US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1642

On February 13 2015 09:08 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't understand. Net neutrality legislation is a really good way to ensure more competition because it takes the power from ISP's away to favour big corporations that can pay for prioritization. It helps creating a diverse environment. So if you're all for free market solutions net neutrality is a good way to ensure that the playing field stays fair.

Breaking up ISP's themselves seems ridiculous. Providing internet infrastructure is so costly that it actually makes sense to have it done by big companies or the government, they just need regulations to not abuse their power.

American companies have about $2 trillion in overseas accounts — money they could be using to hire workers and pay dividends in the United States. But they're reluctant to do so, in part because of the way the U.S. tax system works.

President Obama proposed some big changes in the tax code last month that would encourage U.S. companies to bring more money home. A lot of people in Washington agree with the goal. But there's sharp disagreement about how to accomplish it.

Last month, the European Union issued a report about Amazon and the taxes it pays. The online retailer does a lot of business in Europe but its corporate tax rate is in the single digits, says Crawford Spence of the University of Warwick in England.

"Amazon has big operations in the U.K. but they pay very little tax here, because most of their tax is paid in Luxembourg," he says.

And it's not alone. Big U.S. companies such as Starbucks and Apple have pared down their tax bill by funneling revenue into tax havens like Luxembourg and Ireland. Spence says it's totally legal.

"Currently the rules are very complicated, very convoluted, which suits companies very well, cause there are always loopholes," he says.

The rules proposed by Obama last month would change that. The president wants to lower the tax rate on overseas corporate revenue. But a 19 percent minimum tax would kick in if companies use too many loopholes and tax havens, says Edward Kleinbard of the University of Southern California law school.

On February 13 2015 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Net neutrality is different from what I'm commenting on. Net neutrality doesn't address competition over internet access.

On February 13 2015 09:47 IgnE wrote:


Publicly owned lines and different service providers, similar to what Sprint has been doing on privately run lines for decades. Or just make the cables a public utility, since that is fucking obvious. THe lines themselves haven't been updated in decades, and for a fraction of a percent of our federal budget we could completely revamp the infrastructure to provide essentially limitless bandwidth for decades to come.

On February 13 2015 10:06 IgnE wrote:
I mean a publicly owned and run utility, like power in Nebraska.

I think it's harder to argue in favor of making jonny rich for the public good than it is to argue in favor of providing a state-of-the-art fiber optic cable network connecting all (99%) of American residents to the internet that would be the envy of the world. I'm surprised you would argue against the public benefits, considering that most of the business journals for the past decade have been talking about America's future in the Digital Economy.

On February 13 2015 11:23 oneofthem wrote:
there's no need to spend public money on something private industry is jumping to do, namely fiber. it's just pretty troublesome to lay networks in america because of the balkanized regulation

On February 13 2015 11:23 oneofthem wrote:
there's no need to spend public money on something private industry is jumping to do, namely fiber. it's just pretty troublesome to lay networks in america because of the balkanized regulation

On February 13 2015 11:53 IgnE wrote:


They aren't jumping to do it. Are you kidding? Time Warner and Comcast have barely upgraded the infrastructure in 30 years. And if they did do it, they would just use it as an excuse to jack up the prices and profits.

On February 13 2015 13:08 IgnE wrote:
Lol jonny. You don't know what you are talking about. "Investments" on a spread sheet. Anecdotally I heard you haven't the faintest clue how broadband works or what infrastructure it requires but that you make stupid comments based on an "investments" column.

The GOP-controlled Senate is looking a lot like last year’s Democratic Senate: failed procedural votes, short and fruitless workweeks and prolonged periods of inactivity on the floor.

The reason: The stubborn impasse on Homeland Security funding has sapped the chamber’s ability to do much else for the past two weeks, aside from some small-bore legislation. And as lawmakers skip town for a 10-day recess, some Republicans worry that the fight could drag on far past the Feb. 27 shutdown deadline — particularly if Congress ends up passing a short-term funding Band-Aid that merely sets up another cliff.

Many in the Capitol see a short-term extension as the most likely solution to keeping the Department of Homeland Security’s funding from running out at the end of the month, especially with the chambers deadlocked on language that would roll back President Barack Obama’s immigration policies.

But Senate Republicans are already expressing frustration that they’ve wasted too much time trying to appease their House counterparts by voting repeatedly on the same doomed DHS bill, which Democrats have filibustered three times. High-ranking GOP senators are sending a warning flare to the House: The only thing worse than missing the first deadline of the year would be fighting this battle all over again in March or April.

“We’ve got to get off this. We’ve got to get it behind us. We have to at some point bring it to closure,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 Senate Republican. A short-term DHS funding deal “would be a bad outcome for the Senate just in terms of us being to do other things. … If we have to do a short-term extension, we’ve got to revisit this. The next time it comes over, it will take another couple weeks.”

The partisan stalemate is also undermining Republicans’ attempts to show they can run Congress effectively as they head into a tough fight to keep the Senate in 2016.

“This battle should be ended,” said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who wants a DHS funding bill with none of the immigration riders that the House attached to its version in January. “When we were given the honor of the majority, we have to govern wisely. Shutdowns are not wise policy for key national security-related departments.”

Asked for his solution to the stalemate, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) responded: “Take the same time we’re doing this and pass an immigration bill. That’s what I want.”

“We could be doing a lot of things,” added Flake, who had helped broker a deal for comprehensive immigration reform that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) spurned in the last Congress.

On February 13 2015 13:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Prove it or shut up.

On February 13 2015 13:58 IgnE wrote:


You know that broadband internet access comes through the same lines as cable tv right? Where should I start?

On February 13 2015 14:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:


I recommend starting with some research.

On February 13 2015 14:33 IgnE wrote:


You are the one who should be doing the research.

The coaxial cable networks that carry the majority of the country's internet services are the same ones that were used in the 80s to carry tv cable. What exactly are you asking me to prove other than pointing out that your "investments" line on a financial report could mean anything, including updating the uniforms of the comcast guy who comes out to check your box? I can't prove that you don't know anything about the internet industry. I just know it.