midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Feb 27, 2015 12:40:29 GMT -5
That wasn't what I said. My post was about the cable companies couching some of their fees in language implying these fees are actually taxes. Look at the earlier posts in this thread. Many posters are assuming that the extra charges on their cable bill are ALL taxes. They are not.
Or a simpler question -- why can't the cable companies simply add in these taxes to the regular bill like every other business does? Instead of advertising TV services for $49.99 (with $15 in added fees/taxes), why not just be up front about charging $64.99?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Feb 27, 2015 13:39:18 GMT -5
I dislike further government regulation on an issue it created with regulation. I want both the power-hungry ISP's AND government the hell out of the internet. The more control government has over the internet, the less neutral it will be...that's just how government works and why this legislation is so ironic.
The funny thing about this issue is that I saw one of the protaganists for net neutrality wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, probably because of the movie V for Vendetta. Yet ironically the character V was an anarchist fighting AGAINST a tyranical, overly-controlling, manipulative government. So this protestor was wearing a Guy Fawkes mask while calling for government to be more controlling and manipulative. Again...why I hate people so much
For shame, he should have at least read the graphic novel! Which was much better than the movie too!
And V in the novel was much more of an anarchist than in the movie, and much more vindictive...they tried to give him a soul in the movie, probably so people had an actual protaganist to root for
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Feb 27, 2015 14:09:19 GMT -5
For shame, he should have at least read the graphic novel! Which was much better than the movie too!
And V in the novel was much more of an anarchist than in the movie, and much more vindictive...they tried to give him a soul in the movie, probably so people had an actual protaganist to root for
Yeah, I wasn't overly impressed with the movie. And what's her name Portman or whatever.... UGH!
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Feb 27, 2015 14:21:05 GMT -5
...:::"I'm spilt. On one hand I think it's crap for say Amazon to come in and say I'll give you x dollars to move us into the highest speed and you need to keep Netflix at last 10mbps slower than us. On the other hand government fucks up more things than they do right.":::...
Bingo... or worse: Time Warner wants its OWN streaming service to gain market share. So it starts crippling Hulu, Netflix, Amazon... traffic. Or perhaps, desperate to stymie "cord cutters", Time Warner imposes fees forcing providers to raise prices, thereby reducing the price advantage of standalone streaming services.
But there are always unintended consequences. Remember that tax break that was intended to help farmers purchase heavy equipment by allowing full write-off? It also ended up allowing self-employed service providers buy Hummers and Escalades and deduct the full value?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 9:44:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 14:38:07 GMT -5
Net neutrality = a tyranical, overly-controlling, manipulative government
Ok... Lol
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 9:44:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 14:39:14 GMT -5
What do you think the step was after V's revolution? Anarchy?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 27, 2015 16:17:24 GMT -5
Well I guess it depends how it's written. Though I'm guessing it's a lot longer than "no internet provider is allowed to manipulate their bandwidth based on the sure or content being downloaded" or something along those lines. Realistically that's all it needs.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Feb 27, 2015 18:16:34 GMT -5
Net neutrality = a tyranical, overly-controlling, manipulative government Ok... Lol Every (shit)storm begins with a single drop of rain
Look up what the very first income tax return looked like...and then compare it with our current process. That is what happens with government over time.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Feb 27, 2015 20:50:35 GMT -5
Well, last I heard the internet was created by the govt. Certainly Google didn't do it. Or Comcast. So yeah, I'm a little dubious of the "govt f*cks everything up" hyperbole. As for regulation, yeah I don't want Centurylink suddenly slowing my steaming of Netflix because they made a better deal with Amazon. Just like I don't want someone driving 100mph on the road in front of my house. As far as I'm concerned, the internet is just as critical to our nation's success as our national highway system or any other infrastructure. Everyone should have equal access to it.
As for taxes, the AP article I read on this specifically said there were no universal fees as part of the legislation. But I'd be in favor of them if there was. I know how annoyed I get when I lose signal in rural ares. It would be awesome to not have to worry about connectivity.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 9:44:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 21:00:10 GMT -5
If this was the land of V... Government either would own the Internet, or would be in bed with the corps... Not fighting to regulate corps to the benefit of the people...
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 28, 2015 18:59:51 GMT -5
I dispute your contention that the poor don't have the power to make the government do anything. Remember, the poor, or other net consumers of government benefits, have the same vote that a net provider of government benefits has. The poor have exactly the same power of the ballot as people who are not poor. A vote represents a lot of power. If a politician promises me that he's going to give me more benefits and services for free, he can easily buy my vote. And that is exactly what politicians have been doing for generations. Promising people, usually the poor, something for nothing in order to buy their vote. The opportunity to regulate and tax ISP services gives politicians yet another way to pander to the wants of some who expend little effort to meet their own wants and needs. Does the data on voter turnout among the poor support that hypothesis? It was my understanding that those below poverty level have the lowest voter turnout of all economic groups. Well they still do vote, even if it is in lower numbers than other groups. And while individual poor people don't have a lot of power, the poverty pimps that 'represent' them do, often using means other than voting.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 9:44:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2015 19:02:52 GMT -5
Almost all of the poor people (ie on services) that I know vote against their best interest.. ie. Republican.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,043
|
Post by teen persuasion on Feb 28, 2015 20:14:50 GMT -5
Does the data on voter turnout among the poor support that hypothesis? It was my understanding that those below poverty level have the lowest voter turnout of all economic groups. Well they still do vote, even if it is in lower numbers than other groups. And while individual poor people don't have a lot of power, the poverty pimps that 'represent' them do, often using means other than voting. Poverty pimps?
|
|
beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Mar 1, 2015 3:54:17 GMT -5
Well they still do vote, even if it is in lower numbers than other groups. And while individual poor people don't have a lot of power, the poverty pimps that 'represent' them do, often using means other than voting. Poverty pimps? I'm guessing this is a reference to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, although they don't represent very many poor people.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Mar 1, 2015 20:26:35 GMT -5
It isn't just Jessie and Al. Someone designed our welfare system with those cliffs, where getting a promotion at work makes you more poor. Someone designed and fought for a welfare system that rewards self destructive behavior and punishes good behavior. Someone took discipline out of the schools. And all of the above have virtually guaranteed a large enough population of helpless people to justify huge social service organizations.
When I was a teenager in the 80's in a blue state, mentioning the possibility of anyone loosing their welfare check to anyone in the social work field would result in an almost hysterical reaction, including being compared to a Nazi. They knew where their bread was buttered.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 9:44:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 20:41:04 GMT -5
Yes, social service workers are all in it for those big cushy checks...
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 2, 2015 9:04:31 GMT -5
Well, last I heard the internet was created by the govt. Certainly Google didn't do it. Or Comcast. So yeah, I'm a little dubious of the "govt f*cks everything up" hyperbole. As for regulation, yeah I don't want Centurylink suddenly slowing my steaming of Netflix because they made a better deal with Amazon. Just like I don't want someone driving 100mph on the road in front of my house. As far as I'm concerned, the internet is just as critical to our nation's success as our national highway system or any other infrastructure. Everyone should have equal access to it. As for taxes, the AP article I read on this specifically said there were no universal fees as part of the legislation. But I'd be in favor of them if there was. I know how annoyed I get when I lose signal in rural ares. It would be awesome to not have to worry about connectivity. If they did invent it (I always thought it was two colleges) they certainly didn't have a direct hand into making what it is today. In fact it's an example of how great something can be when the government doesn't control and manage it. It's hard to fuck something up when you have no control over it. The government used to be the largest creator of new technology, now it's the private industry and the government piggy backs off them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 9:44:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 9:38:56 GMT -5
I'm sorry, where do you think colleges get funding for research?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Mar 2, 2015 10:35:57 GMT -5
I'm sorry, where do you think colleges get funding for research? The bulk of it is not from government as I think you may be implying... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_scienceI used to work for a company that funded many research studies at several universitites. Just another thing that the evil corporations do that most citizens are not aware of. The grants were written to split any resulting royalties 50-50. This was supposedly a common practice in that area. While on a business trip I got to see an entire lab funded by my company at a nationally known university. It was pretty awesome. Say what you like but in my experience business does a much better job evaluating where to allocate resources than does government. Solyndra comes to mind as a huge investment that was made with almost zero due diligence. Such a thing would never happen in industry.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 2, 2015 10:47:12 GMT -5
Furthermore not all technological advancements come from colleges. The iPhone was not invented in a college lab.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,705
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 2, 2015 11:42:37 GMT -5
I'm guessing this is a reference to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, although they don't represent very many poor people. I don't who poverty pimps are, but odds are they represent themselves and those who want to be represented by them versus actually being selected by the poor. In the end, it is the politicians and others that propose laws, etc. rarely the poor or even middle class unless it is local laws.
Therefore, it seems obvious the law proposers are likely doing so for reasons other than helping the poor. I see my question went un-answered. Who in the heck does someone vote for to get this supposed free Ipad? Has an politician proposed such or is it just a fear fanned by some pundits somewhere? For those whose votes could be bought if they were poor, who would you vote for and why?
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Mar 2, 2015 13:39:31 GMT -5
Yes, social service workers are all in it for those big cushy checks... Front line social workers, not really. They don't want to get canned of course, but they don't control policy and it's not like they have any shortage of work to do.
But the people at the top are another story. They're the ones setting policy. More trainwrecks means bigger organizations with more underlings and bigger budgets.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Mar 2, 2015 14:19:36 GMT -5
Let me guess... you don't work in government.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 9:44:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 14:21:10 GMT -5
I'm sorry, where do you think colleges get funding for research? The bulk of it is not from government as I think you may be implying... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_scienceI used to work for a company that funded many research studies at several universitites. Just another thing that the evil corporations do that most citizens are not aware of. The grants were written to split any resulting royalties 50-50. This was supposedly a common practice in that area. While on a business trip I got to see an entire lab funded by my company at a nationally known university. It was pretty awesome. Say what you like but in my experience business does a much better job evaluating where to allocate resources than does government. Solyndra comes to mind as a huge investment that was made with almost zero due diligence. Such a thing would never happen in industry. Wiki isn't a bad thing... But when the tag.... this article has issues is across the top and multiple citation needed signs, sorry if I didn't bother to read this.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Mar 2, 2015 15:02:18 GMT -5
The bulk of it is not from government as I think you may be implying... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_scienceI used to work for a company that funded many research studies at several universitites. Just another thing that the evil corporations do that most citizens are not aware of. The grants were written to split any resulting royalties 50-50. This was supposedly a common practice in that area. While on a business trip I got to see an entire lab funded by my company at a nationally known university. It was pretty awesome. Say what you like but in my experience business does a much better job evaluating where to allocate resources than does government. Solyndra comes to mind as a huge investment that was made with almost zero due diligence. Such a thing would never happen in industry. Wiki isn't a bad thing... But when the tag.... this article has issues is across the top and multiple citation needed signs, sorry if I didn't bother to read this. And yet there were several solid citations included. The below is a bit more summarized. www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-sources-and-uses-of-us-science-fundingI draw your attention to figure 4. The source cited in the table is the SEI - the biennual science and engineering indicators published by the national science board (a governmental agency). Look at table 4.3 in the below source link: www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/tables.htmThe last set of figures states 77.6% of all research funding is from business. Government provides only 21.3% (and half of that is for military research). This is an issue I went head to head with the IRS on. The funding my company gave was a legitimate business expense, and not a charitable deduction. Due to the profit sharing wording in the grants it was clear there was profit (as opposed to charitable) motive involved. Donating the funds to furnish a state of the art lab wasn't philanthropy either, we wanted the top scientists in the world working on our project. One machine (Mass spectrometer) at the time ran close to $200K (this was about 18-20 years ago). My company put three in the lab (among other things). There were issues with expense vs depreciation vs charitable deduction that I had to argue; which is why I got to actually visit the lab, read the grant requests, and interview top management in the company and researchers at the university. At the time about half of the company's research budget was spent externally (grants and the like) as opposed to internally (our own scientists/research facilities). Don't get me wrong, it's not all wine and roses. There are serious conflict issues involved when your livelyhood is tied to pleasing your sponsor. That aside, the truth is the bulk of research funding does not come from the government. Now the may be differences in applied vs theoretical research, but that's beyond my scope of experience.
|
|
beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Mar 2, 2015 18:26:19 GMT -5
I'm guessing this is a reference to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, although they don't represent very many poor people. I don't who poverty pimps are, but odds are they represent themselves and those who want to be represented by them versus actually being selected by the poor. In the end, it is the politicians and others that propose laws, etc. rarely the poor or even middle class unless it is local laws.
Therefore, it seems obvious the law proposers are likely doing so for reasons other than helping the poor. I see my question went un-answered. Who in the heck does someone vote for to get this supposed free Ipad? Has an politician proposed such or is it just a fear fanned by some pundits somewhere? For those whose votes could be bought if they were poor, who would you vote for and why?
I know far too many conservatives, and when the start going off about 'poverty pimps', it is always a rant about Jackson or Sharpton. As to my comment about who they represent, the majority of poor people, at least the ones receiving services, are Caucasian. We all know of Sharpton and Jackson's opinions of white people.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,705
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 2, 2015 18:29:29 GMT -5
I don't know what Sharpton does generally, but it seems he favors black people with less an average finances who might need his help and will get him press. I must miss the part where he works on helping the poor.
|
|