Again, the problem is that you have people passing laws trying to solve problems at the Federal level that can easily be fixed with some foresight at the local level. Yeah, it isn't uniform there, but rather than having "one size fits all" that doesn't work the same in NYC as it does in Casper WY.
This is why Libertarian view of the world is best, because we don't get crappy laws that hurt everyone, simply because a few people want them. Bullshit laws are created by the same process that Net Neutrality laws were, and they interfere with businesses all the time. And often because someone said "I don't like what ________ company is doing*, we must have a law to stop them".
*Anti competitive Comcast vs Netflix
I don't like what Comcast did to Netflix anymore than the next guy. I just hate what government does in response worse. Fix the damn problem where it exists, in the last mile, and solve the problem forever, without a single federal law, rule or regulation being created. Laws that will remain on the books, long after their usefulness ends.
VA is symptomatic of government run healthcare, where the patients have no choice. The problems at the VA are not unique to the VA. It is what I call "Universally Bad Healthcare".
Um, that is exactly where the problem arises from, federal regulations. Have you looked at the diagnosis codes for things? There are millions and millions of them.
" V97.33XD: Sucked into jet engine, subsequent encounter. "
Yes, that is a diagnosis code. Seriously, they have one for every random act of god that has ever happened. If it happened once, it gets a code.
But here is the thing, they have these codes, so that the Feds can track EVERYTHING about you, already. This is nothing more that Metadata, and with enough Metadata you can figure out just about anything you want.
Why should congress fix last mile. Your municipality could do it without interference at all. Which is why we should fix it there,because if the locals screw something up, at least we have a chance to actually fix it.
I am a libertarian, and I like "net neutrality" in concept. However, I believe that once Government gets involved, no matter how noble in purpose at the start, it won't end up that way.
And rather than actually FIXING the problem, the FCC rules will effectively kill off smaller shops (which is the goal, IMHO) that offer better service and support (like Netflix once was).
And they are solving the wrong problem. The real problem is back at the last mile, where there is NO CHOICE. Fix the problem here, build out Fiber backhaul to a COLO facility where the end user can actually choose their content, from Comcast, TimeWarner, Netflix, ATT or whomever. REAL competition will solve the problem of Netflix vs Comcast (and anything resembling it). In addition to this real problem solving, you'll have the sudden appearances of real innovation as companies search for differentiation among themselves. Christians can get Porn Free wholesome cable, and those that want all porn all the time can get that as well.
What I don't understand is why we keep trying to solve the problem at the wrong place. We don't need nationalized Internet, yet that is exactly the path I see some wanting us to go.
As opposed to what happened at the FCC, where a bunch of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats just made up a whole bunch of new rules?
I mean if you want to frame the argument in hte worst possible light concerning how shit gets done, at least congress is electable. Which is a far cry from what the FCC is. Even if you like what the FCC did here, it should scare the shit out of you, assuming you care about preventing tyrannical bureaucracies.
You actually believe the FCC won't cater to any particular group's requests?
The fact is, while being called "net neutrality" it is not that. I support regulation free internet. IF You want to fix the "Comcast vs Netflix" problem, fix the last mile problem first. IF consumers actually had a choice in providers, beyond Cable vs others, you'd see better customer service.
Right now, the problem is entirely franchise agreements for last mile providers, NOT with anything Comcast or Netflix are arguing about. With MY idea, even Netflix could become their own provider.
Backhaul fiber last mile to a COLO facility, where the end users can choose between several providers, Comcast, TimeWarner, Cox, Verizon, ATT, Netflix for whatever service they need. After that, you won't need regulation as competition will force improvements to service and support.
Putting it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats is not a viable solution. Give me the choice as to what is best for me, don't decide it for me, because you don't know me.
If government stuck to things like "roads" that would be something. But it has expanded to way beyond that.
And when a Liberal mentions "fair share", what they mean is anywhere up to, and including confiscatory tax rates on people, they deem "too rich". These same people see nothing wrong with 90% tax rate on others.
AND if you talk to liberals enough, you'll find an occasional one that thinks the government should stop building roads, as that only encourages building and driving more ICE cars.
Wishful thinking to make it worthwhile to believe in fairytales. Like, when Liberals excuse HRC for using private email, hiding said email, then deleting said email, then wiping the server clean. No, she wasn't hiding anything... not at all. Besides Bush did it too!
"their fair share" is nebulous on purpose, because if they actually specified, then it could be argued against. By keeping it undefined, there is no argument that can be made. The people making that argument win by default, because you can't argue against it.
If I were in a debate, and someone used "their fair share" as an argument, I would ask them what they define it as. If they refused, I would simple toss out the argument as meaningless emotionalism. It would basically say it is like arguing "You should love your wife more". Any answer to that argument would indicate that he doesn't love his wife... at all (or husband or whomever).
But it works in politics because nobody ever asks to define "fair share". It never happens.
You're saying that creating Tax Free zones helps create jobs? So why doesn't New York lower taxes for the companies that still reside there, that are threatening to leave to Texas or other lower taxed states?
This is like Cable companies screwing existing customers and favoring customers that are new. I guess it works.
Please name one Oppressive state/Tyranny without any gun control laws. You claim you prefer civilization, but history proves that Humans can and will elect dictators on a regular basis. They get elected, then start instituting all sorts of rules and regulations for "security" reasons, and then... quietly assume "President for life" status, often through the legal and legislative processes.
And, it is clear from your post you have no idea how vast our country actually is, with huge swaths of country with little or no "police" to protect the citizens.
Lastly, if you take out the bastions of Liberalism (Chicago, New Orleans and Washington DC), our gun crime rate is actually quite low. It is sad when people who don't know shit about America, make up what they believe to be true, and it gets modded as Insightful.
In the last 300 years, how many dictators have hailed from Europe? How many from the USA? You call it civilization, I call it recipe for tyranny.
I would go further than "could... throw out" and suggest that they actually have an obligation to throw them out, and have the agents arrested for Perjury, along with anyone else who knowingly and willingly allowed false statements under oath.
My famous example of Regressive "Progressive" taxes are the luxury taxes imposed by congress and Clinton during the late 90's. The idea was that we could raise revenue by taxing the things the "Super rich" buy, yachts, airplanes, expensive cars etc. They passed a huge tax increase.
What happened wasn't what was expected, as no tax revenue was actually generated, but rather it actually resulted in lower tax revenue. In addition, the slowdown in those economies were sufficiently impacted that several large projects were canceled/suspended resulting in layoffs of the workers building those boats.
It seems, none of the very bright liberal progressives who know more about how to run things than stupid normal people, figured rich people simply won't spend money when being gouged by government bureaucrats and legislatures.
It was quickly repealed (relatively, after the damage was already done).
There is NO such thing as "progressive taxes", all taxes are regressive. The problem is, very few people actually have figured this out yet.
Certainly Somalia (the toast of anti libertarians everywhere) has minimal government. But it also doesn't have a viable legal system, which prosecutes actual crimes either.
The whole POINT of government isn't to REGULATE businesses and tax the people, it is to protect those that cannot protect themselves from CRIMINALS.
Eric Garner, was being arrested for selling "loosies" when he died, a kind of "tax evasion" if you will. Minimal taxes, but the government has to get its pound of flesh. Meanwhile rich people can not pay taxes and simply avoid any unpleasantries if they are politically connected. Al Sharpton owes over a half million in tax warrants in NY*, but you don't see him getting arrested, simply because he is politically connected.
The point being, those that are rich and politically connected don't have to pay the same level of taxes as the rest of us. We revolted against England for less.
I would dare say that most "regulations" are the result of dimwitted politicians doing the bidding of powerful money lenders who dole out re-election campaign contributions to leverage their wealth, against the average American.
Take the "net neutrality" changes recently being made. They cloak their new regulation in geek friendly terms, create a whole new set of regulations that will do nothing to change the actual practices of the cable companies.
My solution would have been much cleaner, more efficient, and would allow the market to dictate what kind of performance / capability at whatever price point the market would bear. It is simple, remove last mile from the equation, by building Municipal owned last mile infrastructure, bringing in the Cable/Fiber into a COLO facility where several vendors fight over services to the end user. No need for ANY regulation whatsoever, by people who don't really understand the problem.
Instead we have a great deal of noise signifying nothing. AND in three years, when nothing has really changed, you can explain why all the new regulation is good, while I argue that it hasn't done anything it was supposed to do.
If you want to be exact, use a dead language. There is a reason why many dead languages are dead, they failed to evolve over time, which makes them suitable for being exacting.
The thing about English, that most people don't quite realize, is that English is a constructed language, based on a whole bunch of other languages. Gaelic, German, Latin, Scandinavian.... and a smidgeon of others as well.
It is why you can say things like "away put your weapon" (Irregular grammer) but still be understood perfectly.
Yes, it is decidedly European in nature, and there is a bias (if you call it that). But bias is not a bad thing. It is difficult to learn and even more so to master.
Trickle down economics is being blown away by trickle up poverty. Government is the problem, not the solution. Taxes are regressive. The fact that nothing is working as intended is because people think taxes and government regulation have no negative consequences, and keep making more of them to fix the previous consequences of bad government taxes and regulations.
Don't blame Google for doing what the government allows. Blame the government for thinking it can tax without consequences. Tax avoidance is a responsibility of the tax payer, and if government can't figure out how to design a tax system that is "fair" and "progressive" that is not the fault of those avoiding taxes.
The rich can always learn how to avoid paying taxes. This means that even "progressive" taxes are regressive. All of them. The problem is taxes shape behavior in unintended ways, and often ways that adversely affect the economy. Only stupid people think taxes exist in a vacuum, and have no effect on the economy. All those crying "tax the rich" and "fair share" are just envious idiots who think that it has no effect on them.
In case you don't realize it, you actually make the case that all these tax schemes are designed for Corporations to drive out the independent competition from existence. ALL Taxes are regressive.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, the problem is that you have people passing laws trying to solve problems at the Federal level that can easily be fixed with some foresight at the local level. Yeah, it isn't uniform there, but rather than having "one size fits all" that doesn't work the same in NYC as it does in Casper WY.
This is why Libertarian view of the world is best, because we don't get crappy laws that hurt everyone, simply because a few people want them. Bullshit laws are created by the same process that Net Neutrality laws were, and they interfere with businesses all the time. And often because someone said "I don't like what ________ company is doing*, we must have a law to stop them".
*Anti competitive Comcast vs Netflix
I don't like what Comcast did to Netflix anymore than the next guy. I just hate what government does in response worse. Fix the damn problem where it exists, in the last mile, and solve the problem forever, without a single federal law, rule or regulation being created. Laws that will remain on the books, long after their usefulness ends.
VA is symptomatic of government run healthcare, where the patients have no choice. The problems at the VA are not unique to the VA. It is what I call "Universally Bad Healthcare".
Um, that is exactly where the problem arises from, federal regulations. Have you looked at the diagnosis codes for things? There are millions and millions of them.
" V97.33XD: Sucked into jet engine, subsequent encounter. "
Yes, that is a diagnosis code. Seriously, they have one for every random act of god that has ever happened. If it happened once, it gets a code.
But here is the thing, they have these codes, so that the Feds can track EVERYTHING about you, already. This is nothing more that Metadata, and with enough Metadata you can figure out just about anything you want.
Why should congress fix last mile. Your municipality could do it without interference at all. Which is why we should fix it there,because if the locals screw something up, at least we have a chance to actually fix it.
Yes, exactly!
However, Government can screw this up, and inevitably will. But unlike Comcast, I'll never be able to rid myself of our friendly helpful bureaucrats.
I am a libertarian, and I like "net neutrality" in concept. However, I believe that once Government gets involved, no matter how noble in purpose at the start, it won't end up that way.
And rather than actually FIXING the problem, the FCC rules will effectively kill off smaller shops (which is the goal, IMHO) that offer better service and support (like Netflix once was).
And they are solving the wrong problem. The real problem is back at the last mile, where there is NO CHOICE. Fix the problem here, build out Fiber backhaul to a COLO facility where the end user can actually choose their content, from Comcast, TimeWarner, Netflix, ATT or whomever. REAL competition will solve the problem of Netflix vs Comcast (and anything resembling it). In addition to this real problem solving, you'll have the sudden appearances of real innovation as companies search for differentiation among themselves. Christians can get Porn Free wholesome cable, and those that want all porn all the time can get that as well.
What I don't understand is why we keep trying to solve the problem at the wrong place. We don't need nationalized Internet, yet that is exactly the path I see some wanting us to go.
As opposed to what happened at the FCC, where a bunch of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats just made up a whole bunch of new rules?
I mean if you want to frame the argument in hte worst possible light concerning how shit gets done, at least congress is electable. Which is a far cry from what the FCC is. Even if you like what the FCC did here, it should scare the shit out of you, assuming you care about preventing tyrannical bureaucracies.
You actually believe the FCC won't cater to any particular group's requests?
The fact is, while being called "net neutrality" it is not that. I support regulation free internet. IF You want to fix the "Comcast vs Netflix" problem, fix the last mile problem first. IF consumers actually had a choice in providers, beyond Cable vs others, you'd see better customer service.
Right now, the problem is entirely franchise agreements for last mile providers, NOT with anything Comcast or Netflix are arguing about. With MY idea, even Netflix could become their own provider.
Backhaul fiber last mile to a COLO facility, where the end users can choose between several providers, Comcast, TimeWarner, Cox, Verizon, ATT, Netflix for whatever service they need. After that, you won't need regulation as competition will force improvements to service and support.
Putting it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats is not a viable solution. Give me the choice as to what is best for me, don't decide it for me, because you don't know me.
If government stuck to things like "roads" that would be something. But it has expanded to way beyond that.
And when a Liberal mentions "fair share", what they mean is anywhere up to, and including confiscatory tax rates on people, they deem "too rich". These same people see nothing wrong with 90% tax rate on others.
AND if you talk to liberals enough, you'll find an occasional one that thinks the government should stop building roads, as that only encourages building and driving more ICE cars.
Wishful thinking to make it worthwhile to believe in fairytales. Like, when Liberals excuse HRC for using private email, hiding said email, then deleting said email, then wiping the server clean. No, she wasn't hiding anything ... not at all. Besides Bush did it too!
"their fair share" is nebulous on purpose, because if they actually specified, then it could be argued against. By keeping it undefined, there is no argument that can be made. The people making that argument win by default, because you can't argue against it.
If I were in a debate, and someone used "their fair share" as an argument, I would ask them what they define it as. If they refused, I would simple toss out the argument as meaningless emotionalism. It would basically say it is like arguing "You should love your wife more". Any answer to that argument would indicate that he doesn't love his wife ... at all (or husband or whomever).
But it works in politics because nobody ever asks to define "fair share". It never happens.
Woah wait a second.
You're saying that creating Tax Free zones helps create jobs? So why doesn't New York lower taxes for the companies that still reside there, that are threatening to leave to Texas or other lower taxed states?
This is like Cable companies screwing existing customers and favoring customers that are new. I guess it works.
"Personally, I prefer civilization"
Please name one Oppressive state/Tyranny without any gun control laws. You claim you prefer civilization, but history proves that Humans can and will elect dictators on a regular basis. They get elected, then start instituting all sorts of rules and regulations for "security" reasons, and then ... quietly assume "President for life" status, often through the legal and legislative processes.
And, it is clear from your post you have no idea how vast our country actually is, with huge swaths of country with little or no "police" to protect the citizens.
Lastly, if you take out the bastions of Liberalism (Chicago, New Orleans and Washington DC), our gun crime rate is actually quite low. It is sad when people who don't know shit about America, make up what they believe to be true, and it gets modded as Insightful.
In the last 300 years, how many dictators have hailed from Europe? How many from the USA? You call it civilization, I call it recipe for tyranny.
I would go further than "could ... throw out" and suggest that they actually have an obligation to throw them out, and have the agents arrested for Perjury, along with anyone else who knowingly and willingly allowed false statements under oath.
My famous example of Regressive "Progressive" taxes are the luxury taxes imposed by congress and Clinton during the late 90's. The idea was that we could raise revenue by taxing the things the "Super rich" buy, yachts, airplanes, expensive cars etc. They passed a huge tax increase.
What happened wasn't what was expected, as no tax revenue was actually generated, but rather it actually resulted in lower tax revenue. In addition, the slowdown in those economies were sufficiently impacted that several large projects were canceled/suspended resulting in layoffs of the workers building those boats.
It seems, none of the very bright liberal progressives who know more about how to run things than stupid normal people, figured rich people simply won't spend money when being gouged by government bureaucrats and legislatures.
It was quickly repealed (relatively, after the damage was already done).
There is NO such thing as "progressive taxes", all taxes are regressive. The problem is, very few people actually have figured this out yet.
Define "Improvement". Define "Minimal Government".
Certainly Somalia (the toast of anti libertarians everywhere) has minimal government. But it also doesn't have a viable legal system, which prosecutes actual crimes either.
The whole POINT of government isn't to REGULATE businesses and tax the people, it is to protect those that cannot protect themselves from CRIMINALS.
Eric Garner, was being arrested for selling "loosies" when he died, a kind of "tax evasion" if you will. Minimal taxes, but the government has to get its pound of flesh. Meanwhile rich people can not pay taxes and simply avoid any unpleasantries if they are politically connected. Al Sharpton owes over a half million in tax warrants in NY*, but you don't see him getting arrested, simply because he is politically connected.
*http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397681/busted-jillian-kay-melchior
The point being, those that are rich and politically connected don't have to pay the same level of taxes as the rest of us. We revolted against England for less.
I would dare say that most "regulations" are the result of dimwitted politicians doing the bidding of powerful money lenders who dole out re-election campaign contributions to leverage their wealth, against the average American.
Take the "net neutrality" changes recently being made. They cloak their new regulation in geek friendly terms, create a whole new set of regulations that will do nothing to change the actual practices of the cable companies.
My solution would have been much cleaner, more efficient, and would allow the market to dictate what kind of performance / capability at whatever price point the market would bear. It is simple, remove last mile from the equation, by building Municipal owned last mile infrastructure, bringing in the Cable/Fiber into a COLO facility where several vendors fight over services to the end user. No need for ANY regulation whatsoever, by people who don't really understand the problem.
Instead we have a great deal of noise signifying nothing. AND in three years, when nothing has really changed, you can explain why all the new regulation is good, while I argue that it hasn't done anything it was supposed to do.
Kennedy argued that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes.
If you want to be exact, use a dead language. There is a reason why many dead languages are dead, they failed to evolve over time, which makes them suitable for being exacting.
The thing about English, that most people don't quite realize, is that English is a constructed language, based on a whole bunch of other languages. Gaelic, German, Latin, Scandinavian .... and a smidgeon of others as well.
It is why you can say things like "away put your weapon" (Irregular grammer) but still be understood perfectly.
Yes, it is decidedly European in nature, and there is a bias (if you call it that). But bias is not a bad thing. It is difficult to learn and even more so to master.
You need to look at the Laffer Curve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Trickle down economics is being blown away by trickle up poverty. Government is the problem, not the solution. Taxes are regressive. The fact that nothing is working as intended is because people think taxes and government regulation have no negative consequences, and keep making more of them to fix the previous consequences of bad government taxes and regulations.
Don't blame Google for doing what the government allows. Blame the government for thinking it can tax without consequences. Tax avoidance is a responsibility of the tax payer, and if government can't figure out how to design a tax system that is "fair" and "progressive" that is not the fault of those avoiding taxes.
The rich can always learn how to avoid paying taxes. This means that even "progressive" taxes are regressive. All of them. The problem is taxes shape behavior in unintended ways, and often ways that adversely affect the economy. Only stupid people think taxes exist in a vacuum, and have no effect on the economy. All those crying "tax the rich" and "fair share" are just envious idiots who think that it has no effect on them.
In case you don't realize it, you actually make the case that all these tax schemes are designed for Corporations to drive out the independent competition from existence. ALL Taxes are regressive.
Actually, it doesn't even take thousands of dollars, sometimes it is just pennies. Just ask Eric Garner (the tax evader executed for selling loosies)