|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Okay we need to start a liquibet on when Kansas will burn to the ground. I say mid 2017:
Kansas will collect $1 billion less in revenue in 2015 and 2016 than its projected expenses following massive income tax cuts signed into law by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback.
The new revenue estimates released Monday revealed that Kansas would burn through about $380 million in reserves and still need to cut $280 million to balance its current budget for fiscal year 2015, which ends next June 30.
The problem continues in 2016 when revenues are projected to run $436 million short of expenditures, the estimates show.
The revenue estimates were developed by a panel of fiscal experts that includes university economists, a legislative policy analyst, a representative from the governor’s budget office and the state revenue department.
The new figure raises the prospect of deep cuts in the state budget following controversial income tax cuts that Brownback vigorously defended during his re-election campaign against Democrat Paul Davis. Critics worry that schools, roads and social services will be among the areas cut in coming months.
Brownback’s budget director, Shawn Sullivan, said the administration has no intention of revisiting the state’s tax policy, which calls for further income tax cuts through 2018.
“The state of Kansas must continue to live within its means just as families do every day,” Sullivan told reporters Monday. “Our primary focus will be to curtail growth in state spending through additional efficiencies and policy proposals.”
Sullivan said the Brownback administration has already identified about $150 million in efficiencies to help address the revenue shortfall. Among other things, he pointed to standardizing state computer systems and lower than expected health insurance costs for state workers.
The budget director left open the possibility that the governor could enact midyear budget cuts on his own or leave it up to the Legislature to decide how to pare government expenses.
Source
|
What a party was for or against some 80 years ago has no relevance on it today. Both parties have said and been apart or f horrific things that their later generations can and should wash their hands of.
San Francisco is still running somehow. I have a cousin trying to get me to go pheasant hunting in Detroit city limits but that just feels like kicking them when they are down.
|
On November 12 2014 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 06:57 Introvert wrote:
Yes, government action is inherently bad. It's bad just because it is! It's morally wrong!
Don't be silly. Government should stay out of the way because of what we, the people, get as the fruits of its labor (or what fruits it takes/prevents us from earning). Not because OMG GOVERNMENT=BAD. Every time someone sums up conservative thought this way they only display their own ignorance. Knowing it better would clear up a few of those conservative "inconsistencies" liberals whine about, too. Not all government action is evil. You have to admit it's a pretty short list of approved federal government action for conservatives. Mostly around war and border security and a marriage amendment (so dumb). Not a whole lot outside of that, that conservatives would like to see the federal government do off the top of my head? EITC, Social Secuity, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, federal courts... Conservatives are not anarchists any more than liberals are communists. I forgot how hard conservatives fought to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid a reality... Just wow. I wasn't around in the 1930's, so I don't really remember what they did. Relevance to 2014? The thirties were where when conservatives were still arguing minimum wages were unconstitutional. But you probably don't remember that either or understand why that would matter today?
The thirties were also when liberals were arguing that business cartels were great. FDR wanted businesses to form cartels so they could raise prices. Must mean they want to keep doing so today...
|
On November 12 2014 08:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 06:57 Introvert wrote:
Yes, government action is inherently bad. It's bad just because it is! It's morally wrong!
Don't be silly. Government should stay out of the way because of what we, the people, get as the fruits of its labor (or what fruits it takes/prevents us from earning). Not because OMG GOVERNMENT=BAD. Every time someone sums up conservative thought this way they only display their own ignorance. Knowing it better would clear up a few of those conservative "inconsistencies" liberals whine about, too. Not all government action is evil. You have to admit it's a pretty short list of approved federal government action for conservatives. Mostly around war and border security and a marriage amendment (so dumb). Not a whole lot outside of that, that conservatives would like to see the federal government do off the top of my head? EITC, Social Secuity, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, federal courts... Conservatives are not anarchists any more than liberals are communists. I forgot how hard conservatives fought to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid a reality... Just wow. I wasn't around in the 1930's, so I don't really remember what they did. Relevance to 2014? The thirties were where when conservatives were still arguing minimum wages were unconstitutional. But you probably don't remember that either or understand why that would matter today? The thirties were also when liberals were arguing that business cartels were great. FDR wanted businesses to form cartels so they could raise prices. Must mean they want to keep doing so today...
Which would get more support from the base now? Abolishing minimum wage from conservatives, or business cartels from liberals?
|
On November 11 2014 13:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2014 11:27 Nyxisto wrote:
The government is not getting more regulative power over the internet. How is a law that tells every isp to treat all the information the same and not,for example, charge companies or end users for specific services, empowering the government? The government isn't even getting involved besides making a law. This isn't a law. I mean for fuck's sakes are you even aware of what's going on? It's Obama pressuring or directing an agency of the US government to reclassify the net in order to regulate it like a public utility. It is not our legislative body crafting a new law that declares all traffic the same. Pretending otherwise is either ignorant or deceptive. Yes, so Obama wants the FCC to classify the internet as a public utility. ... What's the big deal? Is "oh gosh the president does something" already enough for the the American right to go crazy? The president has exercised his right to make a common sense statement, that's a real shocker. It is your naiveté that raises my ire. Let me reiterate
The government is not getting more regulative power over the internet. How is a law that tells every isp to treat all the information the same and not,for example, charge companies or end users for specific services, empowering the government?
It's not a law, passed by the duly appointed legislative bodies empowered to pass laws. It's an appointed body writing regulations. In this case, we're talking about the Communications Act of 1934. I'm sure you know what the internet was like in 1934 and how precise that legislation was crafted to reflect information exchange in those days. It's a vast overreach but there's enough dumb sheep out there that hold, as an article of faith, that every government action is not government overreach that they'll gut-reaction mistype it as a law, because that just sounds better, don't it? Back in the era of separate branches, it would take an Act of Congress to rewrite how these businesses operate (and depending on its crafting, it might even be constitutional).
Now we have you and others calling on the President and his Men to act as despots and king's commissions because you happen to like what they're saying today. It prompts zero vision for the future of a free and open internet, now with the government fully empowered to craft what it likes and what's politically expedient in the future.
On November 11 2014 14:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2014 11:27 Nyxisto wrote:
The government is not getting more regulative power over the internet. How is a law that tells every isp to treat all the information the same and not,for example, charge companies or end users for specific services, empowering the government? The government isn't even getting involved besides making a law. This isn't a law. I mean for fuck's sakes are you even aware of what's going on? It's Obama pressuring or directing an agency of the US government to reclassify the net in order to regulate it like a public utility. It is not our legislative body crafting a new law that declares all traffic the same. Pretending otherwise is either ignorant or deceptive. It is a public utility. It's a natural monopoly (network effects, obviously) that is for the public good. Even you Danglars believe in free speech and the power of self-education. Why would you want to restrict access to the internet to those who can pay for it the most? Don't you understand that Comcast is a rent-collector that need not exist? What's hard about these concepts? It's like you hear "federal agency" and start flipping out regardless of the raison d'etre. You make fun of liberals for parroting talking points all the time and here you are embracing this conservative media crafted narrative about the "free market" of the internet and shouts for "less government." It's inane and a transparent attempt by those who stand to gain to reframe the narrative in a completely incoherent fashion. Only the socialist mind prompts an opposition to amped-up agency regulation as wanting to restrict access to the internet. Consider the lawful ways to pass legislation affecting internet service providers that leave intact the people's representatives making decisions affecting them. I say it is you attempting to reframe the narrative, as if every universally good thing can be done in Congress, presidential executive order, federal agency or 4th branch, or the courts (I'm sure there's a sufficiently liberal lawyer that would love to bring a case of access to internet violating an individuals equal protection rights or somesuch). I apologize in advance, but not every perceived wrong deserves to resurrect laws made back in 1934 just because then we have a pretext of legal framework. Crawl back off your activist high horse, you who want to bring this to free speech and access to education.
On November 11 2014 14:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2014 11:27 Nyxisto wrote:
The government is not getting more regulative power over the internet. How is a law that tells every isp to treat all the information the same and not,for example, charge companies or end users for specific services, empowering the government? The government isn't even getting involved besides making a law. This isn't a law. I mean for fuck's sakes are you even aware of what's going on? It's Obama pressuring or directing an agency of the US government to reclassify the net in order to regulate it like a public utility. It is not our legislative body crafting a new law that declares all traffic the same. Pretending otherwise is either ignorant or deceptive. Well, keep in mind that the current market structure is heavily influenced by past FCC regulations / decisions. So it's largely a swap of this regulation for that regulation. On past FCC reg decisions: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/04/299060527/episode-529-the-last-mileEdit: I mean you could argue that what we have now is a 'regulated industry' like airlines or railroads were (government regulates the competition) that needs to be deregulated. If one or more of the specific aims of the 'net neutrality' movement is the majority view and will be supported by their representatives, this would be a heavy departure from the nature of past FCC regulations & decisions ... which might be termed a light touch policy. It's about time activists look to crafting legislation designed for internet service providers of all kinds instead of pretending that shifting from current schemes to all the power that comes with Title 2 classification. Besides, it's quite a willful misreading of that law as well. If we want regulatory classifications under federal statutes to retain faithfulness to the letter of the law as passed, these things matter.
|
On November 12 2014 08:26 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 07:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:34 Simberto wrote:
Well, yeah, but what i don't understand why there are so many people in favor of policies that are obviously bad for them, and only good for a very small group of very wealthy corporation that are thus capable of using the legal bribery system of the US to their advantage. I can understand all of the parties involved in that, except for the voters who then actually vote for that guy and really believe in the corporate bullshit they are paid by corrupt politicians and media people (Who don't even TRY to hide the fact that they are being paid off) Me neither. Why do Europeans do that? Ok, then lets talk on a specific example here. Universal healthcare is obviously very good for the majority of the population. It is on average a lot cheaper then the ridiculous excuse of a system the US has, AND it provides better healthcare. The only people who are worse of with universal healthcare are very rich people, and some rent-seeking corporations that work in your current system. Yet for some inexplicable reason that isn't even something you can talk about in the US unless you want to commit political suicide and never get elected to anything. Why is there no majority for something that is obviously better for the majority of people? Or this internet debate. Monopoly companies are bad for everyone who is not that monopoly company or a politician getting bribed by them (Oh sorry is the correct term currently lobbied upon? Campaign donated?). Yet you still have a de facto monopoly there. And even the idea of keeping up regulations that keeps that monopoly from being even more ridiculously exploitative and corrupt still gets flak from US conservatives
For healthcare, you need to understand that most the typical American was getting a great deal until recently. Yes it was expensive, but you didn't have to be the one to pay for it - the employer did. The expense was also a great source of middle class jobs, particularly for women (nurses). So for the majority of people, the history has been that the current system was quite good. In the last 10 years or so that's changed. Costs rose fast and employers had the ability to pass those costs on to workers to the point where workers started really giving a shit. So there's no majority for something that is obviously better for the majority of people, because from the perspective of most people, that just doesn't exist.
Could you be a bit more specific on the internet issue? Conservatives are generally not pro-monopoly or regulating competition and Comcast has said they have no problem with net neutrality. We have publicly supported the FCC adopting new, strong Open Internet rules. We have stated on numerous occasions that we believe legally enforceable rules should continue to include strong transparency, no blocking, and anti-discrimination provisions. We don’t prioritize Internet traffic or have paid fast lanes, and have no plans to do so. Source Yet the situation is "evil conservatives in line with corporate propaganda are trying to seek rents via monopoly practices"?
|
With the possibility of further clashes in Ferguson hinging on the imminent decision from a grand jury, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon issued a stern warning Tuesday afternoon: If the police are unable to control protests in the St. Louis area, then the National Guard will.
Nixon and St. Louis law enforcement are preparing for a grand jury decision that could reignite smoldering unrest in Ferguson, on the outskirts of St. Louis. Later this month a St. Louis County grand jury is expected to rule on whether police officer Darren Wilson should be prosecuted for the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed African-American 18-year-old. If Wilson is not prosecuted for the shooting, which ignited sometimes violent protests, many see further demonstrations as all but inevitable.
“The National Guard has been and will continue to be part of our contingency planning,” Nixon said Tuesday at a news conference. “The guard will be available when we determine it is necessary to support local law enforcement.”
He emphasized community outreach as an important component of the preparations for demonstrations. Local community groups, including the St. Louis County NAACP, have been meeting with the police to ensure the safety of protesters.
“Over the past few months, I’ve heard from people of good faith on all sides of these issues,” Nixon said. “And what unites them all is a desire for peace and progress. They know, as I do, that for real progress to take root in our hearts, our minds and our laws, peace must prevail.”
Source
|
On November 12 2014 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 08:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 06:57 Introvert wrote:
Yes, government action is inherently bad. It's bad just because it is! It's morally wrong!
Don't be silly. Government should stay out of the way because of what we, the people, get as the fruits of its labor (or what fruits it takes/prevents us from earning). Not because OMG GOVERNMENT=BAD. Every time someone sums up conservative thought this way they only display their own ignorance. Knowing it better would clear up a few of those conservative "inconsistencies" liberals whine about, too. Not all government action is evil. You have to admit it's a pretty short list of approved federal government action for conservatives. Mostly around war and border security and a marriage amendment (so dumb). Not a whole lot outside of that, that conservatives would like to see the federal government do off the top of my head? EITC, Social Secuity, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, federal courts... Conservatives are not anarchists any more than liberals are communists. I forgot how hard conservatives fought to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid a reality... Just wow. I wasn't around in the 1930's, so I don't really remember what they did. Relevance to 2014? The thirties were where when conservatives were still arguing minimum wages were unconstitutional. But you probably don't remember that either or understand why that would matter today? The thirties were also when liberals were arguing that business cartels were great. FDR wanted businesses to form cartels so they could raise prices. Must mean they want to keep doing so today... Which would get more support from the base now? Abolishing minimum wage from conservatives, or business cartels from liberals?
Both have fringe support.
|
On November 12 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 06:57 Introvert wrote:
Yes, government action is inherently bad. It's bad just because it is! It's morally wrong!
Don't be silly. Government should stay out of the way because of what we, the people, get as the fruits of its labor (or what fruits it takes/prevents us from earning). Not because OMG GOVERNMENT=BAD. Every time someone sums up conservative thought this way they only display their own ignorance. Knowing it better would clear up a few of those conservative "inconsistencies" liberals whine about, too. Not all government action is evil. You have to admit it's a pretty short list of approved federal government action for conservatives. Mostly around war and border security and a marriage amendment (so dumb). Not a whole lot outside of that, that conservatives would like to see the federal government do off the top of my head? You may read the constitution for the ones you're missing. It's one preamble and seven articles, pretty short. The first ten amendments to the constitution were necessary to even get states to surrender such powers to the federal government, worried that even the short enumerated powers would grow into a tyrannical body (and even back then Congress had to be rhetorically dragged to pass the Bill of Rights which that had previously agreed to do). The federal government was envisioned to be extremely limited in scope, with the states holding the bulk of the power--say to determine where the money goes in a divorce. Unintentionally, I think, you hit upon the central conservative idea. Keep the list of allowed federal government action small so that it does not seize power for itself and become oppressive to states and citizens.
The second topic is the separation of powers within the federal government. It isn't Russian roulette with who can levy taxes or pardon individuals or craft laws.
|
Since i want to understand:
For healthcare, you need to understand that most the typical American was getting a great deal until recently. Yes it was expensive, but you didn't have to be the one to pay for it - the employer did. The expense was also a great source of middle class jobs, particularly for women (nurses). So for the majority of people, the history has been that the current system was quite good. In the last 10 years or so that's changed. Costs rose fast and employers had the ability to pass those costs on to workers to the point where workers started really giving a shit. So there's no majority for something that is obviously better for the majority of people, because from the perspective of most people, that just doesn't exist.
So you actually say that your system was/is inherently flawed? Could you briefly explain why costs rose rapidly?
|
On November 12 2014 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 06:57 Introvert wrote:
Yes, government action is inherently bad. It's bad just because it is! It's morally wrong!
Don't be silly. Government should stay out of the way because of what we, the people, get as the fruits of its labor (or what fruits it takes/prevents us from earning). Not because OMG GOVERNMENT=BAD. Every time someone sums up conservative thought this way they only display their own ignorance. Knowing it better would clear up a few of those conservative "inconsistencies" liberals whine about, too. Not all government action is evil. You have to admit it's a pretty short list of approved federal government action for conservatives. Mostly around war and border security and a marriage amendment (so dumb). Not a whole lot outside of that, that conservatives would like to see the federal government do off the top of my head? EITC, Social Secuity, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, federal courts... Conservatives are not anarchists any more than liberals are communists. I forgot how hard conservatives fought to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid a reality... Just wow. I wasn't around in the 1930's, so I don't really remember what they did. Relevance to 2014? The thirties were where when conservatives were still arguing minimum wages were unconstitutional. But you probably don't remember that either or understand why that would matter today? The thirties were also when liberals were arguing that business cartels were great. FDR wanted businesses to form cartels so they could raise prices. Must mean they want to keep doing so today... Which would get more support from the base now? Abolishing minimum wage from conservatives, or business cartels from liberals? Both have fringe support.
Who's the comparable 'fringe' member from liberals that supports business cartels like Senator Lamar Alexander (TN-R) does abolishing the minimum wage?
"There are some conservatives who do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage," Sanders said to the witness, James Sherk, a labor policy analyst at the think tank.
"Let me jump in," Alexander then said. "I do not believe in it."
The policy debate had been lively, with interruptions all around, and Sanders grew excited at Alexander's interjection.
"So we have a ranking member," Sanders responded. "Alright! There we go!"
Sanders turned to Alexander.
"So you do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage?"
"That's correct," Alexander responded.
"You would abolish the minimum wage?"
"Correct."
Source
|
@Danglars
The simple point why nobody outside America gets this is because the tyrannical horror scenario you're painting isn't happening in reality. Neither government mandated healthcare nor net neutrality or gun control have turned every social democratic Western country into an oppressive dictatorship. Making the internet a fair playing field that is not dominated by companies like Comcast has nothing to do with "tyrannical overreach" in the style of Russia or whatever.
|
On November 12 2014 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 08:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 06:57 Introvert wrote:
Yes, government action is inherently bad. It's bad just because it is! It's morally wrong!
Don't be silly. Government should stay out of the way because of what we, the people, get as the fruits of its labor (or what fruits it takes/prevents us from earning). Not because OMG GOVERNMENT=BAD. Every time someone sums up conservative thought this way they only display their own ignorance. Knowing it better would clear up a few of those conservative "inconsistencies" liberals whine about, too. Not all government action is evil. You have to admit it's a pretty short list of approved federal government action for conservatives. Mostly around war and border security and a marriage amendment (so dumb). Not a whole lot outside of that, that conservatives would like to see the federal government do off the top of my head? EITC, Social Secuity, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, federal courts... Conservatives are not anarchists any more than liberals are communists. I forgot how hard conservatives fought to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid a reality... Just wow. I wasn't around in the 1930's, so I don't really remember what they did. Relevance to 2014? The thirties were where when conservatives were still arguing minimum wages were unconstitutional. But you probably don't remember that either or understand why that would matter today? The thirties were also when liberals were arguing that business cartels were great. FDR wanted businesses to form cartels so they could raise prices. Must mean they want to keep doing so today... Which would get more support from the base now? Abolishing minimum wage from conservatives, or business cartels from liberals?
There are plenty of pro-cartel folks out there. (Not really liberals in particular). Writing onerous reporting regulation for businesses that are rarely to never actually prosecuted on basis of such data? Pro-cartel (Goldman Sachs doesn't care; smaller competitor faces serious costs). Consulting on business matters only with CEOs of massive companies? Pro-cartel. Total inaction on existing monopolies like Comcast, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple? Pro-cartel. Making competition illegal among airlines? Pro-cartel. The fucking corporate tax is pro-cartel.
There's a lot of Democrats and Republicans who want all this stuff controlled by a handful of companies on the theory that would be easier to deal with.
|
On November 12 2014 09:41 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 06:57 Introvert wrote:
Yes, government action is inherently bad. It's bad just because it is! It's morally wrong!
Don't be silly. Government should stay out of the way because of what we, the people, get as the fruits of its labor (or what fruits it takes/prevents us from earning). Not because OMG GOVERNMENT=BAD. Every time someone sums up conservative thought this way they only display their own ignorance. Knowing it better would clear up a few of those conservative "inconsistencies" liberals whine about, too. Not all government action is evil. You have to admit it's a pretty short list of approved federal government action for conservatives. Mostly around war and border security and a marriage amendment (so dumb). Not a whole lot outside of that, that conservatives would like to see the federal government do off the top of my head? EITC, Social Secuity, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, federal courts... Conservatives are not anarchists any more than liberals are communists. I forgot how hard conservatives fought to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid a reality... Just wow. I wasn't around in the 1930's, so I don't really remember what they did. Relevance to 2014? The thirties were where when conservatives were still arguing minimum wages were unconstitutional. But you probably don't remember that either or understand why that would matter today? The thirties were also when liberals were arguing that business cartels were great. FDR wanted businesses to form cartels so they could raise prices. Must mean they want to keep doing so today... Which would get more support from the base now? Abolishing minimum wage from conservatives, or business cartels from liberals? There are plenty of pro-cartel folks out there. (Not really liberals in particular). Writing onerous reporting regulation for businesses that are rarely to never actually prosecuted on basis of such data? Pro-cartel (Goldman Sachs doesn't care; smaller competitor faces serious costs). Consulting on business matters only with CEOs of massive companies? Pro-cartel. Total inaction on existing monopolies like Comcast, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple? Pro-cartel. Making competition illegal among airlines? Pro-cartel. The fucking corporate tax is pro-cartel. There's a lot of Democrats and Republicans who want all this stuff controlled by a handful of companies on the theory that would be easier to deal with.
It doesn't make it easier to deal with, it just makes it easier for both sides to come to a mutual beneficent monetary transaction.
|
On November 12 2014 08:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +With the possibility of further clashes in Ferguson hinging on the imminent decision from a grand jury, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon issued a stern warning Tuesday afternoon: If the police are unable to control protests in the St. Louis area, then the National Guard will.
Nixon and St. Louis law enforcement are preparing for a grand jury decision that could reignite smoldering unrest in Ferguson, on the outskirts of St. Louis. Later this month a St. Louis County grand jury is expected to rule on whether police officer Darren Wilson should be prosecuted for the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed African-American 18-year-old. If Wilson is not prosecuted for the shooting, which ignited sometimes violent protests, many see further demonstrations as all but inevitable.
“The National Guard has been and will continue to be part of our contingency planning,” Nixon said Tuesday at a news conference. “The guard will be available when we determine it is necessary to support local law enforcement.”
He emphasized community outreach as an important component of the preparations for demonstrations. Local community groups, including the St. Louis County NAACP, have been meeting with the police to ensure the safety of protesters.
“Over the past few months, I’ve heard from people of good faith on all sides of these issues,” Nixon said. “And what unites them all is a desire for peace and progress. They know, as I do, that for real progress to take root in our hearts, our minds and our laws, peace must prevail.” Source
From what I've seen, this case had no business going to a grand jury in the first place. It's only there so that the authorities could wash their hands of deciding not to prosecute. If only we had a black president who could step in and defuse the situation with some words of reason.
|
The core question is whether there is or is not a core common infrastructure that is governed as a commons and therefore available to anyone who wishes to participate in free access to information, speech, and expression, outside of a market-based, proprietary framework. Commons are a resource for decentralized innovation, that maximizes experimentation, value, and freedom.
Carving up this digitals commons structure and licensing or privileging a small group of firms to "compete" over offering access to this commons destroys the integrity of the public good by turning access into a privilege rather than a right. You may end up reducing the extortionate payments being collected by Comcast slightly by forcing them to lease out parts of the network they currently dominate, but it's still an environment ripe for collusion on that front, as any oligopoly is. Just look at the history of telephone companies in the US. And why settle for a 10% reduced price when access and participation should be a right? Getting rid of network neutrality opens the door towards suppressing free technology and speech. Market-based solutions are fundamentally unequipped to handle the safeguarding of this commons.
As for saying that Comcast supports net neutrality, jonny, give me a break. It's nothing more than a convenient position they've flipped back and forth on to bolster public relations. The only thing they really said was that they were complying with what the FCC requires them to do (except they don't, and only until it stops forcing them to).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
on the question of helping small businesses, yes, having more government paid infrastructure providing security would help startups, so would lessening regulation, but not in a way that promotes low value, fraud-esque kind of activity.
minimum wage is pretty much the least problem a start up faces in this economy
|
On November 12 2014 08:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 14:27 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2014 11:27 Nyxisto wrote:
The government is not getting more regulative power over the internet. How is a law that tells every isp to treat all the information the same and not,for example, charge companies or end users for specific services, empowering the government? The government isn't even getting involved besides making a law. This isn't a law. I mean for fuck's sakes are you even aware of what's going on? It's Obama pressuring or directing an agency of the US government to reclassify the net in order to regulate it like a public utility. It is not our legislative body crafting a new law that declares all traffic the same. Pretending otherwise is either ignorant or deceptive. It is a public utility. It's a natural monopoly (network effects, obviously) that is for the public good. Even you Danglars believe in free speech and the power of self-education. Why would you want to restrict access to the internet to those who can pay for it the most? Don't you understand that Comcast is a rent-collector that need not exist? What's hard about these concepts? It's like you hear "federal agency" and start flipping out regardless of the raison d'etre. You make fun of liberals for parroting talking points all the time and here you are embracing this conservative media crafted narrative about the "free market" of the internet and shouts for "less government." It's inane and a transparent attempt by those who stand to gain to reframe the narrative in a completely incoherent fashion. Only the socialist mind prompts an opposition to amped-up agency regulation as wanting to restrict access to the internet. Consider the lawful ways to pass legislation affecting internet service providers that leave intact the people's representatives making decisions affecting them. I say it is you attempting to reframe the narrative, as if every universally good thing can be done in Congress, presidential executive order, federal agency or 4th branch, or the courts (I'm sure there's a sufficiently liberal lawyer that would love to bring a case of access to internet violating an individuals equal protection rights or somesuch). I apologize in advance, but not every perceived wrong deserves to resurrect laws made back in 1934 just because then we have a pretext of legal framework. Crawl back off your activist high horse, you who want to bring this to free speech and access to education.
Stop using the word "activist." It doesn't mean anything. Aren't you the activist here?
I don't want to resurrect a law made back in 1934. I want the government to take over and provide internet access to its citizens for free or at least very cheaply, like a public utility would.
Perhaps if we had a functional democratic system we could pass more laws. As it is people are opting out of a corrupt, illegitimate system of oppression because even voting signals compliance and consent. Petitioning existing authorities to implement changes that are frameable within existing terms of discourse only legitimates existing institutions and structures. How to pass laws overhauling the internet when the only discourse is boiled down to: "are you happy with Comcast or would you rather be able to switch to Tsacmoc which also offers substantially similar internet access?"
|
On November 12 2014 09:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 06:57 Introvert wrote:
Yes, government action is inherently bad. It's bad just because it is! It's morally wrong!
Don't be silly. Government should stay out of the way because of what we, the people, get as the fruits of its labor (or what fruits it takes/prevents us from earning). Not because OMG GOVERNMENT=BAD. Every time someone sums up conservative thought this way they only display their own ignorance. Knowing it better would clear up a few of those conservative "inconsistencies" liberals whine about, too. Not all government action is evil. You have to admit it's a pretty short list of approved federal government action for conservatives. Mostly around war and border security and a marriage amendment (so dumb). Not a whole lot outside of that, that conservatives would like to see the federal government do off the top of my head? EITC, Social Secuity, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, federal courts... Conservatives are not anarchists any more than liberals are communists. I forgot how hard conservatives fought to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid a reality... Just wow. I wasn't around in the 1930's, so I don't really remember what they did. Relevance to 2014? The thirties were where when conservatives were still arguing minimum wages were unconstitutional. But you probably don't remember that either or understand why that would matter today? The thirties were also when liberals were arguing that business cartels were great. FDR wanted businesses to form cartels so they could raise prices. Must mean they want to keep doing so today... Which would get more support from the base now? Abolishing minimum wage from conservatives, or business cartels from liberals? Both have fringe support. Who's the comparable 'fringe' member from liberals that supports business cartels like Senator Lamar Alexander (TN-R) does abolishing the minimum wage? + Show Spoiler +"There are some conservatives who do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage," Sanders said to the witness, James Sherk, a labor policy analyst at the think tank.
"Let me jump in," Alexander then said. "I do not believe in it."
The policy debate had been lively, with interruptions all around, and Sanders grew excited at Alexander's interjection.
"So we have a ranking member," Sanders responded. "Alright! There we go!"
Sanders turned to Alexander.
"So you do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage?"
"That's correct," Alexander responded.
"You would abolish the minimum wage?"
"Correct."
Source
Though it also involves a lot of other liberal stuff, one of the core ideas behind 'Fair Trade Coffee' is to take the place of the coffee cartel that fell apart in the late 80's. The main goal is to support coffee prices to help coffee producers.
We also still have a 'Raisin Reserve' left over from the New Deal era and it's not too uncommon for the general ideas behind cartels (reducing competition to make trade 'fair') to be popular with 'liberals'.
|
On November 12 2014 10:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 09:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You have to admit it's a pretty short list of approved federal government action for conservatives. Mostly around war and border security and a marriage amendment (so dumb).
Not a whole lot outside of that, that conservatives would like to see the federal government do off the top of my head? EITC, Social Secuity, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, federal courts... Conservatives are not anarchists any more than liberals are communists. I forgot how hard conservatives fought to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid a reality... Just wow. I wasn't around in the 1930's, so I don't really remember what they did. Relevance to 2014? The thirties were where when conservatives were still arguing minimum wages were unconstitutional. But you probably don't remember that either or understand why that would matter today? The thirties were also when liberals were arguing that business cartels were great. FDR wanted businesses to form cartels so they could raise prices. Must mean they want to keep doing so today... Which would get more support from the base now? Abolishing minimum wage from conservatives, or business cartels from liberals? Both have fringe support. Who's the comparable 'fringe' member from liberals that supports business cartels like Senator Lamar Alexander (TN-R) does abolishing the minimum wage? + Show Spoiler +"There are some conservatives who do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage," Sanders said to the witness, James Sherk, a labor policy analyst at the think tank.
"Let me jump in," Alexander then said. "I do not believe in it."
The policy debate had been lively, with interruptions all around, and Sanders grew excited at Alexander's interjection.
"So we have a ranking member," Sanders responded. "Alright! There we go!"
Sanders turned to Alexander.
"So you do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage?"
"That's correct," Alexander responded.
"You would abolish the minimum wage?"
"Correct."
Source Though it also involves a lot of other liberal stuff, one of the core ideas behind 'Fair Trade Coffee' is to take the place of the coffee cartel that fell apart in the late 80's. The main goal is to support coffee prices to help coffee producers. We also still have a 'Raisin Reserve' left over from the New Deal era and it's not too uncommon for the general ideas behind cartels (reducing competition to make trade 'fair') to be popular with 'liberals'.
The coffee 'cartel' good lord.... I thought you were talking about cartels that were intentionally harming or taking advantage of people who can't protect themselves... Not cartels designed to help less fortunate people...(whether they do it perfectly or not)
You made it seem as if liberals support Cartel agreements like we saw in the tech industry recently (implemented to artificially drive wages down). Not all cartels are the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
