RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Free enterprise?
"They should be. It's called free enterprise."
Since when is using tax dollars (yeah, that's what "casino revenues" are no matter what they try to hide them behind) "free enterprise"?
The spin whirls both ways, Karl.
Is anyone tired of this crap yet? People are not sheep when it comes to local elections. They know what they want. They don't want to pay for municipal broadband toys via taxes. End of story. If it was so good then all those North Kansas City business would invest in it privately. They got a positive response because they kited this as "free" of taxes. Bullshit.
SBC and Time Warner are doing what any corporation should do: Protect shareholder value. If these munis can compete on their own, I'm all for them. But raising the "incumbent unlimited funds for smear campaigns" flag every time one fails is pretty lame. They fail because their potential customers don't want to pay for it.
--
I'm not the only cowboy in this one-horse metaphor... |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Casino taxes are not like normal taxes though, they dont effect you unless you use the casino. it would be like CT using the cigerette tax to setup a fiber network, i dont smoke so id be all for it since well it would cost me nothing to build.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| reply to RadioDoc
Well one, having a vote where one party is relatively small and the other is a multi-national corporation with unlimited funds and an experienced PR army doesn't strike me as fair process.
I'd also question people actually know what they're voting for half the time (could cite a fairly clear recent example). |
|
claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc  :"They should be. It's called free enterprise." Monopoly is not free enterprise. Sabotaging competition is not free enterprise. Preventing a public or cooperative venture on the grounds that it may compete with the "private sector" is not free enterprise. If the private oligopoly cannot do it better and cheaper, why should it be subsidized by ratepayers?Corporate welfare is not free enterprise. |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | reply to RadioDoc
They would have to pay either way, so I say vote on it and choose whichever is cheaper. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to RadioDoc
hey RadioDoc, the U.S. is ranked 13th in broadband in the world and falling.
that's what the telco brand of "free enterprise" has brought us.
Although I guess it's good that the poor, misunderstood incumbents have concerned citizens like yourself standing up for them as they quietly go about buying decisions from state legislatures to stifle competition.
We're number 13! we're number 13! Go SBC! go Time-Warner! |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | I guess it's all about the race, eh? Screw the cost and who pays it.
Have a nice socialist life.
--
I'm not the only cowboy in this one-horse metaphor... |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | what, again, is wrong with socialism? That said, I don't see anything "socialist" about this project. "screw the cost and who pays it" - are you stoned? This is the BEST possible way to finance such a project. It's not taking money from income taxes or property taxes, just from casino taxes. I just don't see how this could be bad. I'd love for Kansas City to do the same thing, but NorthKC has always been a step ahead of us in regards to 'net speeds. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Yeah I'm stoned if that makes you feel better. Sorry I just don't buy into the broadband socialism which is so pervasive here. If it is so great then people & businesses would be lined up to dump their own money in it regardless of what the big bad incumbents do or say. It isn't, they aren't. What is so hard to understand?
Build it and they will come...right. The only people "coming" are the government drones spending all that money.
--
I'm not the only cowboy in this one-horse metaphor... |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | Not sure where you get "Socialism" from not wanting your government bought off by mega-corps.
That term is bandied about too frequently.
There is a massive difference between advocating broad socialism and what's occurring here. |
|
X
join:2003-05-27
Sacramento, CA
| reply to nasadude
Right on nasadude. I was about to type something in similar fashion, but now there is no need, because you really summarized what i feel  But ill expand a bit though: While the regular folk is paying 30+ bucks for broadband - the rich fatasses in control of those "poor, misunderstood" companies get to ride around in their 1+ million yachts and sponsor more brainwashing of the working man. And then... when time passes, you look - and you see US dropping more and more down from the lead. I understand, US has alot of people living in rural communities, but that does NOT justify all the money that huge corporations throw away to buy the politicians in power, and brainwash regular people who dont have enough time on their hands to actually go and look for the truth.
RadioDoc, you have a point, that the spin can go both ways. But the spin in this case can go probably only two ways: The big corporation way, and the small working man way. Which one are you? |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| said by X :Which one are you? I'm a self-employed business-owner and commercial property owner who is tired of paying outlandish taxes for government pie-in-the-sky.
What is wrong with $1 million yachts? If you had one you'd certainly not be posting what you posted.
As for purchased politicians, that's how this country works these days. It may be wrong, but it has nothing to do with how stories like this are reported.
--
I'm not the only cowboy in this one-horse metaphor... |
|
justncredible
@rr.com
| I am the poor working man, and the truth is simple, big goverment taxing business to support bad ideas is why you don't get a big raise every year. Every dollar you see taken out of your paycheck is matched from the company you work for. Lower taxes on business means more money for pay raises, very simple and very true. Your support of this plan just screws you, it does not screw TW or big business. Your propety taxes will go up to pay for this plan, think about that. How do you think they will pay for it? 10 million dollars that is in the general goverment fund, that should be used for roads schools, or any of the already socialist money pits the goverment has forced upon us working people. Every single thing any of the forms of goverment buys comes directly out of your pocket. Every time a goverment sues a business it comes out of the employees pocket and the customers pocket. Look at the price of cigarettes, you could buy a pack for 1 dollar before the goverment sued them, now the customer is being raped, not the business. It is stupid to keep thinking you hurt anyone but yourself. Big goverment = BAD. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
2 edits | A town of 5,000 people is "big government"?
There's something insincere and even ironic about how the two previous posters approve the methods these companies use to screw people and protect revenue....then offer largely unfounded predictions how some small town government - whose only aim really is infrastructure improvement - is going to ruin the planet. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Who is "approv[ing] the methods of these companies"? I just want these government pipe dreams to make sense financially so I don't end up stuck paying for revenue shortfalls like we end up stuck paying for everything else local governments get themselves into.
You didn't bother to answer my question, either. Here it is again to save you the trouble: If it is so great then people & businesses would be lined up to dump their own money in it regardless of what the big bad incumbents do or say. It isn't, they aren't. What is so hard to understand?
--
I'm not the only cowboy in this one-horse metaphor... |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to RadioDoc
quote:
I'm a self-employed business-owner and commercial property owner who is tired of paying outlandish taxes for government pie-in-the-sky
Which part of this is too much for anyone to understand? Don't go to the casinos in Missouri, and you won't be taxed for this project. Period. Nobody loses here-except of course the companies who charge too much and deploy too little. The gov't should be applauded for finding a creative way to pay for the project-you should be tickled pink as it doesn't cost in property or other taxes, but rather through casino taxes. |
|
hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :Casino taxes are not like normal taxes though, they dont effect you unless you use the casino. it would be like CT using the cigerette tax to setup a fiber network, i dont smoke so id be all for it since well it would cost me nothing to build. So you would vote to raise someone elses taxes. And then they will vote to raise taxes on something they don't pay this is a bad idea. Taxes are involved and when taxes are involved the idea is bad and will always cost more than they tell you. I do not smoke and think it is a bad habit to have, but I will support raising taxes on those who do. I do not gamble and feel that is bad, but again taxing them for your personal gain is and always will be a bad idea. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | reply to RadioDoc
You're shocked private industry wouldn't pour money into something that would probably make only enough profit to keep itself functional and serve its purpose?
This is a revelation of some kind? |
|
Unregistered user
@cofs.net
| reply to RadioDoc
So, if this is socialism, and it's bad, then how about these ideas:
Sell municipal water systems. They compete with potential private ventures, especially the bottled water companies.
Get rid of public transit. It takes business away from taxicabs, and if there's money to be made from running buses and trains, someone will do it.
Eliminate city trash collection. Granted, it's often contracted out to private companies, but cities have no business designating a carrier. Allow individuals to pick their collection company.
Eliminate public schools. Public education is paid for by tax dollars, which is unfair to people without children. If someone has a child, they can pay for their education.
Eliminate public broadcasting. Then, we might have commercial classical radio that can make money. Eliminating public television would make room for at least one more private channel in most areas, not to mention that PBS steals market share from commercial stations.
Sell parks to private entities, such as country clubs. Many people never go to parks, and they cost a lot to maintain. Private companies can do it better that inefficient parks and recreation authorities, and those who actually use them can pay the cost.
Can anyone think of any other things that are too socialistic (What a word!) for our country? |
|
ppcpunk
join:2001-02-11
Davenport, IA
| reply to RadioDoc
Yeah and we all know that in order for something to be a good idea a company needs to pour money into it just like they did when they built the original phone networks. Oh wait... that was paid for with tax payer money... and we all know what a "failure" that was.
You don't seem to understand that the government isn't providing broadband to people - they are providing a network for people to use broadband on, provided by private companies, just like they do with streets and municipal airports and so on. |
|
