Not many watch it directly. But how many people watch news programs that license clips from C-SPAN? Give the republicans the floor for as long as they want, and you can be SURE that there will be highlight-reel quality clips that will wend their way onto the shows that people DO watch.
Why? What do the Republicans have to say that would be convincing to anyone but their fellow travelers?
I don't know, but they always seem to come up with something. They'll just make something up, I guess.
But the concern would be (1) possibly convincing some swing voters to go their way and (2) getting their marginally-supportive people riled up enough to bother voting in the election.
It'd be nice to think that most people won't fall for their stupidity, but if there's one thing you can take to the bank in this country, it's that the capacity for stupidity among people in general is limitless. Writing them off as incompetently stupid, unable to make people believe what they want -- well, that's a mistake Kerry made 6 years ago.
So the hell what? Let the democrats motivate their base also! Present your arguments and then turn around and fight for them!
I'm not sure you're familiar with how a filibuster works... the filibustering group refuses to cede the floor, so no vote can proceed. There is no fighting, except via outside press conference. There is just one side, presenting on the floor, as long as they are willing to.
The democrats wouldn't get a chance to present their arguments... it would be 100% republican while the filibuster lasts. This would allow the Republicans to steer the discussion and the news coverage.
Except then the GOP gets a stump to stand upon. This is where C-SPAN causes a problem; all the rhetoric during a filibuster would be good for Republican PR, they could use the filibuster time to motivate their base, etc.
"Agree to disagree" acceptance of threatened filibuster stinks, I agree. But the other option is to give the Republicans the pulpit for as long as they wish. I'm not sure the Democrats want that to happen.
An additional unfortunate detail is that the Democrats are completely spineless and so getting them to deal with this problem is going to be tough even though this majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research (source- http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html).
Here's the problem: the people who are against federally funded ESTR are sometimes vehemently against it; they will vote against a candidate that supports ESTR despite any other issues. On the other side, it's a not a voting issue. People will still vote against a candidate who supports federally funded ESTR.
So you end up with politicians who will not risk taking action on any real issues, because they are afraid of alienating single-issue voters.
Not a central payment transaction system. Though we do have Fedwire and ACH, capturing withholding on outgoing payments would also need to cover SWIFT and other payment methods (manual wire, etc)
But feel free to go off on a rant on the Fed instead of actually responding to anything in my post.
If there were only one vendor for each item that would be true. However when you have multiple competing vendors trying to get business and everybody sees the same relative drop in expenses, there is likely to be a passing on of some of the savings in each cycle of the food chain unless there is collusion between the vendors (as is sometimes the case). There is almost always somebody who wants the business and is willing to give up some of their now slightly larger profit to get it. This repeats until a new equilibrium is reached at a probably lower level.
But we're talking about the broadband/cable market here. There will be limited vendors due to infrastructure costs...
There is no trolling here. You won't admit that you are wrong. I feel your pain but let's not live in a fantasy world here.
The tone of your posts suggest you're trolling. Your demands, etc.
You have fallen for a trap to promote socialism. The "perfect market" (including information symmetry) is a set of conditions which no market will reach (free or otherwise) and is the justification for government intervention where it would otherwise not be necessary.
And you've let yourself be deluded that the alternative is optimal. An unregulated market trends to a noncompetitive state. You've fallen in to a trap designed by the extremely wealthy to ensure that you support the policies that are best for *them*. Unless you are one of them, in which case, why are you even on slashdot, except to con others into believing that claptrap?
Here is an example of how the argument is exercised:
Capitalism is fine and dandy in theory. If you have perfect information and a perfect market and every single person has identical opportunities then it's a great system. People who work hard will achieve the most and people who don't work hard will struggle to get by. It's a perfect carrot/stick combo.
Then you get to the flaws. There's no such thing as a perfect market. There's no such thing as perfect information. And the differences in true opportunity between those born rich and those born poor are staggering.
Wait, are you trying to claim that is the position I hold? Or that I'm swayed by that position?
I'll just cut to the chase here to get you off your rant: Capitalism works, it seems to be the best option we have. However, regulation is required to promote and maintain competition, and to account for externialities to transactions, and to ensure access to information in markets.
These regulations do not constitute Socialism, which you may be dismayed to find out. I find it laughable that you claim that there is some plot to trap people into promoting socialism. There are, indeed, plots to trap people into thinking unregulated capitalism is the best thing for them, which you have fallen for. The actions of the Koch family are one example... they've spent millions upon millions to convince people that the policies best for the Koch family are the policies best for the everyman.
But go ahead, let yourself be deceived. I know I'm not going to make any headway against your misguided positions, you're far too off your rocker.
SINCE YOU ARE SUCH A DIPSHIT AND CAN'T DUST OFF YOUR BOOKS AS YOU PROMISED (BECAUSE THEY DON'T SUPPORT YOUR BS), I WILL MAKE A POINT OF POSTING A LINK TO THIS WHEN YOU POST ELSEWHERE. LET THE WORLD, YOUR EMPLOYERS, FAMILY, ETC, KNOW THAT THE *RED FLAYER* IS A DUMBFUCK!
Be an adult and log in when you write things like that. And the all-caps, and bolding? Makes you look certifiably insane. Which you may be.
Oooooh... anonymous stalker on slashdot! Yay! You're not the first one, and you won't be the last.
Take your meds or grow up.
So what if I was wrong? Is it now your life's work to point out that Someone is wrong on the internets?
I was wrong. There. Are you fulfilled now? Will you be able to sleep at night, knowing that I, Red Flayer, admitted on slashdot that I made a mistake when posting on slashdot? Does it make you happy? Did you just come a little bit, in your pants, just now? Do you even wear pants? Do they allow you to wear them in your institution, or do you have to wear hospital gowns?
I must say your adolescent remarks are unfounded and just simply not true.
Not true? Please, point out one falsehood in my post. There are none.
CEO's make the $$ they make because "someone" or board/stockholder agreed to pay them. Athletes who are paid millions or movie stars make millions while the movie or career is a bust. Who's fault is it? The person who paid them..... I never have a problem what anyone makes...why do you?
That's not the point. Yes, companies can pay employees whatever they want. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that parent to my post claims that government alone screws the consumers. Parent to my post claimed that businesses are just a pass-through on taxes; for that to be the case would mean that business are choosing to screw their customers to maintain their profits.
Businesses can choose to pay the tax and reduce their net profit, or they can choose to raise their prices and screw their customers (note: this only works for captive customers; in a competitive market, the business eats the cost or he loses the customer to a competitor who does eat the cost).
I fail to see a reason why you cannot grasp this simple, clear logic.
A company provides a good or a service and can be "fired".
We're clearly discussing an industry where that generally isn't the case (cable). But in other industries, you're right. Which is my exact point -- if a company chooses to pass the cost on to their customers and screw them, the customer can screw them right back and go to a competitor.
Company's must profit or they fail to "create" or sustain jobs. You forget, that's how people have what they have.
No, I don't forget that, because it's simply not true. Or do non-profit corporations that employ people not exist in your world? What you seem to forget is that we're discussing taxes assessed on profit. By definition, these companies being taxed are profitable regardless of whether or not the tax goes up, and will remain profitable whether or not the tax goes up.
The Gov, provides a service that cannot be fired at the lowest denominator, look at Gov waste! Regulation is nvr a benefit, neither is over taxation.
This is royal DERP. There are plenty of efficient government operations, particularly at the local level, which is what we're discussing. Furthermore, to categorically state that regulation is never a benefit is laughable. Go live in an anarchist state in Africa if you believe regulation is never a benefit. Over taxation? Completely subjective... that's a meaningless statement.
Furthermore, we are discussing an elective service. Government as a provider of cable can easily be fired by the consumer. The only key is to ensure that the costs of the service are paid from subscriber fees (including debt service).
Thanks to autotune, the work done by a recording singer is minimal, and a lot of music can be similarly tuned or fixed by computers.
So then more artists can create their own, awesome. There'll be more choices for music appreciators. But does that mean that nothing that is recorded is of value and should be rewarded by the ability to profit from people's desire to be able to listen to it at will?
Besides, I think you're conflating art that is deserving of reward with art that is hard to produce. They are not the same thing.
Because the respective prices those corporations would charge to maintain the same profit margin would go up, multiplied countless times as their products get used and reused in creating final end consumer products.
No. Pricing is not done to maintain a fixed profit, it is done to maximize profit. If they have room to move prices higher to maintain net profit in the face of higher taxes, then they are not pricing correctly.
In theory, raising the tax on gross profit will have no impact on pricing, since their product is already priced to maximize gross profit.
How many jobs would be returned to the US if we made the US a corporate tax haven and instituted some sane liability laws?
Very few. The location of the headquarters has little to do with where the bulk of the jobs are. Instead, we'd have a higher direct tax burden on everyone, and no recourse if a company fucks people over.
Good point. Only when the municipalities actual begin putting together a package to get broadband do the cable companies all of the sudden want to get into that local market.
The fear of the cable companies is that people in the areas they *DO* service will realize that they could get a public cable utility for themselves, at a cost lower to the people of their municipality (since corporate profits and executive salaries are taken out of the equation, and because the cable companies run inefficient businesses). Once that cat's out of the bag, the cable companies' profits will be *screwed*.
Except the govermnent-run system can run at a loss forever and drive the competition out of the market.
No, they can't. Their operating cash must come from somewhere... whether it's some combination of public funding via taxes or from consumer charges for service. It's a question a community can answer for itself, I think -- should we, as a municipality, band together to eliminate an extra cost (corporate salaries/profits) from cable service most of us want?
If anything, massive corporations are far more able to practice predatory pricing to drive out competition. We've seen it so many damn times that we KNOW it will happen whenever we let up our guard a little bit. A massive, multi-state corporation with a deep warchest can quite easily take losses in local markets to drive competitors out of business in those markets; and since infrastructure cost in this industry is so high, no one is going to enter that market when they have to compete against an established company.
If a private company can't provide a service cheaper than a public entity, why should people continue to pay that private company? To protect the profits of that private company? The key here is to ensure that there is full cost and income accounting so that the public can make educated decisions on it. Subsidies should not be hidden -- either tax funding of the public entity, or concessions to the private company (land use, tax concessions, direct subsidization, etc).
You really don't think that free government broadband might be a slight problem if you're trying to sell broadband access to people?
You really don't thick corporate profits and executive salaries are a problem if you're trying to acquire broadband in the most cost-effective manner?
As a business owner, I can say, in the end, companies don't "pay" taxes, we just raise our rates and make the consumer pay it. That's how it works. So every time, the GOV passes a stupid law or regulation, a company has to raise their rates to compensate the hiring of someone to manage the new law, equipment, new rules to abide, paperwork, etc for the hike.
That's only one way to look at it. You're just passing the buck -- you could, if you chose to, eat the impact on your bottom line without raising rates. In a competitive marketplace, that's what you'd have to do.
In the end, consumer is always the one that's screwed.
Exactly. But the businesses are complicit in the screwing. You screw the customer because you can. And there isn't a damn thing the consumer can do about it.
Oh, go ahead and justify screwing over your customers in the name of profit. For small business operating on light profits, it's probably the only thing that can be done. But it's pretty damn hard to see it that way for large corporations, whose CEOs make more in a year (or even a month!) than their customers will see in a lifetime. They could trim the fat instead of passing the buck... but instead the consumer gets screwed.
No, my friend, businesses AND government screw the consumer. The difference is, businesses do it for purely selfish motives -- at least there's usually some public benefit to regulations and taxes.
The vast, vast majority of taxes IS paid by corporations.
Which, in the end, is paid by the ultimate consumer of the goods/services they sell.
And things are lining up to make is even more so with the "soak those greedy corporations" punitive taxes.
Phooey. I say make the corporations pay the same taxes individuals pay. If they can make campaign contributions on a free-speech basis, then they can pay taxes like any other entity with the rights of an individual.
That's why your cable bill is what it is.
No, that's not true. My cable bill is what it is because of lack of competition and lack of oversight of the cable monopolies. There is no reason a well-run company should raise prices faced with a higher tax on profits... their pricing should already reflect maximum profit, and changing the tax level will not have an effect on their pricing. They raise prices because they have a captive market and they want more money. It has nothing to do with the taxes assessed on them, although that's how they justify it.
And since most businesses have their central office (usually totaling a coke machine and a janitor) located in States with no corporate State tax
They still pay state tax where they do business. The reason corporations headquarter in Delaware is because (1) the franchise tax is low and (2) Delaware has really [strong privacy protections|lax reporting standards].
or have even off-shored said office to tax havens and pay no Federal taxes either (ie: virtually all the top 10% of companies that are nominally American*), these "tax" things the Senator collects aren't taxes the IRS knows anything about.
This is a problem. But not as big as you'd make it out to be; we could institute mandatory withholding on transfers out of the country (like Argentina does). This would be a good way to fix the problem -- file an auditable return, and you can get any overpayment refunded to you. A problem is that it would required a central bank processing system, which is not gonna happen. And off course, the people who really have the influence are those who prefer the status quo. And then there's the tax treaties we have that would prevent this, although we could make withholding mandatory only for countries that operate as tax havens.
Slashdot Mirror
What? My 1120 begs to differ... federal corporate income tax is based on profit, not on revenue.
Not sure about the rest of your post... I couldn't really make out what you were trying to say.
Not many watch it directly. But how many people watch news programs that license clips from C-SPAN? Give the republicans the floor for as long as they want, and you can be SURE that there will be highlight-reel quality clips that will wend their way onto the shows that people DO watch.
I don't know, but they always seem to come up with something. They'll just make something up, I guess.
But the concern would be (1) possibly convincing some swing voters to go their way and (2) getting their marginally-supportive people riled up enough to bother voting in the election.
It'd be nice to think that most people won't fall for their stupidity, but if there's one thing you can take to the bank in this country, it's that the capacity for stupidity among people in general is limitless. Writing them off as incompetently stupid, unable to make people believe what they want -- well, that's a mistake Kerry made 6 years ago.
I'm not sure you're familiar with how a filibuster works... the filibustering group refuses to cede the floor, so no vote can proceed. There is no fighting, except via outside press conference. There is just one side, presenting on the floor, as long as they are willing to.
The democrats wouldn't get a chance to present their arguments... it would be 100% republican while the filibuster lasts. This would allow the Republicans to steer the discussion and the news coverage.
Except then the GOP gets a stump to stand upon. This is where C-SPAN causes a problem; all the rhetoric during a filibuster would be good for Republican PR, they could use the filibuster time to motivate their base, etc.
"Agree to disagree" acceptance of threatened filibuster stinks, I agree. But the other option is to give the Republicans the pulpit for as long as they wish. I'm not sure the Democrats want that to happen.
Here's the problem: the people who are against federally funded ESTR are sometimes vehemently against it; they will vote against a candidate that supports ESTR despite any other issues. On the other side, it's a not a voting issue. People will still vote against a candidate who supports federally funded ESTR.
So you end up with politicians who will not risk taking action on any real issues, because they are afraid of alienating single-issue voters.
Good, because I didn't write that. I wrote that they are ultimately paid by the end-customer.
Not a central payment transaction system. Though we do have Fedwire and ACH, capturing withholding on outgoing payments would also need to cover SWIFT and other payment methods (manual wire, etc)
But feel free to go off on a rant on the Fed instead of actually responding to anything in my post.
But we're talking about the broadband/cable market here. There will be limited vendors due to infrastructure costs...
Coward.
The tone of your posts suggest you're trolling. Your demands, etc.
And you've let yourself be deluded that the alternative is optimal. An unregulated market trends to a noncompetitive state. You've fallen in to a trap designed by the extremely wealthy to ensure that you support the policies that are best for *them*. Unless you are one of them, in which case, why are you even on slashdot, except to con others into believing that claptrap?
Wait, are you trying to claim that is the position I hold? Or that I'm swayed by that position?
I'll just cut to the chase here to get you off your rant: Capitalism works, it seems to be the best option we have. However, regulation is required to promote and maintain competition, and to account for externialities to transactions, and to ensure access to information in markets.
These regulations do not constitute Socialism, which you may be dismayed to find out. I find it laughable that you claim that there is some plot to trap people into promoting socialism. There are, indeed, plots to trap people into thinking unregulated capitalism is the best thing for them, which you have fallen for. The actions of the Koch family are one example... they've spent millions upon millions to convince people that the policies best for the Koch family are the policies best for the everyman.
But go ahead, let yourself be deceived. I know I'm not going to make any headway against your misguided positions, you're far too off your rocker.
Be an adult and log in when you write things like that. And the all-caps, and bolding? Makes you look certifiably insane. Which you may be.
Oooooh... anonymous stalker on slashdot! Yay! You're not the first one, and you won't be the last.
Take your meds or grow up.
So what if I was wrong? Is it now your life's work to point out that Someone is wrong on the internets?
I was wrong. There. Are you fulfilled now? Will you be able to sleep at night, knowing that I, Red Flayer, admitted on slashdot that I made a mistake when posting on slashdot? Does it make you happy? Did you just come a little bit, in your pants, just now? Do you even wear pants? Do they allow you to wear them in your institution, or do you have to wear hospital gowns?
Not true? Please, point out one falsehood in my post. There are none.
That's not the point. Yes, companies can pay employees whatever they want. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that parent to my post claims that government alone screws the consumers. Parent to my post claimed that businesses are just a pass-through on taxes; for that to be the case would mean that business are choosing to screw their customers to maintain their profits. Businesses can choose to pay the tax and reduce their net profit, or they can choose to raise their prices and screw their customers (note: this only works for captive customers; in a competitive market, the business eats the cost or he loses the customer to a competitor who does eat the cost).
I fail to see a reason why you cannot grasp this simple, clear logic.
We're clearly discussing an industry where that generally isn't the case (cable). But in other industries, you're right. Which is my exact point -- if a company chooses to pass the cost on to their customers and screw them, the customer can screw them right back and go to a competitor.
No, I don't forget that, because it's simply not true. Or do non-profit corporations that employ people not exist in your world? What you seem to forget is that we're discussing taxes assessed on profit. By definition, these companies being taxed are profitable regardless of whether or not the tax goes up, and will remain profitable whether or not the tax goes up.
This is royal DERP. There are plenty of efficient government operations, particularly at the local level, which is what we're discussing. Furthermore, to categorically state that regulation is never a benefit is laughable. Go live in an anarchist state in Africa if you believe regulation is never a benefit. Over taxation? Completely subjective... that's a meaningless statement.
Furthermore, we are discussing an elective service. Government as a provider of cable can easily be fired by the consumer. The only key is to ensure that the costs of the service are paid from subscriber fees (including debt service).
So then more artists can create their own, awesome. There'll be more choices for music appreciators. But does that mean that nothing that is recorded is of value and should be rewarded by the ability to profit from people's desire to be able to listen to it at will?
Besides, I think you're conflating art that is deserving of reward with art that is hard to produce. They are not the same thing.
Oh, I fully agree with you on that count. I think the length of the term is ridiculous; I don't think copyrights as a concept are ridiculous.
Oh, he's retiring? To work in the private sector, as a consultant to telcom firms, sounds like.
No. Pricing is not done to maintain a fixed profit, it is done to maximize profit. If they have room to move prices higher to maintain net profit in the face of higher taxes, then they are not pricing correctly.
In theory, raising the tax on gross profit will have no impact on pricing, since their product is already priced to maximize gross profit.
Very few. The location of the headquarters has little to do with where the bulk of the jobs are. Instead, we'd have a higher direct tax burden on everyone, and no recourse if a company fucks people over.
Good point. Only when the municipalities actual begin putting together a package to get broadband do the cable companies all of the sudden want to get into that local market.
The fear of the cable companies is that people in the areas they *DO* service will realize that they could get a public cable utility for themselves, at a cost lower to the people of their municipality (since corporate profits and executive salaries are taken out of the equation, and because the cable companies run inefficient businesses). Once that cat's out of the bag, the cable companies' profits will be *screwed*.
No, they can't. Their operating cash must come from somewhere... whether it's some combination of public funding via taxes or from consumer charges for service. It's a question a community can answer for itself, I think -- should we, as a municipality, band together to eliminate an extra cost (corporate salaries/profits) from cable service most of us want?
If anything, massive corporations are far more able to practice predatory pricing to drive out competition. We've seen it so many damn times that we KNOW it will happen whenever we let up our guard a little bit. A massive, multi-state corporation with a deep warchest can quite easily take losses in local markets to drive competitors out of business in those markets; and since infrastructure cost in this industry is so high, no one is going to enter that market when they have to compete against an established company.
If a private company can't provide a service cheaper than a public entity, why should people continue to pay that private company? To protect the profits of that private company? The key here is to ensure that there is full cost and income accounting so that the public can make educated decisions on it. Subsidies should not be hidden -- either tax funding of the public entity, or concessions to the private company (land use, tax concessions, direct subsidization, etc).
You really don't thick corporate profits and executive salaries are a problem if you're trying to acquire broadband in the most cost-effective manner?
Personally, I think it's the :)
private sector putting their money where his mouth is.
That's only one way to look at it. You're just passing the buck -- you could, if you chose to, eat the impact on your bottom line without raising rates. In a competitive marketplace, that's what you'd have to do.
Exactly. But the businesses are complicit in the screwing. You screw the customer because you can. And there isn't a damn thing the consumer can do about it.
Oh, go ahead and justify screwing over your customers in the name of profit. For small business operating on light profits, it's probably the only thing that can be done. But it's pretty damn hard to see it that way for large corporations, whose CEOs make more in a year (or even a month!) than their customers will see in a lifetime. They could trim the fat instead of passing the buck... but instead the consumer gets screwed.
No, my friend, businesses AND government screw the consumer. The difference is, businesses do it for purely selfish motives -- at least there's usually some public benefit to regulations and taxes.
Which, in the end, is paid by the ultimate consumer of the goods/services they sell.
Phooey. I say make the corporations pay the same taxes individuals pay. If they can make campaign contributions on a free-speech basis, then they can pay taxes like any other entity with the rights of an individual.
No, that's not true. My cable bill is what it is because of lack of competition and lack of oversight of the cable monopolies. There is no reason a well-run company should raise prices faced with a higher tax on profits... their pricing should already reflect maximum profit, and changing the tax level will not have an effect on their pricing. They raise prices because they have a captive market and they want more money. It has nothing to do with the taxes assessed on them, although that's how they justify it.
They still pay state tax where they do business. The reason corporations headquarter in Delaware is because (1) the franchise tax is low and (2) Delaware has really [strong privacy protections|lax reporting standards].
This is a problem. But not as big as you'd make it out to be; we could institute mandatory withholding on transfers out of the country (like Argentina does). This would be a good way to fix the problem -- file an auditable return, and you can get any overpayment refunded to you. A problem is that it would required a central bank processing system, which is not gonna happen. And off course, the people who really have the influence are those who prefer the status quo. And then there's the tax treaties we have that would prevent this, although we could make withholding mandatory only for countries that operate as tax havens.
Sure, but what about the recording artists? Should they be left high and dry? Is public performance the only art venue that is deserving of reward?
I'm not going to bother doing that for a trolling A.C.