dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1213

DaveDude
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey

1 edit

DaveDude

Member

i dont understand

First people complain about ATT, then they complain about not having universal broadband. If there was such a thing, the money would go right into incumbents hands. Its kinda strange how those hating corporate america the most end up enabling it. See the new finance bill, healthcare bill, bailouts, and new stimulus.

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

Z80A

Premium Member

Because those type of people only care about the symbolism. They don't think things through to the end. If a plan "sounds" good, it must "be" good. Details? Politicians don't even read these laws they pass and freely admit they don't read them.
Expand your moderator at work
computerpimp
join:2004-06-28

computerpimp to Z80A

Member

to Z80A

Re: i dont understand

So true. If a bill hits the 100 page mark, at what point there after does it hit the useless point, maybe around 2000 pages.

If broadband were made a "right" in the USA how would it play out? Every citizen is required to have Internet access, and will be fined by the IRS if they can afford it but don't chose to have it, this way it will fund itself "for the common good". However if they can't afford it they will be given money by the government (subsidies, checks, briefcase full of cash) to be able to buy it. Even if you chose not to have a computer or internet connected device you will still be required to have Internet.
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678

Member

said by computerpimp:

So true. If a bill hits the 100 page mark, at what point there after does it hit the useless point, maybe around 2000 pages.

If broadband were made a "right" in the USA how would it play out? Every citizen is required to have Internet access, and will be fined by the IRS if they can afford it but don't chose to have it, this way it will fund itself "for the common good". However if they can't afford it they will be given money by the government (subsidies, checks, briefcase full of cash) to be able to buy it. Even if you chose not to have a computer or internet connected device you will still be required to have Internet.
What about people who can't get internet? people out side of a DSL zone? people out of the cable zone? sat Internet? But then the speed will have to go up and have much higher caps. 3g? caps to low and price way to high?

But have the gov pay for running the cable out there is better then overload the sat / 3g.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to DaveDude

Member

to DaveDude
said by DaveDude:

First people complain about ATT, then they complain about not having universal broadband. If there was such a thing, the money would go right into incumbents hands. Its kinda strange how those hating corporate america the most end up enabling it. See the new finance bill, healthcare bill, bailouts, and new stimulus.
Universal broadband usually implies cutting the corporations out of the picture.
sonicmerlin

sonicmerlin to computerpimp

Member

to computerpimp
said by computerpimp:

So true. If a bill hits the 100 page mark, at what point there after does it hit the useless point, maybe around 2000 pages.

If broadband were made a "right" in the USA how would it play out? Every citizen is required to have Internet access, and will be fined by the IRS if they can afford it but don't chose to have it, this way it will fund itself "for the common good". However if they can't afford it they will be given money by the government (subsidies, checks, briefcase full of cash) to be able to buy it. Even if you chose not to have a computer or internet connected device you will still be required to have Internet.
What the heck? We're not talking about a corporation-backed healthcare bill. Most likely it would involve a complementary plan to fund a government-built national network, open to all ISPs who wish to provide service over it.

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

Z80A to Joe12345678

Premium Member

to Joe12345678
The gov't doesn't pay for anything. Taxpayers do and when the taxpayers run out of money the government borrows using the credit of the taxpayers, the taxpayers' children, and their childrens' children.

If rural folks want non-satellite broadband they can borrow on THEIR credit like idiot Kaul-EE-Four-Nyans do with every bloated bond measure out here (that and bloated union pensions are why we are bankrupt). Have a county put it on a ballot, and lets local vote on borrowing the money and those locals pay it back over time.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

said by Z80A:

The gov't doesn't pay for anything. Taxpayers do and when the taxpayers run out of money the government borrows using the credit of the taxpayers, the taxpayers' children, and their childrens' children.

If rural folks want non-satellite broadband they can borrow on THEIR credit like idiot Kaul-EE-Four-Nyans do with every bloated bond measure out here (that and bloated union pensions are why we are bankrupt). Have a county put it on a ballot, and lets local vote on borrowing the money and those locals pay it back over time.
This is going to shock you, so I think you should sit down for this. Here goes: the taxpayers elect the government. I know, I know. Breathe deeply.

Here's another shocker. Infrastructure pays for itself in the long run. How do you think cable companies could afford to run cable lines to millions of people across the US?

DaveDude
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey

DaveDude

Member

said by sonicmerlin:
said by Z80A:

The gov't doesn't pay for anything. Taxpayers do and when the taxpayers run out of money the government borrows using the credit of the taxpayers, the taxpayers' children, and their childrens' children.

If rural folks want non-satellite broadband they can borrow on THEIR credit like idiot Kaul-EE-Four-Nyans do with every bloated bond measure out here (that and bloated union pensions are why we are bankrupt). Have a county put it on a ballot, and lets local vote on borrowing the money and those locals pay it back over time.
This is going to shock you, so I think you should sit down for this. Here goes: the taxpayers elect the government. I know, I know. Breathe deeply.

Here's another shocker. Infrastructure pays for itself in the long run. How do you think cable companies could afford to run cable lines to millions of people across the US?
Is that why the current administration, has the lowest rating ever. Could you use that excuse for the Bush years ?
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

sonicmerlin

Member

So obviously a government official should pander to the whims of the masses, rather than going through with the promises he made during his campaign.

I think the real irony is that rural taxpayers generally elect politicians who pander to the richest, lowering their taxes while increases taxes on the poor and middle class. They shoot themselves in the foot.
computerpimp
join:2004-06-28

computerpimp to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

What the heck? We're not talking about a corporation-backed healthcare bill. Most likely it would involve a complementary plan to fund a government-built national network, open to all ISPs who wish to provide service over it.
What I am talking about is would it look like if Internet access somehow goes from a personal choice to a "right" in the US. But some of the arguments may be the same.

Money is always one of the issues. Who will pay for it? How much will it cost? Why should I have to pay for it? How much will it raise everyone's cost? What other tax, surcharge, or fee will be tacked on for everyone? How much is saved up for it? Is it a worthwhile investment? Does 2+1 really = 7? Where did that person learn how to add? How can I get someone else to pay for it and make a profit? Why is someone who's own personal finances are garbage because they don't know how to save in charge of the big project budget?
The government is funded by people, and is not a bottomless pit of money. They throw lots of money at things if it sounds good, but don't always get the best results. Sure it's not fair. Not everyone can get broadband or even some sort of Internet connection. Not everyone has something to connect with either. Not everyone that may chose not to have this here Internet tube thingy should have to pay up.

I can speak of what I can predict and know what looks like, my budget. I don't need someone else to step in line to tell me where else I should spend my money. It's already been spoken for and planned out. What I do get to keep should not be considered everybody's surplus.

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

4 edits

Z80A to DaveDude

Premium Member

to DaveDude
The problem the socialists don't see is the bottom 50% of income earners pay 2.89% of all the the income taxes down from 4% in 1999. The 'poor' don't pay their fair share even if you look by percentage of total income earned. »www.ntu.org/tax-basics/w ··· xes.html And throughout the 2000's the tax burden on high income earners increased while those in the bottom 50% decreased.

For example, in 2007 the top 10% earned 48% of all income but paid over 70% of all the income taxes...nearly 1.5X their fair share. The bottom 50% earned 13% of all income but paid less than 4% of all income taxes, less than 1/3 of their fair share.

So sonic is actually wrong for the most part. Only 1/2 the taxpayers pay nearly ALL of the taxes. The other 1/2 pay zero or virtually zero Federal income taxes. And too frequently they are on the gov't dole so their vote is purchased by what gov't (and other taxpayers) give them.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

1 edit

1 recommendation

amigo_boy

Member

said by Z80A:

The problem the socialists don't see is the bottom 50% pay only 4% of the income taxes.
In 2005, 300,000 individuals who comprised the top tenth of 1% had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americasn who make up the economic lower half of our population. We have more in common with Brazil, Mexico and Russia. Countries where adults have the right to vote, but real political power is wielded by a relatively narrow, and rich, segment of society.

Additionally, that phenomenon has only gotten worse in the 30 years since Ronald Reagan asked "are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"

Average income for 90% of population peaked in 1973 at $33k. By 2009 it was $29k. For each dollar earned in 2005, the top 10% got 48.5 cents. That was the top tenth's greatest share since 1929. Most of the gains were in the top half of 1%, and most of that to the top tenth of 1%.

Distribution of income does not take place in a vacuum. It is the product of government rules. No society is free of regulation. Commercial sports leagues are exempt from the laws of competition, allowing them to charge more than they could get in a free market. Movie theaters and video arcades enjoy no such protection from competition for the limited amounts people can spend on entertainment. (Also, state AGs who devote pulic resources on lawsuits on behalf of investors in Auction Rate securities -- used by wealthiest Americans. Or, the FBI devoting public resources through special unit to investigate art theft to the benefit of a tiny fraction of the population.).

The financial elitel influence politics, where presidents and governors control who is appointed to enforce and interpret rules. Rule making was transferred from kings to nobles, to merchants and corporate boards who expanded commerce in their interest.

A century ago, Congress debated economic policy by reviewing the life cycle of a cow. 15 years ago they debated whether to regulate CDOs, CDSs, et. al. (the opaque instruments which transfered billions of dollars to a tiny handful of the population, and required society to backstop insurers like AIG so those dollars could be paid off!).

So, yes, you'd expect those who influence politics and enrich themselves through the shaping of public policy to pay more tax on the outcome of that influence. Outcomes like the top 10% of the population increasing their income by 33%. Or, the top centile who increased their incomes by a whopping 100%. All at a time when the average American saw their incomes drop 10%.

Likewise, when we ask Reagan's question today (whether we're "better off than we were 30 years ago?"), we shouldn't expect to be met with screeching sophomorics about "socialism."