
Jun 21, '95: Several prominent House members publicly announce their opposition to the CDA, including Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Gee whiz, there is Newt standing tall for the Internet frontier. And he was, at that time, the leader of the Pubbies in the house.
I could go on, but I won't bother.
Get your facts straight before you post. People who don't have the time, knowledge, or inclination might accept your rhetoric without learning that it's based on lies.
Liberty is paramount to everything else.
Michael
Umm...duh...
Taxation is not a written in stone contract piece. Do a little research, the authority to tax was actually wedged into power without ratification of the Congress.
What do you use to determine what the "Social Contract" is? The Bill of Rights? The Constitution? Whatever Brother Bill decides to feed you in the morning?
The Constitution has been ammended, repealed, changed, and etc as time has gone on. It is not written in stone.
The fact is, the "social contract" is in a constant state of change.
Again, under your definition of consent, everyone living in the United States consents to every policy it offers, strictly because it is what is currently "offered." In truth, I agree with that literally, but it is a non-point.
To make sure this is clear:
You define consent as choosing to live in a country where ZZZZZZZZ is a part of the social contract.
You can fill in ZZZZZZZZ with whatever you want. In your example you use taxation. I can fill it in with anything else that is part of the "Social Contract," for instance Freedom to Bear Arms. But..oh..wait a minute. That's been trampled too.
You can't make the argument for one issue, then retract it for another.
Michael
Your argument seems to be centered on the idea that no matter what, taxation is a condition upon living in this country.
While I agree with you from a practical standpoint, the fact is that is an incorrect stance.
You can modify something by changing the METHOD in which is it IMPLEMENTED, or you can dump it completely.
Take for example the issue of slavery. Can you imagine what would have happened had people followed your logic in that time, when slavery was a part of the Constitution?
"Well, it's part of the Social Contract," so we can not ABOLISH it, we can only modify how slavery works."
Unacceptable.
Look at what they did with Prohibition. Same deal.
Michael
Well, all we need is a network voting protocol that lo and behold! allows voting-by-proxie. Think of the evilness (or fun) that would result from this.
Connect to the GOP, Demo, Green, whatever party page. Hey, you know that GUID trick that MS is taking heat on? Well, you'll need something like this, or Intel's CPUIP (smartcard? It's all the same...) for it to work. Hopefully it'll all be above-the-board. But it probably won't. Anyways. Go to their web site? Well, like stupid union petitions (where asking the union to come out to your site by returning any "I want more information" cards is effectively the representation vote, i.e., return the card is voting "yes" for representation, even though the card said nothing about this on it...), let's say that the group embeds a few links down the EULA for their web site, which basically includes something along the lines of, "if you connect to this site you have given us permission to vote for you unless you tell us not to".
Hmm... things seem to be going towards "1984" and "Slant", although it's not the government doing it, it's companies...
Why not? Well, do you really want to run a company that tallies a varying amount of tax for each transaction to the same site, based on the route the data took to get to and from the other site?
No? Me either.
Mail order taxes are stupid, too.
Might as well just make all retailers ask for proof of residence from customers to collect the proper taxes for each state. Hmm... something in the Constitution about states not being able to levy taxes on interstate commerce...
In truth, I agree with what you are trying to say. Taxation IS necessary in an organized Country such as the US. Absolutely.
And in truth, I also agree that it is the METHOD which much be changed. For instance, I would be very much in favor of a consumption tax similar to what Monaco has. (I believe in the low 20's.)
My argument with you is more philosophical than practical. We agree on the latter.
Michael
What do Ayn Rand and Karl Marx have to do with what I just said?
Very interesting pairing, BTW.
Michael
You nailed it (pica); I've been losing interest in /. since I saw a story I sent in (and I was logged in) posted a day later by one of the "in group". It's gotta be difficult, I'll submit, to administer /., but it's evidently too hard to do it fairly.
If you were reading this only for Linux, linux today is much better.
Opppps! I guess I get a (Score:-37,000)!
IT'S TRUE!!!
If everybody had a T1, the Internet would be MUCH slower.
Only a politician would set his sights on 1960s technology. If you are going to go through the trouble of stringing cable to my house, make it plastic instead of copper, and make it run IP over DWDM.
Newt only says this stuff to get public favor, just like the rest of the politicians do. He was smart to appeal to the geek crowd.
>Do we *REALLY* want to give ecommerce an inherent tax advantage over local brick and mortar stores, and if so, why?
;-)
You've got it backwards. What we want is for ecommerce to not have the same _disadvantage_ as brick'n'mortar. When the brick'n'mortar stores start to complain about the inequality, then use this as an excuse to _cut_ their taxes.
The end goal is to eliminate all taxes. Not everyone understands it yet, though.
Or the pharmaceutical drug industry, or the alcohol industry, or the petroleum industry...
Russia was so afraid of the capitalist pig countries that she spent 38% of her budget on Defense. If the States would have actually laid off on "killing communism" Russia would probably have reduced that to 10% or 5%. Russia would have been extremely successful then.
Stopping communism, destroying left wing politics, killing innocent people and installing new US Compatible Dictators seems to a staple of US/Commie affairs.
It's not just the states in Germany trials are being held for anyone who had the littlest involvement with the GDR.
If communist/socialist countries weren't always being subverted by the US and the leader constantly assinated or funded coups etc they might have actually had a chance to show how nice a socialist/commie society could really be.
Please next time you make a comment like this do some research.
Socialism is very left wing and it can be easily compatible with democratic systems if everyone works together nicely instead of "lets oppress them so we can use them for garbage disposal."
Getting rid of jobs is a good thing. If Amazon can get the books to me
with fewer expenses than the neighborhood bookstore, then the books will
probably cost less. And they do -- I don't go to bookstores anymore.
>If they don't create jobs what is the reason for wanting them?
To increase efficiency and make things cost less. To make the world a
better place. Do you want to work all your life, or live in a Star Trek
universe where the "resources are scarce" premise to all the theories of
economy has been rendered invalid? I'll take Star Trek.
Where are the "lies" in the article you are replying to? Yes, some Democrats supported the CDA (it was introduced by a Democrat, Senator Jim Exon, and cosponsored by a Republican, Senator Slade Gorton). But Clinton was originally against it, as it was written, because it violated the First Amendment. He did want to work out some compromise, though, that would not violate Constitutional rights. You can read what the EFF has to say about this he re. Exon was backed by the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the National Law Center for Families. He was opposed by the ACLU and the EFF. Here's one letter written by groups in favor of Internet censorship, from the EFF's page:
Add onto that, the first House members to come out vocally against the CDA were:
Jun 21, '95: Several prominent House members publicly announce their opposition to the CDA, including Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Yes. And in the Senate, a week earlier, on June 14, two Democratic senators, Leahy and Feingold, spoke "passionately" against the bill, because they thought it went against the First Amendment.
I found a list of senators who voted to attach the CDA to the Telecom Reform bill (on the same day). Assuming I counted correctly, fourteen Democrats and two Republicans voted against that. Fifty-two Republicans and 32 Democrats voted for it. So 69.6% of the Democrats, and 96.3% of the Republicans, that participated in the Senate vote voted for it.
You're right, though, that almost all of Congress eventually voted for the Telecom Reform Bill on Feb. 1, 1996. In the house, fifteen Democrats, one Independent, and no Republicans voted against it. In the Senate, four Democrats and one Republican voted against it. Here's one link to a lot of that info (with links to who voted for it about a third or so down the page; search for "Feb 1, 96" a few times), and here's another.
So a lot of people from both parties voted for it. But people on Slashdot, for some reason, make it out to be something that President Clinton forced on us. And that's incorrect. There was (somewhat) greater support for it among conservative politicians and groups. By 1998, Clinton was weakened politically by all of the scandals he got himself into, and he had to give in under pressure from the Senate and "family values" groups.
Hello Newt is my ex-representative!
EX - he no longer represents anyone
no one has voted for him to open his mouth
When I go out and tell my friends that the internet should be protected from taxes and talk about higher bandwidth, it doesn't get reported because it isn't news. Newt's comments aren't news either, especially slashdot news.
Sounds like a campaign promise anyway.
Give me a break. How about getting a home for every person, or food for every home? This is the standard trick of the rich throwing out a few trinkets to the middle class so they won't mind so much when everyone else gets thrown out on the street or put in jails or labor camps. And don't forget the standard republican "we've got to keep government out of this, and this, and this" slogan, all the while letting major corporations slip into control of those areas. "We've got to keep the government out of business", blah blah blah... What a bunch of bullshit. Do the world a favor and keep the business out of government.
Probably planning to cut welfare some more so they can subsidize some major ISPs and allow them to get local monopolies, meanwhile Newt and his pals are buying stock in those same companies...
Or something like that. Just remember that all politicians are liars and cheaters. They will take as much and give as little as possible. That's how they got to where they are. That's how they got the few hundred thousand in spare cash that they can afford to spend on TV commercials and publicity stunts. If anyone votes for this guy because they think they're gonna get a T1 in their house, they need to be smacked.
ADSL lines have proven to be a much better technology than many believed, IMHO. I have installed several for both business customers and for home use and so far, the price/performance ratio has been a hit. Especially the home services, which often offer a min. bandwidth, but are burstable up to T1 speeds. Aside from some phone carrier difficulties, ADSL is a pleasure to use. Cable modems seem to have the problem of shared bandwidth and a previous comment hit it on the nose: the cable co's do not install the infrastructure in an area where 9/10 of people are not going to use the service. It makes no sense. Cable is a good low-end consumer product, while DSL is more appropriate for high-end consumer or prosumer usage. The main benefit for many tech-heads is ADSL's provision of (at least 1) static IP addresses as well as not being firewalled.
Atlas Shrugged isn't right or left wing, it's up wing, more libertarian than liberal or conservative.
As you thinking for yourself, well, it seems that you are having the most trouble doing that. The "everybody is right and wrong and good and bad" BS works to make you feel good...but the fact of the matter is that if you study factual history, and analyze the effects of various systems and doctrines on their people...it becomes extremely clear that EVERYTHING isn't RIGHT.
Socialism can never ben compatible with a Classical Liberal, Libertarian, or Grass Root Conservative. The reason is simple, socialism advocates government control and intervention to fix things, while the latter three demand the people solve it for themselves.
They are opposites. Period.
So, while your belief of being in the middle may make you feel like an enlightened person, who isn't judgemental and left your cajones at home...it just isn't practical.
Michael
Sounds like a good campaign slogan! Newt knows his history... :-)
"Onward Christian Soldiers......"
I'm not about to ask anyone to believe the government actually buys into any of this, but the theory is as follows...
When I buy locally, I jump in my car, drive over the paved roads, expect the police to keep me free from harm, etc. These things are government services and they cost money. I'm talking sales taxes since the services I demand are directly related to the amount of time I spend using them to buy stuff traveling to the vendor. Sales driven taxes are honorable and just when levied for such.
Property taxes pay for the government to protect stationary stuff. They cover my house and Amazon.com's facilities. I pay these in the affected locallity since part of Amazon's book price is local property tax. Again, honorable and just.
The e-tax clamor is loudest from states/locals looking to levey sales taxes on e-tranactions. However, they are fully aware that they are in no postion to offer any service in return. My phone services are regulated at the federal level, and the fed's extract income and useage based charges to perform this "service". The state/locals collect usage charges and property taxes to protect the phone company's facilities.
States/locals want to tax e-transactions simply because it is revenue for its own sake. Their attempts to extract funds for services they are in no position to tender is dishonerable and unjust.
Now, one could hold that taxation is simply governments right to practice social engineering. To that I have nothing more to say than Bah.
Currently, most of the high-speed internet connections availible to consumers have so many restrictions on them. For example limited to one computer, one IP address, no servers, limits on the amount data transfered, etc. Of course there's a good reason for these restirctions, so that these companys can keep control of the content provided. Imagine what the internet would be like if everyone could be there own information provider, without having to deal with stupid restrictions from ISP's. This is true promise of the internet.
Why do people think they have the right to vote money out of my pocket? Damn it, I have earned my money. And I am irritated to no end that some schmuck who can't be bothered to get a job to get health insurance for his family or set aside money for retirement has the right to money that I've worked my butt off for.
If people can't afford kids, they shouldn't have kids. If people haven't saved up for retirement, they should get back into the work force. Don't make me pay for other's stupidity.
And I don't want to hear crap about medicine being too expensive. What doctors do is expensive, and that's that! If you want cheap medicine, eat well, get excercise, and take asprin. But if you want quadrouple-bypass surgery or spinal reconnection expect to pay some money! Hospitals have to pay for their equipment. Doctors have to repay what they lost in med school. And if there aren't enough doctors, then they have the right to ask for whatever salary they want!
Damn it, stop thinking that society owes you something. It doesn't. It doesn't owe you a free education, it doesn't owe you free medical miracles, it doesn't owe you a job, it doesn't owe you a place to live. Get a job that can pay for these things. And if you can't get a job that can afford these things, then you can (A) get another job or (B) get training so you can get a job that can.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Newt might be a combative jerk, but he's not stupid.
BTW, I wouldn't read too much into his "T1" statement. I think he was trying to say that everybody needed access to T1-type speeds at home for a reasonable price in order to make the Internet work the way it should. Newt's not a technology person, so I'm sure he wasn't talking about using any particular technology to get those speeds.
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
My ISP charges $500/month for T1 service, and BellSouth charges $500/month for T1 access to their frame relay cloud so that I can get to my ISP. That's $1,000 per month. And that's not even direct T1, that's going through a frame relay cloud with a maximum guaranteed rate of 960,000 bits per second. Direct T1 access would add another $500/month to that charge.
If the government cut my taxes by $12,000 to $18,000, they'd be paying ME!
Moral of the story: Tax cuts aren't going to do it.
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
A man who divorces his wife because she's sick in the hospital with cancer is HONORABLE?
Newt's smart, but he's also a real jerk.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Posted by Big Bad Daddy:
I was actually at this and I have to say, he actually did make a couple of good points. It was interesting that there were a few chuckles in the crowd when he suggested the T1's in the home, but there were a large number of vendors pushing DSL, which would provide the equivelant of a T1's bandwidth. Besides, we all can dream, well, except for Bill Gates that is(I don't think the Borg dream).
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Let me remind you all that the goal of the GOP is as few government intrusions into our lives as possible.
Speaker Newt is an honorable man. He is one politician whom I'd trust to drive my little sister home from the mall. Who can say that about ALGORE (the father of the internet, NOT) or Comrade Clinton?
Dropping taxes INCREASES revenue. Stores don't have sales to lose money, now do they? Lower prices (taxes) will cause more economic activity and increase your revenue in the long run. It is that increase that could pay for T-1 speed access for everyone.
LK
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
If our medical system is so horrible in the US, why then do we have people flocking in from all over the globe to make use of it?
LK
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
/. isn't the best forum in the world to sidcuss this, but it enrages me when I see someone pretend that something as important as this is a trivial matter.
It's not possible. Everything we do in this country is about liberal ideas vs. conservative ideas.
Earlier this year when the Prisident faces trial in the Senate the issue was not "Is he guilty of the charges against him?", The issue was "Should we stand by our man?".
This battle is for the soul of this country. This war is to determine the shape of the world for generations to come. The moral, ethical, and intellectual bankruptcy of modern liberalism is at the core of the battle. Liberals change their minds on key issues like integrity means nothing. 6 years ago Al Gore bragged that he'd grown, and sold tobacco when he was trying to get the votes of tobacco farmers. Today he does his best to put those farmers out of work.
In 1972 Edward Kennedy was an outspoken Pro-Life politician. Two years later he was a "Pro-Choice" hero. Why? Because like all good little liberals he follows the party line.
I realize the
LK
Posted by Buffy the Overflow Slayer:
The Kennedy, Kitty Hawk, and Constellation are
not nuclear powered aircraft carriers.
-buffy
If the Titanic was full of lawyers, it would not
have been a disaster.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Hemp & Marijuana are illegal because of all of their wonderous properties. Men like William Randolph Hearst exploited the racism and fear of minorities that was so prevalent in the early part of this century.
The man owned thousands of acres of trees that would have been made WORTHLESS after the hemp paper procedure was perfected. How many billionaires do you know who would be willing to let their fortunes disappear?
So among the average white people they spread rumors about drug crazed blacks and mexicans who smoke hemp. (The term Marijuana was popularized because it sounded like an exotic mexican word. To further scare the white peope)
Hemp was even made legal again for a breif peiod during WWII for the navy's ropes, some people still have the "Hemp for Victory" posters tha tthe government produced.
Granted, smokeable product and regular hemp look the same, it really makes no difference. People smoke it already anyway. The positive uses outweigh the negative a hundred times over.
LK
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
You need to learn your history. Marijuana is illegal because of it's relationship to hemp.
MJ wasn't a threat to the rich and powerful elite. Hemp was.
LK
Posted by 244:
it's very simple, legalize marijuana, sell it for 99 cents a box, with a 9 dollar tax, tax money goes to getting everybody in america a free T1 in thier house.
if only life could be soo simple?
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Don't forget the lumber industry's lobbyists.
LK
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
There are only three reasons to travel ffrom the US to canada, Niagra Falls, Cuban Cigars, and the Bacon.
I am by no means rich, but I can afford $70 ($85 canadian) for medical insurance every month.
Even middle class canadians have been known to come to the US for medical procedures that your socialized system makes too difficult to get.
LK
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Newt is honorable. He did divorce her, instead of porking his brains ou tin his office at tax payer expense.
LK
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
I'll take this point by point.
>What about the War on Drugs, which trashes part of the Bill of Rights, and even has judges pissed at the intrusion into their work lives?
The war on drugs is pure idiocy. You can't save a man from his own desires.
>>What about egging on Ken Starr to invade the lives of people?
The democrats pushed to get the Independant Prosecutor statutes on the books, it just came back to bite them. Besides, Bill Clinton is THE exact model of what they had in mind when they wrote the law.(Excet they thought it would be a republican)
>>What about intrusion into the lives of women, who have their reproductive rights tinkerred with?
Is this a backdoor way to mention abortion? Tell me where in the US Constitution it is stated that a woman has the right to murder her own children?
>>What about intrusions into the lives of people all around the world, whose governments and economies have been trashed by the CIA and other wonderful GOP-sent Americans (many Democrats are guilty as well)? Does Chile ring a bell? Nicaragua? Iran? Vietnam? Jamaica?
Intelligence is important to all countries. Let me remind you that a democrat sent us into Vietnam.
>>What about the CDA? Were Republicans all lined up to denounce the thing?
Were democrats? Who signed it into law?
>>Despite many of my political heroes being Republican, they have become the Party of FUD and Deceit in the past two decades. The Democrats are only slightly better, but they'll have to get worse if they are to win elections on a more consistent basis. That's pretty sickening, isn't it?
FUD & deciet from the GOP? That's a joke and a half. The Democrats have been scaring old people shitless with their lies about GOP sponsored Social security cuts which never existed. How about the GOP sponsored growth of the federal school lunch program that the congressional democrats characterized as cuts?
How about the obvious and awful race baiting conducted by Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters?
>> Anyone who says "Republicans Rule" (or "Democrats...", or "Libertarians...", etc) is missing the point. A bunch of lockstep ideology-zombies will more likely do more harm than good. What is needed is genius and deliberation, not scripts and spin.
Appearantly you don't get what it is to be a republican. Of course everyone should be a free thinker. To be a republican means to be a free thinkter and to freely choose to join the party.
LK
If we could poll all 5+ billion people in the world, I'd think you would see a massive thumbs-down for capitalism. It may work in a relative handful of countries (and, even in those places, you'll find many negative votes), but what does the average person in Malawi, Honduras, Malaysia, or Pakistan think? "We" are not the center of the universe, and the world (and "we") might begin to improve once that fact sinks in.
--
--
=8^
What about the War on Drugs, which trashes part of the Bill of Rights, and even has judges pissed at the intrusion into their work lives?
What about egging on Ken Starr to invade the lives of people?
What about intrusion into the lives of women, who have their reproductive rights tinkerred with?
What about intrusions into the lives of people all around the world, whose governments and economies have been trashed by the CIA and other wonderful GOP-sent Americans (many Democrats are guilty as well)? Does Chile ring a bell? Nicaragua? Iran? Vietnam? Jamaica?
What about the CDA? Were Republicans all lined up to denounce the thing?
Despite many of my political heroes being Republican, they have become the Party of FUD and Deceit in the past two decades. The Democrats are only slightly better, but they'll have to get worse if they are to win elections on a more consistent basis. That's pretty sickening, isn't it?
Anyone who says "Republicans Rule" (or "Democrats...", or "Libertarians...", etc) is missing the point. A bunch of lockstep ideology-zombies will more likely do more harm than good. What is needed is genius and deliberation, not scripts and spin.
--
--
=8^
I think Barry Morris Goldwater spins in his grave at the thought of so many "conservatives" trashing Goldwater Conservatism. He was pro-choice, remember? His idea of Free Speech was not about the freedom to shout "Fire!" in a crowded building, or "Fire!" where there was none - yet many "conservatives", on the Net or not, do just that - yes I refer to Rush and Drudge, but also to many forked-tongue pols and Rush-alikes. There are differences between Goldwater's conservatism and that of the New Right conservatives who birthed this current era; I think the Senator just went along for the ride, content that post-Watergate America didn't become a one-party state.
My 2
Errors in spelling / typing / grammar left intact. I'm in a hurry today.
--
--
=8^
The war on drugs is pure idiocy. You can't save a man from his own desires.
That's not the point. It's bipartisan idiocy, started by a GOP Prez. Can you name the original Drug Czar? And who coined the phrase "Just Say No"? Remember we're talking about intrusion here.
The democrats pushed to get the Independant Prosecutor statutes on the books, it just came back to bite them.
True.
Besides, Bill Clinton is THE exact model of what they had in mind when they wrote the law.(Excet they thought it would be a republican).
I don't think so. If a guy's sex life in in-bounds, somebody's intruding on someone's life. If this had been France, a mistress would have been no big deal. Remember, we're talking about intrusion here.
Is this a backdoor way to mention abortion? Tell me where in the US Constitution it is stated that a woman has the right to murder her own children?
Your words, more or less, are in the GOP platform. But it's intrusion. I'm pro-choice and anti-abortion. I don't like the government putting itself in the role of Womb Police; there are better, more humane ways to stop abortion. Or would you rather send abortionists and their patients to prison without parole? Give 'em The (Uncomfy) Chair?
Intelligence is important to all countries. Let me remind you that a democrat sent us into Vietnam.
I'm not here to defend Democrats - that's a typical kneejerk reaction, to assume that. It was a bipartisan effort, started by LBJ's subterfuge. But you didn't mention the Nixon, Ford, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush Administration's efforts in the other countries I mentioned. In the name of the Cold War or Kapital Über Alles, they fucked over numerous Third World countries, in ways that would make the Womb Police look like stuffed Tinky Winkys.
FUD & deciet from the GOP? That's a joke and a half. The Democrats have been scaring old people shitless with their lies about GOP sponsored Social security cuts which never existed. How about the GOP sponsored growth of the federal school lunch program that the congressional democrats characterized as cuts?
Both parties do that, but it was an invention of Reagan's people. If you're not giving COLAs and expanding the per-capita expenditure, it's probably a cut - even if the dollar amount goes up. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too scenario: brag about the increase, and hope that no-one sees the frayed edges in the program.
What about the McCarthyite demonization of anyone to the left of Bob Dole? That's an example of FUD. Even the term "Liberal Republican" (which many were, once upon a time) has been FUD-ded out of existence.
How about the obvious and awful race baiting conducted by Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters?
They don't represent the party. What about leaders like Trent Lott and Bob Barr sucking up to the CCC (a latter-day White Citizens Council). What about the party's Southern Strategy (1968-today), which opened up the Big Tent to disgruntled Dixiecrats (does the name Strom Thurmond ring a bell?), to the point that even (ex-KKK Grand Wotzit) David Duke has frequently been a viable GOP candidate?
Appearantly you don't get what it is to be a republican. Of course everyone should be a free thinker. To be a republican means to be a free thinkter and to freely choose to join the party.
Listen. I'm the offspring of Republicans. I've been around Republican pols (New York, New England, North Carolina) since I was in diapers. I read Buckley and Goldwater at an age when my classmates were reading Judy Blume. I'm old enough now to realize that politics is a business - one where winning counts a hell of a lot more than truth, fairness, or altruism - and many (perhaps even most) of its practitioners are as suspect as the suits and moguls we pillory here at /.
It doesn't say By their rhetoric ye shall know them in the Bible.
OK? Ditch the rose-colored shades, and do some thinking on your own.
--
--
=8^
That description fits both the federation and the borg.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
And that, friends, would give the tobacco industry competition that they don't want: a better buzz that any random citizen can grow for themselves. I think the answer to your question is that tobacco lobbyists still have too much power and too much interest in keeping hemp illegal.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Copper may be a problem, but optic, certainly not? It is a bit expensive now, but compare the expense of fiber to the expense of your wireless solution.. I bet the fiber compares quite well. I bet if you do a cost/bandwith analysis, it compares even better.
And even if we went wireless what would we have then -- great bandwidth... on clear days. What happens when it rains and snows? Your bandwith goes out the the window (if you even still have a connection).
Wireless may be good for one thing as you said -- distributed LANS. Lets keep it out of the home.
No new taxes... Heheh. Sounds familiar. :)
I forget the current number; i think it's down from 14 a few years ago, but only by a couple. *all* of our carriers are nuclear, unless they're still using that old one for training.
:)
hawk, who is still upset about scrapping the battleships. Never mind using them, the ability to toss something the weight of a volkswagen for 30 miles is just plain cool
There is a big difference. Maybe one day you'll figure it out.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Socalism, (Not Comunism) has been sucessfull in a few places. Norway for one. Or so I understand it. Ofcourse Norway is a Democratic country. And the Israeli Kibutz system didn't do to badly. Ofcourse these are very different examples.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
A one terrabit optic fibre cable... Now, THAT I could accept. Just.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The US government didn't put a car in my garage, a computer in my den, or a television in my bedroom. Why the heck should a politician's "vision" have anything to do with my personal bandwidth. It's ludicrous. This "total immersion in information" sounds more like drowning to me.
Those of us who would like the government handing out T1's should consider that if Uncle Sam foots the bill, he usually has more of a say in where he put his money. I'm personally happy with my government's lack of control over the internet. I don't want to owe them my connection. You shouldn't either.
--
(sourceCode == freeSpeech)
Although he can be pretty volitile, Gingrich has always been progressive and "hands off" in regards to technology and the government. I think he dead on in his views on the way technology and the government should interact. Anybody see the course he taught along these lines? (it was on cable where I live). He is definately one of the good guys on this issue.
Notice the sharp contrast to VP Gore's views. A Gore presidency would be VERY BAD for privacy and the net in general.
Give me my T1 today! I'll let *you* wait 10 years until fiber becomes "reasonable".
If you keep waiting for the price to stop dropping, it'll never happen.
Even better if the government helps out. This would be at least as important as postal service, highways, and other infrastructure, all of which the government already subsidises.
I forgot, the USPS turns a profit now. Ooops.
Umm, the US Navy is at 336 ships and dropping. Pretty soon it'll just be a branch of the Coast Guard.
Doug Loss
Nobody said anything about T1's supplied by the
State. Why do you assume that because someone
advocates T1's for every home that he's advocating
the government pay for it?
I don't need the State to provide for me. It's there to protect my freedoms and all I want it to do. Let me keep what I earn and I can pay for my own damn health care thank-you-very-much.
I mean to say "and that's all I want it to do"
...i agree with newt gingrich. will wonders ever cease?
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
The impression I got from this is that he wants the internet community to become more involved with politics at an earlier level.
To date, it seems that the internet community has been very reactive to laws, making protests at the late stages of laws being passed and such.
I believe that newt would like to push internet politics to the front, make it a platform issue that people would have to vote on, not something that people discover only after they have elected someone to office.
Also, any way you look at it, this is still a more intelligent comment than Al Gore "creating" the internet.
--T
_____________________ This Space for rent.
I'm sure he didn't mean actual T1 ... even if he did it doesn't matter, you get the point (which is high bandwidth)
support gun control: take guns from cops
He was a loose cannon, and he did put his foot in his mouth quite a few times, but neither did he deserve the merciless treatment he got from the media.
support gun control: take guns from cops
Ditto. Losing 12.4% to SocSec, 2.9% to Mediscare, 28% to Federal income, 4.4% to State (which provides the bulk of the services I actually use, so I don't mind), plus property, sales, unemployment, and whatever else Big Brother comes up with, is most annoying. Plus having to fund ye olde 401k so I'll have something to live on after SocSec goes kaboom. (Screw reform, just phase it out!)
Back to the topic at hand: I'm paying $35/mo to MediaOne for one-way cable modem access, and when the two-way upgrade is done (parts of the city already have it) the cost might, *might* go up to $50/mo. That's T1-equivalent bandwidth, at least to the home, and that's what Gingrich was talking about. Given that I lose about four months per year to the taxman on less than what the average local public schoolteacher makes, and that it'll cost my employer $2 for every extra $1 they put in my pocket at review time, it wouldn't take much of a tax cut to cover the $50/mo cost of a cable modem.
Didn't we throw out the English kings for less than what Big Brother subjects us to?
Isn't that the definition of government?
________________________
Corporate Jenga: You take a blockhead from the bottom and you put him on top...
Like any politician, Newt panders to the desires of his constituents, saying anything that sounds good. It's easy to say, "everyone should have a fat pipe", but does he say what programs he'd cut or taxes he'd raise to pay for installing and maintaining them? No. I could say, "Everybody should be a millionaire!", but that doesn't quite pass for sound policy decisions.
(BTW, for everyone confused about Newt's status, he left the House leadership because the Republicans have lost seats in both the House and Senate in the last two elections.)
Having just had an ADSL line installed (thanks, Pac Bell!), i'd speculate that the limiting factor in the adaption of high speed lines is the number of people who can install them. The two people who put in my line had been flown up from San Diego and working 14 hour days just to deal with the crush of demand here in San Francisco. Good line of work to enter?
I agree that taxing Internet commerce needs to be considered. I really don't think it would put much of a damper on it at this point. Just a flat 3% tax across the board, distributed to the counties the buyer resides in. All eCommerce companies benefit from the stability our local governments provide; they can help pay for them.
mahlen
His lordship is in the enjoyment of very low spirits, owing to his inexplicable inability to bend Providence to his own designs.
--Dorothy Sayers
Too bad I can't afford to use it :)
Maybe I'll start using it and send the bill to Gingrich.
shells, man... shells
.
Newt is a futurist, and generally against government regulations. This does not surprise me coming from him
He has been severly crucified by the media since 1994. Most people don't take the time to really listen to what he says, they just hear out of context quotes from him.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
If you don't live in America, why should it bother you what kind of health care system we have?
;^)
Besides Our government screwed up Social Security and Medicare already, they're both going bankrupt... So we should let them do the same thing with healthcare? I think not!
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
If the phone companies positioned T1's for home use, the prices would come down dramatically, because T1 backbones or other high-bandwith service would be everywhere.
In the beginning, phone service was expensive, people had "party lines", that is shared phone lines with their neighbors.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Libertarian and Conservative Republicans have this as a goal, but not necessarily the whole GOP
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I just love this talk about philosophical "contracts".
So you're saying, that Jews who where living in Germany during the Nazi era had to accept the Holocaust because they entered into a contract with the Nazi government by living there at the time?
Also, it isn't like he has any choice, sure he can leave the US, but he will be taxed no matter where he goes.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Who pays 15%? Not me, I live in the US.
15% may be the Federal rate, but then there is also State income taxes, local income taxes, FICA (Social Security), and Medicare on top of that.
About 27% of my check is eaten by taxes, this doesn't account for the hidden taxes that my employer pays on my behalf that I don't see.
Then there are the non-income taxes.
Real Estate taxes (currently 2.5% of my income)
Most states have sales taxes 4-8% of what you buy.
Gas tax, cigarette tax, booze tax, tax on gambling winnings, tax on capital gains, taxes on employee bonuses (They took nearly 50%!), estate taxes (can't even escape by death), hotel taxes, duties.
Occupational Privilige tax (In PA, I kid you not!) Auto Excise Tax (Here In MA). School taxes
And when they are done taxing you, they hit you with fees... Auto registration, Driver's license, tolls roads, Water, sewer etc.
In short, I can't imagine that the US is any tax bargain.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I've been hearing these fantastic hemp claims for years. (Summary: Hemp the wonder crop! You can eat it/wear it/makes good wallpaper/1 hemp twig can produce 6 reams of paper/stronger than steel yet softer than velvet, but it's NOT marajuana, you can't smoke it!)
What I want to know, if hemp is so great, than why is it not used? Why is it only the non-mainstream hemp people know about this?
Don't give me the marajuana angle. There is worse legal stuff. E.G. "White Out", sniffing the stuff can kill you, but kids do it anyway for a high.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Contrast him to Clinton
The ethics committee found some ridiculous little ethical violation, using a consultant for something, (not illegal, just unethical under House rules) The press made him out to be this really awful guy, and he was fined over $100,000 for this. He resigned when the pressure to do so got intense
Clinton, on the other hand committed perjury (A felony) the press kept repeating "He just had sex". He didn't have the decency to resign, and got off scott free.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
...Until the Republicans forced him out after the disappointing '98 results.
Now he's not running for anything that I'm aware of
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
How about you become a site that reprints lots of random, but mostly useless articles, with a user base growing from 10 to 10's of thousands, start alienating users, add a bunch of useless features, forget about broken code, sign on some obnoxious airbags to write bloated editorial pieces, only take story submissions from a small subset of the contributors who also happen to be close friends, develop an elaborate censorship system that dosen't exactly censor, but comes close, and then take a comment like this one and give it a -2389411 score? Oh, and you can call it SlapDash.
=)
Were I a moderator, you'd have a few more +1's on yer post. Lemme check Webster's, I seem to remember that definition from somewhere.
Nah, I'm not reading it only for linux... I also read it for the in-depth, unbiased reports and reviews of the latest and greatest hardware. Oh, wait, no... thats Ars Technica. My bad =D
No taxes on internet commerce is a great idea. We currently have a bill in the works here in Texas to exempt e-commerce from state sales taxes, it would be nice to see this nation-wide.
T-1 bandwidth for every home is a great soundbyte, but it would be expensive as hell to implement. Besides, what would you do with it, once his republican cronies bring out CDA 3.0? It'll be like surfing from a Utah public library!
0 1 - just my two bits
I myself favor a national consumption tax over income or property taxes (the latter the least fair of all); in countries that already have a national value-added tax, I think it's perfectly fine for e-commerce to be taxed that way -- no more, no less than other kinds of commerce. But in the US, we don't have anything like VAT in place, so we can't have a coherent national policy on e-commerce taxation (if states decided they want a cut of the proceeds).
Have you looked at the cost of getting a T1 installed and maitained? Its upwards of thousands of dollars a year.
I do agree with your statement in principle though.
On the other hand, cutting taxes might interfere with US policy of bankrolling the Israeli, Egyptian, and South Korean governments, as well as the maintainence of a 500 ship navy to keep the Cubans at bay.
Doesn't make sense, does it? Nor does Newt.
Newt isn't in the loop anymore - ostrasized by his own party.
Even if it were possible, I would not advocate T1 lines to every home. Optics will improve and become cheaper such that within ten years they will make a more realistic wiring option. I would not waste the money now rewiring "the last mile" with T1 capable lines.
I never thought I'd see the day.
I wouldn't mind paying a bit more in taxes even to have a T1 (or a line as fast as one).
I'm still waiting for cable modem in my area.
This sig is false.
I dont know if you people watch C-SPAN very often, but I do every once in a while. Let me tell you gingrich is one bag of hot air. The so called "futurist" just repeats outlandish suggestions to make people think what he says is really worth something. Example? Of course...
One happy afternoon while watching c-span I happened to tune in on one of gringrich's wonderful speeches, where he was talking about education funding. This was his idea: You can decrease education spending, and increase tax-cuts, so that people can get internet access at home. His hypothesis: After about age 5, "kids can learn all they want from the Internet!". He actually said this. I spent the next week and a half fucking laughing my head off. That statement ranks up there along with gore's "I created the internet."
Politicians can talk sweeter than a jock on prom night, but it doesnt mean shit.
-Laxative
Why not concentrate on ADSL (or VDSL for that matter) and leverage existing cable?
K.
-
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
it's been said that he has been, at least at some point recently, been considering running for Gov. of Georgia. Who knows.
e-comerce is NO different then calling up and ordering from a catalog. The vendors pay taxes and the manufacturers pay taxes. They pay taxes to ship it.We all pay for those in the end.
They should actually offer tax breaks for e-comerce.
A website is just another way to show your product. Taxing it is just another way for the Libs to tax us to death.
Bill Clinton escalated the War on Drugs. Nancy just said "Just say no"
Ken Star was apointed by Democrats and kept in business by Miss. Janet Reno, a lacky of Mr. Clinton.
To hell with those countries. Besides, for most of that time, the democrats were in control.
Now, lets talk about running our lives....
Over taxation. Gun control. Tipper Gore and her anti rappin'
Sure, both sides have their faults, but I think the Republicans are more sincere, more honest and I doubt that Bob Dole would be sending us to war or selling our national security to China right now...
Good points.
Concerning the privacy issues... I've always personally felt that ubiquity is the one way to handle that. The reason people can track that data today is that it is a handlable problem.
The government could track us today without the internet if they had enough people working for them to stand on every street corner. This just isn't going to happen.
When there are billions of people on the internet everyday it will become much easier to blend into the noise. There will be companies that will sell information about us, just like today with telemarketing phone lists, etc.. But the amount of correlation that goes on today within the internet domain just wouldn't be possible.
Also, as bandwidth propagates it will be harder to find exactly what point of entry was used to connect. This further supports a user's anonymity.
Sure, over time technology will improve and people will be easier to track... but the way things go everything else will advance as well. Tracking one person will always be easy just like today. If the government really wanted to watch one person then they will.
Watching everyone, probably not.
As long as we are aware that abuses are possible, and as long as we are vigilant in our lookout for these abuses, then it will be highly unprofitable to be "caught" abusing the system. If company XYZ tracks our info and company ABC advertises that they don't... who will you buy from?
-Paul (I can't believe how much the SNL ratio has already improved for me. Great job Rob!)
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
think about this for a second - how many of your senators and reps know what a T1 is? how many understand the concepts of bandwidth and what it would take to get everyone connected, to reach TV levels of saturation?
They might all have the money to buy a new fancy machine, but do you seriously think strom thurmond goes home at night and says "man, downloading over a 56K sucks... we should all have T1's"
Although Newt and I disagree on a lot, i will say that it is refreshing to see him have an opinion on this technology, rather than just show ignorance, which in the political world, all too often leads to denial...
Given the same sort of usage statistics that let ISPs buy one modem for every 20 customers, times the speed advantage of cable modem, you need to have 120 users on the same local loop before the T1 becomes the better bet. My experience is that 60+ X-windows workstations can share a 10Mbps link just fine. Oh, and cable modem in my area costs 40 times less than a T1. I think I'll take my chances with the cable modem. :-)
First of all, there are many dimensions to liberalism and conservitism. Secondly, both sides have their good points and their flaws. Thirdly, it's crap anyway because politicians of both flavors are more alike than different. Fourth, you're not going to change my mind and I won't try to change yours. Fifth and finally, it's more fun to talk about T1 lines.
You people are not getting my point. When I said politicians are more alike than different, I really meant it. That means: :-)
1. It doesn't matter whether they are liberal or conservative. Most politicians of any party (except possibly Libertarian) want to take your money and give it to someone else. You will not be able to persuade me otherwise, so don't try. If you say "Republican", I will laugh out loud.
2. Most politicians, "a" or "b", are good little party players. Who stand by their man, right or wrong. Who vote in blocks, right or wrong. Who vote the way their party boss tells them to.
3. For every politician of flavor "a" who has ever toed the party line, flip-flopped, lied, taken a bribe, cheated on their SO, gotten sexual favors while at work, broken campaign finance laws, put national security at risk, engaged in back-room dealmaking, raised taxes, wrote pork-barrel legislation, or farted in public, I can name one of flavor "b" who did the same or worse.
4. For every dimension in which "a" is good and "b" is bad, I can both find someone who believes the opposite, and name a different dimension in which you will believe the opposite. Different people also happen to value different dimensions more or less highly.
5. Your impression of what "a" and "b" mean is almost certainly different than mine anyway.
6. Unless you're a better rhetorician than I think, you absolutely will not change my mind, because you cannot convince me that the evidence of my own experience is untrue, and I agree not to try to change yours. Or attack or defend the pack of lying, cheating mongrels you prefer to identify with.
7. It's still more fun to talk about T1 lines.
Rejoice about the tax-free eCommerce, at least someone in the government (, unless he was thrown out, I don't really keep track,) knows where the country's (and the world's) commercial future lies. But I really hope he doesn't take that "T1 line in every house" too seriously, the last thing we need is the government regulating high-speed internet access. As forward-thinking and well-intentioned as Gingrich is, let's just hope he knows what (and when) to leave the government out of.
Mark Prindle, the most underappreciated genius on the web.
Preach on brother , I got a cable modem thinking it was direct connection, damn crowding might be the only down fall of the cable modem. Although they could always fix this with bigger and better servers on the backend..
has been taken away from me without my consent.
Umm...you most certainly have consented. Living in the country is consent...in the same way that e.g. entering (some) restaurants means consenting to buy at least $15 worth of food. When you were born (and a minor) your parents entered you into a contract with the United States of America. When you came of age, and didn't leave the country, you continued that contract.
Your continued presence in this country is continued consent. In the same way that if you don't like AT&T you can go to Sprint, if you don't like the particular implicit contract in America you can always try some other country. There are, what, 200+ countries in the world?
How do you expect to survive in a libertarian utopia when you don't even want to abide by the contracts you enter?
I'm not positive but I was under the impression people were talking about some kind of sales tax for the internet. Amazon wouldn't pay that tax.
As I understand it, the omission of an internet sales tax is supported because "we should want the most rapid possible expansion of e-commerce". But I'm not sure why that is the case.
On a superficial analysis it would seem more likely to destroy jobs than create them. How many jobs would be lost if all of the Barnes and Nobles, Borders, Waldenbooks, etc, were closed down and replaced by online only offerings? I'm not sure, but it seems like these destroy jobs rather than create them. And if they don't create jobs what is the reason for wanting more of them? Prestige? So you can say America has the biggest e-commerce dick in the world?
If you thought I was saying that if you were born into something you had to shut up and accept then either I wasn't clear or you are dilerately misunderstanding what I wrote.
The original claim was that there was no consent involved in taxation; that it is "coerced" from you. That is not that case. By living in a country you "consent" to be taxed. You can disagree about how much you should be taxed, how the tax money should be spent, and so on. But you can't claim there is no consent involved.
Maybe if the US government abducted your parents from their homeland and then closed its borders and refused to let you leave...then you claim there was a lack of consent and that you were being coerced. However, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that isn't the case for you.
I just love this talk about philosophical "contracts".
I don't know about you but I'm talking about an economic contract. Philosophical would be more like "I have a right to own land" or "I have a right to freedom of speech".
So you're saying, that Jews who where living in Germany during the Nazi era had to accept the Holocaust because they entered into a contract with the Nazi government by living there at the time?
First off, most of the Jews who died in the Holocaust were from Poland. In fact, most of the people who died in the Holocaust (considering that almost half of them weren't Jewish, I think you do a disservice to those who died in the Holocaust by ignoring the non-Jews) were from Poland. The Polish citizens most certainly were not in any kind of contract with the German nation.
As for Jews in Germany, I really don't know enough to say but my initial thoughts on the matter would be: they didn't have to accept the Holocaust. But by the time most of them realized the reality and magnitude of what was happening they were no longer able to terminate their contract. At that point it had stopped being voluntary (now, if they had been able to leave the death camps whenever they wanted to but chose not to I'd have to say it was their fault...however that wasn't the case). I would probably argue that there was no (as you say) "social" contract between Germany and its Jews.
Also, it isn't like he has any choice, sure he can leave the US, but he will be taxed no matter where he goes.
Yes, he can emigrate, just as you could buy a different car even though your favorite company doesn't produce cars which let you travel at the speed of sound and get 2000 mpg. Even if nobody produces exactly what you want, you can choose any car the market produces or you create yourself.
There are roughly 200 nations to which you could emigrate. They are the product of an anarcho-capitalist free market: there is no over-government dictating to those sovereign nations.
Indeed, the only difference between the anarchy of nations and libertopia is that anarcho-capitalists are wishing for a smaller granularity. These nations have found that it is most cost-efficient to defend themselves territorially.
If any other market provided 200 choices, libertarians would declare that the sacred workings of the market blessed whatever choices were offered. The point is that choices do exist: it's up to libertarians to show that there is something wrong with the market of nations in a way they would accept being applied to markets within nations.
Libertaria is a combination of values that just doesn't exist: the government equivalent of a really posh residence for very little money. You can find nations which have much lower taxes, etc.: just don't expect them to be first class.
And the reason these combinations don't exist is probably simple: the free market of government services essentially guarantees that there is no such thing as the free lunch libertarians want. It's not competitive.
By your definition of "consent," I would be consenting to EVERYTHING which is policy and/or occurs in the country.
:-) the USA doesn't require you to agree with every policy it has when you consent to the "social" contract. Among the fairly minimal terms the USA requires you to abide by is taxation.
No, all I said is that you have consented to abide by the terms of the contract the USA offers you. I didn't say a single thing about what those terms were. It seems like you are reading more into what I wrote than what I wrote. Luckily for you (and me
You are still here, thus you consent to the social contract, one of whose terms is taxation. Thus you have consented to taxation.
In that case, then, many blacks should not have to pay taxes at all.
If they were born here then their parents exercised their power of custody and made them US citizens, thereby entering them into the social contract. Last time I checked the US government wasn't preventing people from emigrating and renouncing their citizenship. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't understand what you're point is.
The reason you don't live somewhere else isn't because you don't have enough money. I could move just about anywhere in the world for a few hundred bucks. If you don't have a few hundred bucks around I suggest you sell your car and computer and then you can buy a plane ticket to paradise. Besides, how many times a week do you eat out? Go to a movie? Buy a book or computer game? Sorry if I find it hard to take your claims about moving elsewhere seriously....
I can't help but wonder, if you are really so upset with the amount you pay versus the amount of benefits you receive why haven't you left? Or is it that there is nowhere else in the world that gets you a better ROI? Perhaps you just want a free lunch? You want everything the US provides but don't want to have to pay for it?
I'm sure Ayn Rand would be proud of socialistic tendencies like that.
Hemp is like the potato.
The potato is related to moonshine.
Time to outlaw it right =)
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
As a counterpoint to all the libertarian cheerleading around here, let me offer the following excerpt from an essay by Brad DeLong, an economics professor at Berkeley. (Click here for the complete essay and click here for DeLong's home page.)
This was written in response to Ira Magaziner's recommendations for government regulation, or lack thereof, on electronic commerce. In the introduction, which I snipped, DeLong gave Michael Froomkin, Hal Varian, and Paul Romer credit for most of the ideas in the essay.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
columbus.rr.com has had similar problems. More people have been signing up; speeds have dropped at exponential rates; and you can't get a static IP for less than $499/month on a *24 month* contract. Even then, there is a huge clause stating that you can't use any 'high-bandwidth' services, like chat, webhosting, streaming video/audio, MUD-type games, information services, etc...!! This can be interpreted as damn near anything that a linux-user might have. Apache, NCSA, etc... I wonder if sendmail pisses them off, too.
Things like unannounced changing of IP range completely without notice for absolutely no good reason. Technical support people with the intelligence to tell you to unplug your PC for awhile when you can't grab an IP in linux -or- windows, or power off your cable modem for the next half hour. Don't want to spend any money on tolerable upgrades or tech support. We spent about a -year- without the login servers(which no one understood the existence of in the first place).
our local RR newsgroups are full of spite and sad sob stories of lame support. A shame. Noone wants to leave yet, though; the only other alternative in the area is going back to dialup, and nobody wants that! Don't get me started about local phone lines.
Tis sick that a multi(m)(b)illion dollar company is so interested in profits. They own the cable lines, though, so it doesn't really matter to them what they do. They'll still have control when it's all over. Or so they think.
.ad.
apologies for turning this into a rant session about my (lack of) ISP service. Corporate america.. DIE.
But consider what the implications of ubiquitous, high-speed access into each and every home would mean. More people on the wire means more traffic, exponentially. More people means a larger consumer base to target with advertising, which means yet more traffic. It also means a larger pile of information to collect, collate and analyze regarding people's online activities. So far, we (seem to) have avoided having that happen on a wide scale. But if almost every person in the country were to be online, representing an unprecedented opportunity for corporate and governmental bodies to tap that information, how long would they resist the temptation?
I think fast access to the wire is good, and ubiquitous access would be best. But the system needs to be capable of handling the strain of greatly increased traffic (which means faster and more robust backbone structure) and the checks and balances need to be in place to discourage wide-spread abuse, by any of its users.
Believe nothing, not even if I say it, if it violates your sense of reason -- Buddha
Absolutely, unquestionably, Newt is right: If we want our government to make informed decisions regarding the rapidly developing tech fields, they need to be informed. As the "priveleged class" of the internet, we should, at the very least, consider what we, the informed can do to help facilitate that.
/dev/null?
To that end, we would need someone to represent the technologically capable to the government. But who? Look around at the leaders of the technology revolution! Over there in the corner, ESR and RMS are fighting again! There's Scott McNealy, ragging on Bill Gates! Steve Jobs has brought great new flavor to the world of computers!
And so on. I'm not ragging on these people; I think that Steve Jobs is a stunningly brilliant man, and ESR and RMS have both done great things to advance the cause not just of free software, but of software in general. But would you want to have these people representing you to the government? I know I wouldn't.
So where can we find a political liaison to help guide our government into the 21st century?
Thoughts? Suggestions? Flames to
Of course, if you cut taxes, we would have money to get our OWN T1.
Oh, that's right the liberals want to give all the money to the government, who will decide who DESERVES a T-1 (heaven forbid it be the ones who earned the money).
All I can say is, "Atlas Shrugged".
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
Actually, yes cutting taxes would be enough for me, However, that's the whole point, since I make money, I'm EVIL.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
I agree, Sorry, it's common terminology, however it would be more accurate to say socialist (Money by Need) and capitalist (Money by talent/willingness to work for it, luck)
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
I've read alot of the materials about how ION (which is Sprint's way of using ATM to offer multiple services via one line),is planned initially for larger corporate users but as demand grows to include homes (the proverbial "last mile" copper loop) so that with one line we can do phone, fax, internet, etc. all at the same time.
Although I don't know the details, Sprint even had some kind of beta user/tester program in the works (sign me up, Scotty!!)
If you know much about this, feel free to comment!!
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
If you noticed, he didn't (and wouldn't) make this as a promise. If you think about what you jsut said, it's not consistant with your comment for any company (ISP) to get subsidised. It is the government's job, hovever, to make sure that resources are available to all people. (Not jsut the rich or "middle class") "The government doesn't belong in business" means just that. It is not the governments place to do more then protect our constitutional rights. Our rights allow us protection from monoplies, and if this is set up right, no company would have a monopoly on T1's to your house. Monopolies are created by patents, not congress. If we all expected politics to be focused the basics, they wouldn't have an opportunity to be liars and cheats.
Also, in case you haven't noticed, politics is all about doing things to get votes. That is the right way to do it. It is not a congressman's responsibility to be compasionate, but to do what is going to get people to vote for him. That is how a politition represents his district in their best interests. Keeping th emiddle class happy won't get him any votes from the lower classes. (Who are the majority) No votes, you don't get elected. If you don't vote (intellegently: issues, not party alignment) you deserve the shitting on that you recieve. Everybody in the US HAS the opportunity to have a home and food. (Yes, they do.) This is THE basis of a representitve republic like the US. In a way, however, you are right. Anybody who would vote for somebody based on one issue should be slapped. Hard.
I remember a work of fiction about a society with universal, government sponsored, high bandwith two-way communication. Scary.
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
Hmmm. It makes me wonder what old Newt is up to these days. Making public appearances...Talking about the future... Sounds like retirement may not be sitting well with him. He's probably been playing a bunch of Quake and is getting tired of getting Fragged by LPBs. Either that or he's thinking of running for office again.
Within three months, I will have cable internet access for $50/month. The child tax credit put into place last year will pay for my internet access this year. So yeah, in my case at least, a tax cut is paying for high-speed internet access.
Of course, that's anecdotal. The truly fatal flaw of your argument is your implicit premise that bandwidth costs are constant, which is a patently absurd idea.
"We the people...in order to provide for the common defense..."
When was the last time a foreign power launched a military attack against this country? I say if asystem ain't broke, don't break it.
"Abortions for some, small American for others!"
About 90 percent of the users in my office seem to have heard of a T1 line and know that they are faster than 56K dialup. No big surprise, since that is how our network is connected to the internet. However the understanding stops here. Out of that 90% most of them seem to think that ANYTHING faster than dialup is T1. Typical conversation:
User: "Hey! I just got a T1 line installed in my house!"
Tech: "Really, what are you using it for?"
User: "I can surf the web so much faster now..."
Tech: "Gee, isn't it a bit expensive for just web surfing?"
User: "No, only 60 bucks a month and it comes with basic cable"
Tech: "oh, ok"
They pick up on the T1 buzzword, and use it to sound 31337 to thier friends. I have a feeling that Gingrich has a similar grasp on the technology. Its OK though because for the most part he is right on. Big pipes, no taxes seems to be a great policy coming from the government.
And 1000 people screw up the implementation.
.65 .37 .65 .34 .13
Take a look over my shoulder as I read my T1 bill from 2003.
Infomation Superhighway Development Fee: 6.44
Federal excise tax: 1.25
Funding to support the Public Utilities Commission:
COPA filter maintenance charge: 6.66
Legacy architecture support surcharge: 2.35
Funding to support T1 connection to rural markets: 1.11
Funding to reverse historical bandwidth discrimination:
Interstate high-bandwith connection fee: 2.87
Lifeline high-bandwidth connection subsidy:
IPv6 address maintenance surcharge:
Traditional retailer support charge: 5.31
Classroom Connection program tax:
And so on. Just watch the government find the way to make up for not taxing ecommerce. Newt has a good idea, and seems to understand the proper role of government in the Internet. Sadly men like Gore have much more power to poison the well.
... is all I can say to that.
I get severely and sorely pissed off every two weeks when I see my check stub and that yet another third (and then some, after Medicare, Social Insecurity, etc.) has been taken away from me without my consent.
I can do better investing 15% of my income than the government can dream about. I could have one _HELL_ of a retirement savings if I weren't coerced into giving that money to the government every time.
Friggin' Democrats and their Republican lapdogs.
Where's my gun?
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Excuse me if your post was meant in jest.
Though I don't doubt the motives of Newt Gingrich, or that he is indeed an honorable man (which I do believe... I like Newt), I have to take issue with your idealization of the Republican party.
The Republicans have proven themselves as ineffective as the Democrats in dealing with the issues that need to be addressed. In '94, I had a lot of hope that things would start turning around, that there would be some real reform in our system because we had a Republican congress. Now I'm convinced that the only real fix for the problem is to "throw _ALL_ the bums out".
Republicans are gas-bags, for the most part, tall on political rhetoric (which is, in part, right-minded), but short on political will, and just as money-driven as any damn Democrat, for whom they regularly bend over.
Gah... where's my ticket out?
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Okay, a 3% tax on all e-commerce funneled to the county in which the buyer resides.
On the surface, that sounds plausible and even reasonable. But let's look at the other side.
What about the city in which the buyer lives? Shouldn't they be "entitled" to a share of that revenue, since the city government has more direct dealing with the consumer? It is, after all, for the most part, city coffers that have to fund police forces, maintain physical infrastructure, and the like. Why shouldn't a city get a share?
So, let's add a 2% municipal tax to that transaction.
But, now, what about the state? It's the state government that has to fund highway patrols, pay workers to maintain highways, maintain national guard armories, distribute welfare checks, keep our parks beautiful, and do all the other neat stuff a state government does. Shouldn't the buyer's state get a slice of that?
Okay, we'll add another 3% to the price of the purchase for state taxes.
But, now, what about the feds? The federal government regulates us, protects us, ensures our freedom, and does all that other good stuff. Shouldn't the feds get a piece of the pie?
So, let's add 5% to the price of the purchase for federal taxes.
We'll do this all incrementally, of course, if we let the ball start rolling in that direction. If the ball never starts rolling, it can never get to this point.
By extension, the new taxes on E-commerce could then say, "Well, what about the community in which the product is made? That community has to maintain its roads and such, and take care of its citizens, so shouldn't they get a chunk?"
Don't let it happen.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
> 6 years ago Al Gore bragged that he'd grown, and sold tobacco when he was trying to get the votes of tobacco
> farmers. Today he does his best to put those farmers out of work.
If the government in all its auspices is so hot and bothered to put tobacco farmers out of business, as apparently they are (even though there has been a warning on those damn little packs for twenty-odd years that says, "Hey, moron, smoking will rot your friggin' lungs and turn your children's heads into turnips."), then I must ask what the tobacco farmers are to do when tobacco is made illegal.
I have a suggestion, but more on that in a moment.
There is also great concern that our forests are being logged into oblivion and that the paper industry, among others, is killing trees to make more paper for the wasteful public.
My suggestion addresses this topic, as well.
Cotton producers must use tons of chemical fertilizers to bring in their crops, thereby polluting our streams, rivers, and groundwater with chemicals that wouldn't otherwise be there.
Surprise, surprise, I can address this, too.
In a completely non-computer-related branch of discussion, I'd suggest letting tobacco farmers and cotton farmers grow hemp (not marijuana, the high-THC derivative of hemp).
Hemp grows everywhere naturally. It's a weed that requires very little in the way of special nutrients to grow very well. Hemp grows much taller than an average man, grows quickly, and can be grown in small spaces, and crowded rows.
Hemp paper is of finer grade than wood-pulp paper. Fabric made of hemp is comparable to that made of cotton, both in its ability to breathe and to take dyes. The best rope is made of hemp (that's what our navy uses to this day).
Breaking these farmers will serve only to put them on welfare, for which I have to pay. I'd much rather pay a cheaper price for paper goods and clothing, at my own discretion, than to be forced to pay for these farmers to stand in welfare lines.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
> Some of the biggest "capitalists" got their money by inheriting it, and then investing that (which has little to do
> with talent and nothing to do with hard work, but I guess you could put it under "luck.")
And' what's wrong with that? If I were rich, I'd certainly want to leave my wealth to my kids when I die. I'd teach them to be responsible with money while I was alive by making them _work_ to get their own.
So what, though, if my kids get a lot of money from me? Do they spend it? Do they help the economy by doing so? Why can't _my_ talent/hard work extend to them?
Death and taxes. Two things you can count on, bundled in a new, comprehensive package. Bah.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Umm... 15% _just for Social Security_. That's on top of the 33% or so I pay for income tax, and whatever the percentage is for Medicare. We don't get what we pay for down here, and adding socialized medicine to that (and a new layer of taxes to fund it) would be one way to make it worse.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
In that case, then, many blacks should not have to pay taxes at all. But, they were born here and as such have "consented" to pay the taxes.
Your line of reasoning is utter bull.
The reason I don't live somewhere else is because I've not yet collected enough money to move somewhere else. I can't do that because the government has coerced me to give about 50% (figuring in sales taxes, municipal/state/etc. taxes, licensing fees for various things, etc.) of my money to them.
I could make my own way very well, and help a lot of people to make their way by providing me goods and services, for which I would trade them money, if I had more money to spend on things _I_ choose.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Indeed. In fact, we're one of the most highly taxed societies in the world. I'd much rather move to a country that takes 50% of my income but is _honest_ about it, and doesn't require more of me than that.
To put all this tripe in perspective, God only wants 10%.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Because it is _illegal_ to grow in the U.S. because of its relationship to Marijuana. I won't get into a drug-philosophy argument here, but that's the facts.
Yes, there are many things much worse than pot available to everyone every day. That's not the issue.
Some regulations are reasonable. It just happens that that particular one is _not_.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
I would far rather see no taxes on e-commerce, and to let Smith's "Invisible Hand" guide the market than to allow taxes and get the "Invisible Foot" of government into the picture.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Ayn Rand is dead. She cannot be proud, nor can she disapprove of what I believe.
The reason I haven't left, as I have stated before, is because I have not yet collected enough money to do so. A plane ticket is but one piece of the puzzle. I could do that in a month.
I have debt to take care of before I would be free to leave (the government frowns on skipping the country without having paid student loans, ya know?), and I would have to pay money to ship such belongings as I would require to my country of destination. I would have to pay a fee to get a passport, get a visa to live and work in another country, and any number of other levels of red tape.
No, it's quite a lot more difficult than simply boarding a plane, but I suspect you knew that.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
I agree with the idea of a consumption-based tax, exempting things like staple food items. This would allow me to save money as I saw fit, and invest money where I wanted it invested. Woe be to me if I spend money, for I will be taxed, but then that was my _choice_.
The VAT, though, is a different can of worms. A system where value added is ascertained at each step of production of a saleable good (flour mill pays VAT for wheat, since the farmer added value by harvesting; baker pays VAT for flour since the mill added value to the wheat by grinding it, etc.) is, IMNSHO, questionable at best. Why not tax based on the price of the loaf of bread when it's sold? The sale of the loaf of bread benefits everyone from the farmer to the consumer, and it's cheaper without the value-add steps racking up dollars for the government.
The tax rate would likely be higher at sale, but that would be offset by the lower base-price of the goods. In a system where things like staple foods are exempted, a VAT tax will still raise prices on those who can least afford it.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Or organized crime...
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
> Do we *REALLY* want to give ecommerce an inherent tax advantage over local brick and mortar stores, and if
> so, why?
How about we cut taxes on locally-sold goods, too, to even out the disparity?
Why isn't e-commerce taxed? Well, I don't necessarily want to pay the same tax rate for something I buy as, say, someone in a high-tax place like NY, but that's the only place product XYZ is available. Now, XYZ Widget Corp. would love to sell me their widgets, but because it would cost extra money to a) pay NY state taxes on the purchase, b) pay MO state taxes on the purchase (don't think that wouldn't happen... it's government, and they're out to screw you and me), I might be able to do something else.
E-commerce is not taxed for the same reason as interstate commerce is not taxed. It would be a friggin' nightmare to do so and keep all of the tax codes for all of the various municipalities, counties, states, and all the other rubbish in sync.
Besides which, taxing commerce in that sense is just plain stupid. The ripple effect of my purchase of XYZ widgets in NY will help the XYZ widget company to pay its employees, which will then help local car dealerships and grocery stores and such to pay their employees, which will then help to pay fast food stores employees' wages, etc.
At all these steps, where a wage is paid, the government already pulls an exorbitant amount of money from income tax, social security, medicare, and the like.
Why should there be any tax at all? Or, if there is to be a sales tax of some kind, why is there an income tax?
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
At least a politician took the time to talk about these things. Just to have him say those things will help. No other politician has.
It's not so much that they're greedy, it's that they don't have any real competition. If they're greedy, they'll improve service to get more money, but only if they have competition.
"There are no cool guys in musicals." -- Coach McGuirk
May I respectfully remind the community that it is the Libertarian Party, not the GOP, that is fully committed to less government and honesty therein. Of late we have seen the GOP present a sham trial of a known rapist and traitor, allow the lie that is the current "budget surplus" to go unchallenged, and generally sit idly by and allow government of the people to crumble.
Makes Nero look like George Washington.
And it makes me sick.
For more info, go peek at the Libertarian Party website. You might learn something.
"We cannot legislate against every stupid thing people will do."
-- Jesse "The Mind" Ventura, Governor of Minnesota
Up here in the Great White North I pay somewhere between 27 and 35%. Many you guys have got it easy!
I pay that kind of money to my governemnt and what do I get? Excellent roads, "free" medical care for everyone, Univerity eduation that's about 1/3 the cost of the US a low crime rate and the highest standard of living in the world (according to the UN for 5 of the last 7 years).
Damn I wish I could get away without paying so much tax, but I guess you get what you pay for.
(Now before the flame throwers come out, Canada is no where near perfect. But all I have to do is try to drive through downtown Detroit's crime ridden pot-hole fest to be reminded why I don't mind paying my taxes. Like I said, you get what you pay for)
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Because its easy to get to Canada from there! I don't know where you got this idea but the only medical "treatment" people flock to the US for is plastic surgurey. You guys have some great Cancer treatment places...unfortunately to use any of it you have to be rich rich rich! So the only people "flocking" to the US for treatment are the super wealthy who can afford to pay for it...everyone else just suffers.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Amazing how easy your Socialist states seem to fail when the CIA organizes a coup and murders your democratically elected President (Salvador Allende).
If real socialism is so bad and is doomed to failure, why does the US have to spend so much money to defeat it? Wouldn't it just collopse because it wouldn't work?
Just once I'd like to see a socialist country left on its own to try it...if it doesn't work or turns to totalitarianism (like the Soviets) knock 'em out. But what if it works? I guess we'll never know....The CIA will stick a Pinochet or Samosa in power before it even gets started...that's where your tax money goes.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are dead the last time I checked...You may want to try thinking a little more out of the political ideology box.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Cause my farmer parents will never have cable...companies just won't string coax 2 kilometers to serve 2 houses. They've only owned there own telephone line since 1984 (ei no party line with 12 nieghtbours in which you listen for your ring - one long and one short!). Maybe old Newt ought to consider a mixed system that will service rural people as well ( as one poster above mentioned )
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
"Atlas Shrugged" - your allusion not mine. Right wing vs Left wing diatribes (hence the pairing of Rand and Marx). My point is that in a modern economy classical ideas of Liberal and Conservative can get pretty meaningless. My question is, instead of spouting dogma or pap ideology, why no try thinking by yourself? ( and be prepared to accept that some things the right wingers say makes sense and some thing the left says make sense - and they can both be equally wrong and evil as well).
I'll use my karma to run over your dogma!
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Only a T-1? I'd radther have my cable modem... 10mb down..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Well my neighbor hood only has about 75 houses total... and 1/4 of the 75 houses are old couples. There are about 10 vaccant houses. And I would say that only half the houses left only use internet. And out of that I would say that my house is the only one that deals with high technology and would only care about cabel.. So I would at the most that there would be a tottal of 5 five people that would ever use it..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I'd like a T-1. Maybe I should write a letter to Newt and ask him to be #1 on his list? ;-)
I also agree that politicians need to be better educated so that they don't make stupid laws regarding the internet and computing in general.
"...she says that she would love to come help me but the sea would electrocute us all" - RadioHead
I agree totally w/ you. I hate all this socialist bullcrap that the government (and liberals in general) seem to think is necessary. Lets cut taxes and all buy cable modems (faster and cheaper).
"...she says that she would love to come help me but the sea would electrocute us all" - RadioHead
Just wait 'til your whole neighborhood gets their cable modems hooked up, see if you get 10Mb/s then. ;) I'll take the T1.
Your post makes me wonder if this will be the way popular democracy starts to become possible. It would be a cold day in hell before congress would directly enact such a system, but perhaps by having a more accessable route to our representatives, we can start actually make them represent us the people. In other words: "do their jobs".
Seriously, why are you even here then?
kmj
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
sorry had to be said...
"Telemachus Sneezed"
Lowmag.net
Sorry, he was my representative and I have to
disagree with you about Newtie.
The problem I have with Newt, besides him being a crybaby who took his ball & went home when he couldn't be speaker anymore, is that he was a HUGE proponent of the name-calling that has permeated politics this decade. It's hare to have a rational discussion with someone who's calling you names (as you may have noticed here).
You're right though, he didn't deserve the treatment he got that got him removed as Speaker, but I have to think of it as someone getting jumped by the very attack dogs he trained so well.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
Yeah, being a Republicans great...
but wait, I'm jewish. They want me to listen to prayers to Jesus every day...
oh yeah, and I'm gay too, and should not have any rights of free association at all.
Guess I need to be a straight christian, then I'll be free.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
At the risk of asking an heretical question, why NOT tax e-commerce? Newt said "We should want the most rapid possible expansion of e-commerce. It's very important that we not allow e-commerce to be bogged down by a city-by-city, county-by-county tax program."
Do we *REALLY* want to give ecommerce an inherent tax advantage over local brick and mortar stores, and if so, why? I think the fact that we are making the choice (in the US) to give internet based stores an ADVANTAGE over locally based businesses is really ignored in this debate.
I also don't buy this hooey about taxation being too complicated for internet based companies - isn't the ability to automate data processing touted as one of the advantages of ecommerce?(Taxware has been doing this for years)
I'm not going to make a judgement on whether or not taxes have inherent value, but I think we should seriously consider and debate whether or not we want to put Amazon.com at a financial advantage over the bookstore around the corner from my house that pays local takes, provides local jobs, etc. They're not even on a level playing field as it is now.
True enough, but five or six of them are nuclear powered aircraft carriers each of whom have an air wing that corresponds to what, about the fourth most powerful air force in the world? That's a hell of a coast guard.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
From the Navy's web site: (GOD I love the Internet!)
Aircraft (operational): 4,108
Ships: 324
Deployed: 87 ships (27%) - 44,469 personnel
Underway (away from homeport): 146 (45%)
Submarines underway: 23 (38%)
Nuclear carriers:
USS Enterprise (CVN 65)/CVW 3
USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70)/CVW 11
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
USS George Washington (CVN-73)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
USS Harry S Truman (CVN-75)
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) is under construction.
Wow. More than I thought. If I'm not mistaken, Enterprise is now commisioned as a training carrier, replacing Kitty Hawk and Ranger.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
is being an old-fashioned hothead. I mean old-fashioned in the sense of Victorian eccentrics. Sort of like Bruce Perens or somebody... ;P
He is pretty fast on the draw, and has a lot of interesting ideas, but usually speaks before thinking. Proving yet again: "Live by the gun, die by the gun."
Wires are the problem (optic and copper). The cost is to high and bandwidth to low. As I see it the only way for us (meaning general public) to get the higher bandwidth we want, is to avoid the barriers caused by wires. Wireless is the only answer I can see and many of the new technologies are making it possible. I work for a company that is producing a wireless NIC for Internet connection. Because of new technology its range and accuracy are 14 times (up to 7 miles) that of current radio LANs. Bandwidth is at 2 Mbps and will soon be 11 Mbps. Not to sound like a marketing pitch, just want you guys to know that this is possible now. Soon we can all have T1 level bandwidth :)
The two most common things in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
In Gingrich's book "To Renew America" he wrote a bit about the sheer volume of human knowledge and suggested that in the future we would all specialize in one minor subject. Everyone would come to us for info on that subject or task and that would define our value to society. It's also a good vision of how the web should work. I say we ditch Katz and have Newt write a regular column. How about dueling columns by Gingrich and Gore, Father of the Internet? :)
Read a good book lately?
Read a good book lately?
Everyone who has posted has had horrible experiences with cable modems, but i have yet to see a single complaint about ADSL.
I am not fortunate enough to have one, as my parents are far too cheap, but several people I know have ADSL lines and they all get about 150KB (yes, kilobytes) when downloading from a good server.
From what I have read, ADSL is not shared the way cable is. It's major limitation is that if the local loop exeeds a certain length, the transfer rates begin to drop drastically. Because of that, it isn't available in my area yet.
Nix absolutably seriousness.
And yet... and yet... it's twice as much as an ISP charges for those ludicrous 56K modem connections (I say ludicrous because with our present no-digital-switch-having idiotic monopolistic local phone company, you can NOT connect at any rate above 26,400 baud) and you get 20 KBps, which is better than ISDN by far at a tenth the price, and it's still better than any ISP on earth so I'm not bitching too much; I just wish Time Warner would get off its corporate butt and do something to restore it to its original glory. I mean, for months the reverse DNS didn't work at ALL for any austin.rr.com hostname; how long would it take YOU to fix that? A few hours?
The moral of the story is, do not ever believe for an instant that anything done by a corporation is done for We, the People... it's done to fatten their bank accounts and nothing more, and as long as greed is such an ingrained part of our Glorious Society and human nature, it's not about to change.</bitchmode>- ---------
----------------------------
Sick of it all? Check out the solution ...and don't forget where you heard it first; SlashDot, the most important web site in the world! :')
--------------------------------------
At age 25, i've voted maybe once or twice in my life and found no need to write letters to senators or follow the washington scene. What they have been doing there has had, until now, very little effect on the tech industry. Now that the internet is perhaps the hotest buzz word on the planet, senators wanting to make the news are going to trying to do something, *anything*, to "help it out". The problem with congress is that it moves about 1/1000ths of the pace of the tech industry. What seems like a good idea today, might be enacted as law, only tomorrow to find it doesn't work and must be challanged in court, a time laborius task. Take
encryption, one of the fundaments of computer science, for example. Look at all the hoops companies have to jump through to use it. What if *compression* were against the law because it aids child pornographers?
Congress needs to keep their hands off things. We can work out our problems much faster, and if we make a mistake, our competition will let us know.
While I'm not going to break down and vote this year (we'd be voting on the net now if we had encryption), I will be writing some letters to all the politicals.
We need another scandal to keep them tied up longer!
Jonathan
-- Virtual Windows Project
Sure, T1 bandwidth into your house might hold you over for a year or so, but really, a T1 is woefully inadequate. I've considered OC-3 an 'into the home' technology for years now. It's just too bad that it would cost so much to run fibre to every home.
But once we all get fibre run into our houses, the upgrade path will be sweet. Maybe in 10 years, we'll all have WDM links right into the living room.
Forget sending email to politicians. They just ignore it. They just ran an article in our local paper about just that, and nearly every politician asked said he got a ton of email and was clueless how to deal with it. Better to just call them up. Your local rep will likely answer his own phone and listen to what you have to say.
Even better would be two kill to birds with one stone: offer to set up an old computer with linux and procmail and teach em how to use Mutt with aliases and threading and such. Then they get hooked on Linux too.
--Last Exit To Babylon
Fiber is getting laid into my basement in a week or two. The T1 should be up by mid-April. Yay. High speed for me. Now I just have to pay for it. Anyone have any ideas on what geek services I should provide? Last thing I want is to become a stuck-up web hosting provider.
--