As long as that's the way it works then I don't see a problem with it. I actually don't know what grounds TWC could be suing for in that case if the 'company' in question is a completely self funded coop type of entity. Are they getting special tax breaks or something similar that is not offered to TWC?
Why not? If I am a citizen of Wilson and I want my taxes subsidizing high-speed internet infrastructure, my vote for city council members and their policies should have more weight than the dollars of some foreign corporation that is lobbying the state government.
Because then you'll never really know how much money you're paying for the project. Using your logic maybe we shouldn't ever get a paycheck at all. Just give up all the money via taxes and let the government give us all the things we need.
As a citizen what you want is a citizen owned coop of some sort. That way costs are minimized and no profit is taken (if there is a profit it is redistributed back to the owners/citizens in the form of checks, more service, or lower bills). Look at how most credit unions run as an example.
Interesting. There is only 1 entity that can put you in jail for not paying a bill. This same entity is also the only one that doesn't have to follow any of the FDCPA laws when it comes to collecting debts. Heck, they will go after adults who had parents incur debts in their name while they were kids.
The government can and will screw you worse than any private company EVER can achieve.
I know, it's anathema to free-market idealists, but the end result is... better, cheaper service.
It's not necessarily cheaper or better. If they only charge $99/month, but then need another $100/month of increased taxes from each person then it isn't really any cheaper. In fact it could be much more expensive.
They need to turn it into a customer owned entity much like a credit union. That way costs are looked at (does anyone in gov. EVER look at the cost of something?!) and they get to keep their supposedly good service.
They pay more in absolute terms but not as a percent of income. Sales taxes are regressive taxes and they hit the poor disproportionately harder than the wealthy.
This is why the Fair Tax, if done right, could actually help the poor. They would start taking home their entire paychecks and start getting monthly stipends that would cover the sales tax paid on necessity goods and services.
So rich people are going to start living in trailer homes, buying hyundais and eating raman noodles to avoid a sales tax? That's a really poor argument against a national sales tax.
A better argument is the potential for a huge black market to form around goods that are taxed. 5%-7% doesn't lend itself to a big black market forming (although you could argue the internet IS the current black market), but 20%+ will make people look for ways to avoid paying the sales tax.
Libertarians are people who demand the government to defend their property, but don't care if other people die from lack of healthcare. Basically, they are a hypocritical version of anarchists.
Wow, so equating property rights with health care is logic now? Interesting.
Ah yes, the "poor deserve being that because they're (insert rant here)" argument, the standard libertarian fare. It's the classic tactic of dehumanizing the enemy so he can be mistreated or killed without guilt used by everyone trying to excuse their inexcusable behaviour, from Nazis to South Africa during the apartheid to Serbia.
Again, not sure how you got this from the other guys comment. He didn't dehumanize or ask for anyone to be mistreated. All he ranted against was the irresponsible being bailed out while those who were responsible are footing the bill. What is your suggestion to this problem? When someone does something irresponsible should their be no consequences? If there are no consequences then why limit your personal risks at all?
Of course you did. It's not your fault that you're living in a small run-down apartment. It's the fault of fat crack smoking douchebags! If only we could evict them and give their ill-gotten property to real Germans^HAmericans like you!
Um, he didn't blame the other person for his living situation at all. He said he made that choice to live sparsely and stay out of debt because it was the responsible thing to do. The property was ill-gotten and if you don't pay your bills you should be evicted. I'm sure the GP would agree that if he didn't pay his bills he would expect to also be evicted.
So, in short, you want my tax dollars to be used to evict people from their houses and give said houses to you.
No, your tax dollars should be used to administer the laws. One that is fairly simple is that you need to pay your mortgage and if you don't you need to find somewhere else to live. I didn't see where the GP said anything about giving a house to him. In fact he clearly said he could not afford it and lived within his means. Why do you want to reward irresponsible people living beyond their means? You do know that enabling those people is not sustainable for any length of time right?
Great logic there. So either you give people a house or they become homeless crack addicts.
No, you wouldn't suddenly have a bunch of new 'homeless crack addicts.' You would have people go through the bankruptcy and eviction process and end up in a cheaper apartment or rented house somewhere else.
This process would speed up our recovery by letting house prices finally reach a bottom and quickly clean out the bad loans from the system.
Procedural mistakes should not overturn convictions that are this overwhelming.
Actually procedural mistakes should overturn convictions. Procedures are there to protect the innocent. Also, this one procedure in particular is there to balance the fact finding power of the state (basically unlimited) against that of a defendant.
"I will let 10 guilty people go free in order to prevent 1 innocent person from being convicted."
Reminds of a story about an economist who was critical of the Fed what he would do if appointed the fed chairman. He said he would disband the fed and then quit.:)
insofar as this is a mess that the bush administration created,
Is this going to be his excuse for his lack of leadership for the next 4 years? I mean really. At what point is he going to step up and say he's the President now and actually follow it up with action?
Hard to say. I think the market overall has offset the risk by staying away from financial companies from an investment standpoint.
From a company standpoint it does make you wonder if companies other than financials could be labeled too big to fail and then taken over one day. It's safe to say the carmakers have already had this happen since the government strongly suggested GMs CEO take a hike (and he did). What about companies like a MS or a Boeing?
In the end a definite answer is hard to come by right now because the government is changing the rules that we play by daily.
No, Geitner actually put forward a plan (starting with financials) that would allow the government to label companies as 'too big to fail' and then take them over at will. Doesn't matter if they took bailout money or not.
I want to know who in the unholiest of hells thinks this is a good idea? Even if critical companies and financial emergency were defined, what the gives them the right? The language scares me to death. The existing laws are there for a purpose. To create a law that circumvents them on a whim, even if it's a whim that has to be defended later, is total bull.
Emphasis and replacement mine. This is the EXACT same power they want to give to the treasury secretary to be able to unilaterally, on a whim, take over companies when some undocumented criteria are met.
Well, Presidential appointees don't seem to pay any taxes either and the last time I checked that was also illegal. More of the same 'do as I say, not as do.'
If only we could force them to at least be reviewed by 16 people and public knowledge, like in France...
Even when we've had a full vote it's clear no one had read the whole thing. See bailout package 1/2. I wonder who has read the entire budget that's working on getting passed?
Chopping off heads worked for the French in the past;)
Best thing an independent citizen can do now is voice their opinion to their representative and hope for another vote and/or law that nullifies the one that passed.
You're so blinded by hate for Bush that you immediately resort to personal attacks against me and then ignore any imperfection in Obama.
Please, step back from your computer before you hurt yourself... All you do is repeat what Red State tells you, you dont' have a single thought of your own up there (if you did, you wouldn't be even bring up teleprompters or a personal gift with meaning.)
You're the one that seems blinded by Obamas rock stardom. I think for myself quite well actually. I'm not swayed by someone who can just deliver a good speech. I didn't even bring up the gift, but I'll comment on the iPod.
I don't event think it's a bad thing that he gave the Queen an iPod. It represents the current US for what we are. A consumption minded debtor nation spending our kids (and their kids) money for gadgets and toys today that we should really just do without until we clean up our financial mess. Nope, the iPod was the perfect gift.
I only pulled sites that seemed reputable and had some sourcing going on. I didn't want to seem bias in any way.
Those are nothing like Bush-isms where he would invent new words, mangle the pronunciation of words, butcher common sayings beyond recognition, or abuse grammar and randomly re-arrange words such that what he says either makes no sense ("food on your family") or is the opposite of what he wanted to say (he never stops thinking of ways to harm the US).
In one of the video town hall meetings Obama does something very similar.
And yes, Obama has a great speaking ability. He can deliver a speech like no one else in recent history, but that's a lot different than speaking off the cuff. Will he ever amass the large library of Bushims that Bush had? Time will tell.
More videos. Some already covered and includes some Biden classics.
I think these things are funny and bound to happen when you have the media attention that any sitting President would have. I thought many of the Bush ones were funny too. What I disagree with is attacking Bush for every verbal trip up while gushing all over Obama when he does the EXACT same thing on a fairly regular basis.
I would agree with you except every day for the last 8 years we heard about Bushisms. Just because Obama is your guy (not you personally, just in general) shouldn't mean that you quit pointing out the idiotic things that he does.
Obama has already had plenty of Obamaisms (basically anytime he isn't in front of a teleprompter), yet I don't see people like Olberman leading off their show with them they way he did with Bush.
Bingo! I was really wanting to buy one on the last refresh if they had dropped the price by say $100. As is, I'll wait for the Snow leopard and use the install disc that comes with the mini to upgrade my MBP.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as that's the way it works then I don't see a problem with it. I actually don't know what grounds TWC could be suing for in that case if the 'company' in question is a completely self funded coop type of entity. Are they getting special tax breaks or something similar that is not offered to TWC?
Because then you'll never really know how much money you're paying for the project. Using your logic maybe we shouldn't ever get a paycheck at all. Just give up all the money via taxes and let the government give us all the things we need.
As a citizen what you want is a citizen owned coop of some sort. That way costs are minimized and no profit is taken (if there is a profit it is redistributed back to the owners/citizens in the form of checks, more service, or lower bills). Look at how most credit unions run as an example.
Interesting. There is only 1 entity that can put you in jail for not paying a bill. This same entity is also the only one that doesn't have to follow any of the FDCPA laws when it comes to collecting debts. Heck, they will go after adults who had parents incur debts in their name while they were kids.
The government can and will screw you worse than any private company EVER can achieve.
It's not necessarily cheaper or better. If they only charge $99/month, but then need another $100/month of increased taxes from each person then it isn't really any cheaper. In fact it could be much more expensive.
They need to turn it into a customer owned entity much like a credit union. That way costs are looked at (does anyone in gov. EVER look at the cost of something?!) and they get to keep their supposedly good service.
This is why the Fair Tax, if done right, could actually help the poor. They would start taking home their entire paychecks and start getting monthly stipends that would cover the sales tax paid on necessity goods and services.
So rich people are going to start living in trailer homes, buying hyundais and eating raman noodles to avoid a sales tax? That's a really poor argument against a national sales tax.
A better argument is the potential for a huge black market to form around goods that are taxed. 5%-7% doesn't lend itself to a big black market forming (although you could argue the internet IS the current black market), but 20%+ will make people look for ways to avoid paying the sales tax.
Wow, so equating property rights with health care is logic now? Interesting.
Again, not sure how you got this from the other guys comment. He didn't dehumanize or ask for anyone to be mistreated. All he ranted against was the irresponsible being bailed out while those who were responsible are footing the bill. What is your suggestion to this problem? When someone does something irresponsible should their be no consequences? If there are no consequences then why limit your personal risks at all?
Um, he didn't blame the other person for his living situation at all. He said he made that choice to live sparsely and stay out of debt because it was the responsible thing to do. The property was ill-gotten and if you don't pay your bills you should be evicted. I'm sure the GP would agree that if he didn't pay his bills he would expect to also be evicted.
No, your tax dollars should be used to administer the laws. One that is fairly simple is that you need to pay your mortgage and if you don't you need to find somewhere else to live. I didn't see where the GP said anything about giving a house to him. In fact he clearly said he could not afford it and lived within his means. Why do you want to reward irresponsible people living beyond their means? You do know that enabling those people is not sustainable for any length of time right?
Great logic there. So either you give people a house or they become homeless crack addicts.
No, you wouldn't suddenly have a bunch of new 'homeless crack addicts.' You would have people go through the bankruptcy and eviction process and end up in a cheaper apartment or rented house somewhere else.
This process would speed up our recovery by letting house prices finally reach a bottom and quickly clean out the bad loans from the system.
Good explanation.
Most ppt presentations I see are pretty crappy, so they must be harder to make than you assume.
Yes. Just like how MS started tightening the piracy screws right as they started to (albeit slowly) lose market share.
Actually procedural mistakes should overturn convictions. Procedures are there to protect the innocent. Also, this one procedure in particular is there to balance the fact finding power of the state (basically unlimited) against that of a defendant.
"I will let 10 guilty people go free in order to prevent 1 innocent person from being convicted."
Reminds of a story about an economist who was critical of the Fed what he would do if appointed the fed chairman. He said he would disband the fed and then quit. :)
Is this going to be his excuse for his lack of leadership for the next 4 years? I mean really. At what point is he going to step up and say he's the President now and actually follow it up with action?
Hard to say. I think the market overall has offset the risk by staying away from financial companies from an investment standpoint.
From a company standpoint it does make you wonder if companies other than financials could be labeled too big to fail and then taken over one day. It's safe to say the carmakers have already had this happen since the government strongly suggested GMs CEO take a hike (and he did). What about companies like a MS or a Boeing?
In the end a definite answer is hard to come by right now because the government is changing the rules that we play by daily.
No, Geitner actually put forward a plan (starting with financials) that would allow the government to label companies as 'too big to fail' and then take them over at will. Doesn't matter if they took bailout money or not.
Emphasis and replacement mine. This is the EXACT same power they want to give to the treasury secretary to be able to unilaterally, on a whim, take over companies when some undocumented criteria are met.
Well, Presidential appointees don't seem to pay any taxes either and the last time I checked that was also illegal. More of the same 'do as I say, not as do.'
Even when we've had a full vote it's clear no one had read the whole thing. See bailout package 1/2. I wonder who has read the entire budget that's working on getting passed?
Chopping off heads worked for the French in the past ;)
Best thing an independent citizen can do now is voice their opinion to their representative and hope for another vote and/or law that nullifies the one that passed.
You're so blinded by hate for Bush that you immediately resort to personal attacks against me and then ignore any imperfection in Obama.
You're the one that seems blinded by Obamas rock stardom. I think for myself quite well actually. I'm not swayed by someone who can just deliver a good speech. I didn't even bring up the gift, but I'll comment on the iPod.
I don't event think it's a bad thing that he gave the Queen an iPod. It represents the current US for what we are. A consumption minded debtor nation spending our kids (and their kids) money for gadgets and toys today that we should really just do without until we clean up our financial mess. Nope, the iPod was the perfect gift.
I only pulled sites that seemed reputable and had some sourcing going on. I didn't want to seem bias in any way.
In one of the video town hall meetings Obama does something very similar.
And yes, Obama has a great speaking ability. He can deliver a speech like no one else in recent history, but that's a lot different than speaking off the cuff. Will he ever amass the large library of Bushims that Bush had? Time will tell.
You've probably seen them all, but I don't see them as the lead off news stories anymore.
Video of him tripping all over himself.
Quite a few random quotes.
More videos. Some already covered and includes some Biden classics.
I think these things are funny and bound to happen when you have the media attention that any sitting President would have. I thought many of the Bush ones were funny too. What I disagree with is attacking Bush for every verbal trip up while gushing all over Obama when he does the EXACT same thing on a fairly regular basis.
I would agree with you except every day for the last 8 years we heard about Bushisms. Just because Obama is your guy (not you personally, just in general) shouldn't mean that you quit pointing out the idiotic things that he does.
Obama has already had plenty of Obamaisms (basically anytime he isn't in front of a teleprompter), yet I don't see people like Olberman leading off their show with them they way he did with Bush.
All I want is consistency from people.
Bingo! I was really wanting to buy one on the last refresh if they had dropped the price by say $100. As is, I'll wait for the Snow leopard and use the install disc that comes with the mini to upgrade my MBP.