74% Oppose Taxing Internet News Sites To Help Newspapers

Dreaz said:
Who cares what the people think? The people are stupid.

Hell, 60 years ago you could replace this with segregation laws. 10 years ago you could point this to people supporting the crappy Patriot Act. And just a few weeks ago, you can use the same numbers for people who are flat-out racist in Arizona.
Click to expand...
This is true. Bailing out companies, however, is stupider.
Steve said:
Last century, people used them for all kinds of stuff:

Fish wrapper
Bird cage lining
Packing material
Masking paper for paint
Comics

Was gonna say cleaning glass but phide beat me to it! :cool:
Click to expand...
Left out insulation. I found newsprint dated December 1917 in the walls of my last house. Brrr!
 
Adaptation is king. Long gone are the days of old where news was mostly gleamed from pieces of paper.

With that said, I read the local paper on a regular basis. The local newspaper company isn't quite up to completely posting all their gatherings online but they are getting to that point quickly. If I had a choice to pay for a piece of paper or pay for online access, it would be the latter. I'd support them as they do provide a good service.
 
Taxing new technology to subsidize old technology? That's completely backwards if you ask me.

Nanan said:
The only two legal taxes in the USA are import duties and sales tax on non-edible goods, all others are aggressive theft at gun point.
Click to expand...

brandinb said:
The feds cannot constitutionally tax income of a citizen. the state can do this. Simple as that
Click to expand...

Come on guys...the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives the federal government power to collect an income tax. Hard to call something unconstitutional that's specifically allowed in the Constitution.

Don't like it, repeal the Sixteenth (and get rid of the Seventeenth too while you're at it).
 
The internet media gets its news from old school papers and reporters still. The amount of legitimate (not some loon opining from his mother's basement) news that's actually researched, confirmed and reported by internet news sites wouldn't keep any of them afloat. I don't think taxing the sites is the answer though whoever mines the information and verifies deserves compensation too.
 
"My industry is dying because nobody wants my product. Please bail me out!"

It's so stupid. Just the same crap we've been through before.

Newspapers can cut their costs. TechNet mag switched to online-only format.
You can cut deliverymen, workers comp, benefits, office space, and tons of equipment by adapting to the times. You can still keep your reporters on the field.
 
UrielDagda said:
I'm curious to see just how all of that stuff could be done automagically for free if government just mystically disappeared.
Click to expand...

Um, it's not done for FREE now. You work for the government 3-4 months a year... That's how much of your money goes to them.


I think government can tax me for infrastructure (roads, water, electric, etc), protection (military)... But above and beyond that, taxes are just stupid. I can plan for my retirement better than having money sucked out of my check into the Ponzi scheme known as SSI.

Cool little fact... Russia was in the same boat we were (what, like 10 years ago??). High taxes, debt to the eyeballs, no way out. Similar tax structure too (12% tax if you were poor). They went to a 13% flat tax (cheaper overall to everyone) and had SURPLUSES of money. But naturally, our idiot government hates trying stuff proven to work. They'd rather keep trying the same old failed methods.
 
Gotta love these ridiculous non-stories. It's quite interesting how the political right, when a Democrat is president, will pretty much fabricate anything and everything possible to foment complete and utter distrust in government as far and wide as they possibly can, pretty much even changing their view from conservative to the farthest right libertarianism. But have a Republican government, and it's downright treasonous to question a single thing, and people should be put to death for it.

I'm pretty far left in my personal views, but pragmatically, think the best that can be done is somewhere in the middle... But there is never any middle ground with the right politically. Never. No wonder we don't ever get anything fixed in government, because nobody will actually attack the root of the problem-- lobbyists and corporate interests that basically tax everybody with higher prices for buying their crap, so they can have the extra money to buy off the politicians.

But no, only the taxes from government is evil, but corporate taxation of the people is just "capitalism".

I hope one day I can become a gazillionaire so I can just simply put my brain in a jar and stop giving a crap.
 
UrielDagda said:
I'm curious to see just how all of that stuff could be done automagically for free if government just mystically disappeared.
Click to expand...
Because it's free now? Call me crazy, call me kooky, call me nutty, but I thought it was paid for via coercing the populace to divest themselves of their property under threat of imprisonment and/or confiscation anyway, as well as generally creating the funds out of thin air. Contrast that with private production, which has to gain voluntary customer support, such as buying from Newegg or Amazon. Or even eating at your local diner.

Anyway, the old media, as the good little mouthpieces that they are, must be propped up by those who actually matter now. It's For The Good Of Us All, right? We must not allow any mouthpiece to fail; that would mean more of the Bad Deeds Of Government get published, and We Can't Have That. The old media keeps the brainwashing of the masses going, so the new media must be hamstrung in order to keep the old media going. It's very Harrison Bergeron-ish.
 
TexUs said:
Cool little fact... Russia was in the same boat we were (what, like 10 years ago??). High taxes, debt to the eyeballs, no way out. Similar tax structure too (12% tax if you were poor). They went to a 13% flat tax (cheaper overall to everyone) and had SURPLUSES of money. But naturally, our idiot government hates trying stuff proven to work. They'd rather keep trying the same old failed methods.
Click to expand...

Before the last election, Obama was asked about his plan to raise the capital gains tax, and the reported pointed out that when rate has been raised in the past, the total income to the government went down, and when the rate has been lowered, the collections have gone up.
Obama's answer was that he still supported the increase because it was "fair", even if it lowered revenue to the government.

Taxes are not just about the money, it's about power and control over the people.
 
Fixed.....


Gotta love these ridiculous non-stories. It's quite interesting how the political left, when a Republican is president, will pretty much fabricate anything and lie to personally destroy them. They will forment complete and utter distrust of the private sector as far and wide as they possibly can. Even changing what they call themselves from liberal to progressives to decive the public. But have a Democrat government, and it's downright treasonous to question a single thing, and people should be arrested and sent to jail for even questioning the government.

I'm pretty far right in my personal views, but pragmatically, think the best that can be done is to follow the constitution. There is never any middle ground with the left politically. Never. If they lose a vote, they just keep comming back year after year, or find some liberal judge to over turn what the people want. No wonder we don't ever get anything fixed in government, because the left can't see the root of the problem-- The size of Government. As long as the goverment has thier fingers in so much of the economy, lobbyists and corporate interests have to basically tax everybody with higher prices , so they can have the extra money to pay off the politicians.

But no, the left believes government is all good, and corporations and profit as in "capitalism" are all evil.
 
TexUs said:
Um, it's not done for FREE now. You work for the government 3-4 months a year... That's how much of your money goes to them.


I think government can tax me for infrastructure (roads, water, electric, etc), protection (military)... But above and beyond that, taxes are just stupid. I can plan for my retirement better than having money sucked out of my check into the Ponzi scheme known as SSI.

Cool little fact... Russia was in the same boat we were (what, like 10 years ago??). High taxes, debt to the eyeballs, no way out. Similar tax structure too (12% tax if you were poor). They went to a 13% flat tax (cheaper overall to everyone) and had SURPLUSES of money. But naturally, our idiot government hates trying stuff proven to work. They'd rather keep trying the same old failed methods.
Click to expand...

SSI and Social Security are separate things. Social Security is for retirement and disability, and SSI is supplemental disability.

And of course, Russia got into that position because they kept dumping more and more money into their military and the death knell wound up being an ill advised war in Afghanistan.

We'd save a hell of a lot more money if we weren't being double taxed in America-- forced to pay higher prices for goods so corporations can buy politicians and pay their higher- ups much, much more money every year in raises than the average employee ever sees, and having to also pay for what the country needs for infrastructure.

Yeah, there are some stupid taxes out there, but that's not the general message.. Seems like tons of teabaggers out there who don't want any taxes, infrastructure or otherwise, and just want the country to revert to the old frontier living apparently.
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
Anyway, the old media, as the good little mouthpieces that they are, must be propped up by those who actually matter now. It's For The Good Of Us All, right? We must not allow any mouthpiece to fail; that would mean more of the Bad Deeds Of Government get published, and We Can't Have That. The old media keeps the brainwashing of the masses going, so the new media must be hamstrung in order to keep the old media going. It's very Harrison Bergeron-ish.
Click to expand...

Except the entire thing is bullshit and is about as real as somebody saying aliens are coming down to Earth to eat our faces because of a hoax or bad LSD trip, then everybody completely freaking out about it.
 
nutzo said:
Before the last election, Obama was asked about his plan to raise the capital gains tax, and the reported pointed out that when rate has been raised in the past, the total income to the government went down, and when the rate has been lowered, the collections have gone up.
Obama's answer was that he still supported the increase because it was "fair", even if it lowered revenue to the government.

Taxes are not just about the money, it's about power and control over the people.
Click to expand...

The only thing about that is it makes no fucking sense. The only way that would happen is if there was fraud involved.. That would be like saying that I could buy more with $5 than I could with $10.

I mean if that shit was true, like, no magic tricks, no hidden money in overseas bank accounts, etc, then the government would have implemented a 1% flat tax long ago and be raking in $100 billion surpluses.

I'd like to really know the mechanics about that alleged "lower taxes means more money" crap.. I mean, hell, when Reagan dramatically lowered taxes on the rich, he had to borrow trillions to offset it, and eventually had to raise taxes again.
 
phide said:
State sales tax is intended to cover these bases, which it could, if it weren't for governmental bloat. Funding for transporation-related projects usually comes from state gas tax revenue, which is effectively just a reduced-rate state sales tax.
Click to expand...

Sales tax, vehicle registrations, license, etc. They have all kinds of revenue.
 
well, lets see. high taxes = companies move money, headquarters and jobs overseas for lower tax rates. they outsource everything they can. It is not a matter of greed, it is what they exist to do and that means surviving in the best way possible.

Now capital gains taxes, well, if tax rates go up the simple solution is to leave the money alone and not pay any at all. A secondary solution is to offset a gain with a loss with the result of... not paying any at all.

As to fairness, companies work, they pay taxes on their profits. A portion may then go to the shareholders, who guess what, have to pay taxes on them again via capital gains. Double taxation.

One could say that people spending money would be a good thing. That is what happens in bubbles. Jobs get created, people make money, people buy stuff, and so forth.

Now throw tons of income taxes, sales taxes and hidden taxes into the mix. A large portion of the money getting spent now gets absorbed into the government. There is less to circulate. As a result the economy becomes stagnant.

How does sluggishness come onto play? Well, historically if you compare the tax rates against GDP you will find that regardless of tax rate the actual amount collected will be from 17 to 21% of GDP. Increasing taxrate results in reduced spending, a smaller GDP and less money collected.
http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/taxes-as-a-percentage-of-gross-domestic-product-1980-2007/
 
UrielDagda said:
I'd like to really know the mechanics about that alleged "lower taxes means more money" crap.. I mean, hell, when Reagan dramatically lowered taxes on the rich, he had to borrow trillions to offset it, and eventually had to raise taxes again.
Click to expand...

The idea is the laffer curve. Some say it is debunked, but never is there any accounting for some simple logic that implies there exist some truth to the idea. I can try to illustrate the idea with a simplified model. Suppose there is a flat tax as a percent of income.

If, in this system, taxes were 98% of your income, then you would only have 2% to spend on things you want/need to buy. How much of that is disposable income? Very little obviously so you strictly buy what you need and no toys like video cards and computer games. So much of the industry that exists today could not exist in that environment unless the government purchased those things you wanted for you. In all command economies there are massive inefficiencies with the distribution of goods and services and it is one of the reasons communism has repeatedly failed in history. After all, how can Washington bureaucrats have any idea of the computer hardware you want? They can't....but they will spend your money on something. At this level of command economy we have situations where, for example, there is a massive surplus of aglets and no shoe laces. Or a ton of peanut butter to eat, but no bread and no milk to wash it down.

Now start bringing the tax rate down. Say to 75%. You still have little money to spare, but not much and you can maybe occasionally buy a 6 pack with your extra money. Your purchase then drives up production in a specific area that leads to better allocation of resources since you know better what to spend your own money on. That money now support an industry and workers that also pay taxes. Maybe you can afford beer and your neighbors cannot so the left wings complains about wealth inequalities and wants to raise taxes to help the poor. But you are liking your beer and being able to spend your blood sweat and tears where you want.

Right wing political usurpation takes place and taxes are lowered to 50% and now you have a lot more money to spend, the gears of capitalism start to turn and industry expands (it is a well established fact that lowering taxes increases GDP.) And so more industry is running efficiently and so more money changes hands, more wealth is created and so more taxes are collected than before.

This can continue with lower and lower taxes....

Of course at 0% taxes, no revenue is collected so the maximum tax revenue does not occur at 0%. But somewhere it does occur and the debate is which side we are on. Republicans contend that we are over taxed and so lowering taxes would improve the economy and increase tax revenue. Democrats think the opposite. Neither has any proof, and both claims are made based on ideologies, one liberty of individual and the other is collectivism.

An extremely simplified model might be to suggest that GDP is a function of tax rate, and is parabolic.

f(x) = -(x - .10)^2 + 100

Where x is tax percent of gdp, and f(x) is in trillions of dollars for the GDP of the USA. The maximum tax rate for the GDP is .10%, but that does not mean tax rev is maximized. Then tax revenue is

R(x) = x * f(x) ;

since taxes would be the tax percent x * GDP. The maximum is then when R'(x) = 0 which happens at 5.84%. An increase in taxes in this model would result in lower tax revenue. A decrease in taxes would also lower tax revenue.

This is an extremely simplified model that only serves to illustrate the concepts behind the ideas, and are not offered at proof of any of the actual ideas.

I personally see both camps as spend happy and know that government cost what it spends, not what it taxes.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

By 2015 we should be nearly at 20 trillion dollars.:eek:
 
Dreaz said:
Who cares what the people think? The people are stupid.

Hell, 60 years ago you could replace this with segregation laws. 10 years ago you could point this to people supporting the crappy Patriot Act. And just a few weeks ago, you can use the same numbers for people who are flat-out racist in Arizona.
Click to expand...

I kinda have to agree with this guy^^
 
Been a subscriber to the Economist for years and will continue to get my paper copy.

They make it worth every penny. Others that can't adopt.... should die in a fire instead of taking my $$$.
 
BDV said:
Been a subscriber to the Economist for years and will continue to get my paper copy.

They make it worth every penny. Others that can't adopt.... should die in a fire instead of taking my $$$.
Click to expand...
I would agree that magazines and journals have more longevity. Thoroughly researched stories > News. And I can get my Sodoku fix elsewhere.
 
jiminator said:
if you no longer have a marketable product, then make a marketable product. I for one still enjoy getting a newspaper I can read, but I suspect I am the last of a dying breed.
Click to expand...

We only get the Sonday paper now, but is more for the Wifie to get her coupons and such. I do still prefer the tactile feeling of a physical paper, than online news reporting.

But - screw this tax. Adapt or die I say.
 
Ironically sites like hardocp.com and alot of the sites i love, exist PRIMARILY without these news sources that are complaining. news sources first attacked blogs credibility. now they have their own blogs and social networks, twitter etc (they adapted a bit).

however sites like hardocp get by, reporting their own news, articles and OTHER SITES like hardocp (blogs, news, tidbits, articles etc). It's their own modern news web, unlike "major news sources" gossiping about celebrities all day. are they going to cap freedom of speech, can we no longer make fun of michael jackson because CNN reported it first?

so in the end, sites that pull sources from other sites (gaming, tech, etc) IF WE TAX THEM HOW THE FARK IS THIS RELATED TO CNN'S REVENUE? what a sham.
 
UrielDagda said:
Except the entire thing is bullshit and is about as real as somebody saying aliens are coming down to Earth to eat our faces because of a hoax or bad LSD trip, then everybody completely freaking out about it.
Click to expand...
Except that it's not bullshit. The only reason the FTC backed down and tried to play it off as "well, this is just a perhaps maybe possibility sorta/kinda that we might be investigating because someone may have sometime suggested it" is that people got pissed off at seeing another unconstitutional tax (recall that all bills to raise revenue must originate in the House, and the FTC unilaterally creating a tax is assigning revenue-raising to the executive branch) being floated out there.
 
UrielDagda said:
The only thing about that is it makes no fucking sense. The only way that would happen is if there was fraud involved.. That would be like saying that I could buy more with $5 than I could with $10.

I mean if that shit was true, like, no magic tricks, no hidden money in overseas bank accounts, etc, then the government would have implemented a 1% flat tax long ago and be raking in $100 billion surpluses.

I'd like to really know the mechanics about that alleged "lower taxes means more money" crap.. I mean, hell, when Reagan dramatically lowered taxes on the rich, he had to borrow trillions to offset it, and eventually had to raise taxes again.
Click to expand...

You need to look it up, it's true.
Just think about it, who makes more money? A high volume, low cost comapny like Costco or Walmart, or a Higher Cost, lower volume reseller like all rhe department stores that have gone out of bussiness?

If the tax rate was 0% then the goverment would get nothing, but if it was 100% they would also get nothing (except for the 1st time they tried it). When the tax rate becomes too high, people will start making choices to avoid the tax, resulting in less tax collections. Tax rates need to be low enough that it is easier and cheaper to simply pay the taxes than to expend money or effort avoiding them.


In the case if capital gains, instead of selling an investment, paying the taxes and puting the money in a better investment, they will just leave the money in the existing investment & pay NO taxes. This also has the effect of drying up capital for new companies resulting in a slower economy & even less taxes.
 
This is the new American way. If you company is failing because you can't make a new product and people no longer want your shit, just get the government to steal the money from people and give it to you... I think we should tax forum posts and give the money to me. $35 per post sounds reasonable.
 
UrielDagda said:
Gotta love these ridiculous non-stories. It's quite interesting how the political right, when a Democrat is president, will pretty much fabricate anything and everything possible to foment complete and utter distrust in government as far and wide as they possibly can, pretty much even changing their view from conservative to the farthest right libertarianism. But have a Republican government, and it's downright treasonous to question a single thing, and people should be put to death for it.

I'm pretty far left in my personal views, but pragmatically, think the best that can be done is somewhere in the middle... But there is never any middle ground with the right politically. Never. No wonder we don't ever get anything fixed in government, because nobody will actually attack the root of the problem-- lobbyists and corporate interests that basically tax everybody with higher prices for buying their crap, so they can have the extra money to buy off the politicians.

But no, only the taxes from government is evil, but corporate taxation of the people is just "capitalism".

I hope one day I can become a gazillionaire so I can just simply put my brain in a jar and stop giving a crap.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
You can flip that argument right around onto Democrats too. Don't make this a party v party thing... Both parties are wholly corrupted.

It's also why IMO we always need the opposite party in control of Congress. A Republican is Prez? We need a democratic Congress and a democratic press. A Democrat is Prez? We need a republican Congress and a republican press.

The problem with Obama was that democrats controlled both congress and the press... Very little accountability there. Party-line votes are stupid.

UrielDagda said:
Yeah, there are some stupid taxes out there, but that's not the general message.. Seems like tons of teabaggers out there who don't want any taxes, infrastructure or otherwise, and just want the country to revert to the old frontier living apparently.
Click to expand...
The whole issue of double taxation is exactly why the flat tax in Russia helped save money. Nobody could avoid taxes. There wasn't a 10,000 page tax code. Flat taxes on everything meant you could also know exactly how much money there was to work with and budget with.

If your tax revenue starts falling short, than you know consumer spending is down. If consumers are cutting back, then the government sure as hell, more than anybody, should be cutting back as well.

UrielDagda said:
The only thing about that is it makes no fucking sense. The only way that would happen is if there was fraud involved..
Click to expand...
Exactly.

When you have a 10,000 page tax document that nobody understands, it gives benefits to corporations, individuals, and also contains so many freaking loopholes that alot of money vanishes that would otherwise be collected under a flat tax.

You know that the goons running things right now are 100000% opposed to an audit? If there was truly nothing to hide, there wouldn't be anything to worry about.

Now, constant audits are a PITA, but being we've never ever done a full audit of the Fed, once every 100 years is too much to ask?

1 said:
By 2015 we should be nearly at 20 trillion dollars.:eek:
Click to expand...
That's just the "debt".
Unfounded obligations are topping over $70 TRILLION right now. Both $70T and $20T are numbers that piss the public off, so the crooks in Washington just like focusing on the smaller number... The deficit.
Most people have no idea what the deficit is, if they realized if it's above 0, we go into debt... They'd want to bring it down QUICKLY. I think for some reason the public equates the deficit with debt. "1T in debt isn't too bad"... What they don't realize is that it's $1T farther in debt EACH YEAR. The deficit needs to be below 0 to begin paying off our loans. We are at a dangerous place, we will soon reach the point to where we are only paying off the INTEREST on the loans, none of the principal. Anyone that's been in credit card trouble knows that's a terrible place. Except there's no government to declare us "bankrupt" and wipe our slate clean... It's just straight up financial ruin.
At Obama's current rate (I'm going to single him out as him and his goons have done more damage to our financial state than any president in history), in 2012 our debt will pass our GDP. That is a scary freaking thing, and the spend-happy idiots in Washington and the people that support them either aren't connected enough to reality to see nothing good will come of a situation like this, or just ignore it.



So all in all, this whole tax thing is just a mess. This "bail out ______" nonsense is exactly what makes our tax code so complex and exactly what causes our GDP to fall.
If you want to survive, become competitive again. It's as simple as that. Adapt or fail.
 
1 said:
since taxes would be the tax percent x * GDP. The maximum is then when R'(x) = 0 which happens at 5.84%. An increase in taxes in this model would result in lower tax revenue. A decrease in taxes would also lower tax revenue.
Click to expand...

Wow, very nice :D

So in a flat tax system (simple tax), 5.84% would be the best tax rate?

That's lower than most SALES taxes, let alone what gets sucked out of my pocket every day.
 
1 said:
since taxes would be the tax percent x * GDP. The maximum is then when R'(x) = 0 which happens at 5.84%. An increase in taxes in this model would result in lower tax revenue. A decrease in taxes would also lower tax revenue.
Click to expand...

Interesting how you came up with that number.

Several years also an archeologist was researching ancient port cities, and why some prospered for centuries, while others went into decline and where abandoned in just a few decades. He eventually ran across records for one of these cities that was around for a very long time and found out the underling reason: Taxes.

All these cities started out with low taxes (taxes to import, use the docks, etc). The cities that kept the rates low, enjoyed long prosperity, while the cities that raised the tax rate to high eventually failed. When taxes where low (around 5-10%) the people would just pay the tax because it wasn’t worth the effort or risk to avoid it. However, for the cities that went above the 10% rate, they had to hire more guards & inspectors to check the ships. The higher the tax rate the more they had to hire, and the more tax money they needed. Eventually people resorted to smuggling to avoid the taxes, resulting in more guards & even more taxes to pay them. Eventually people would give up & go elsewhere, leading to the decline of the city.
 
seriously? I think there should be a sikkyu tax, 2 dollars a year and it all goes to me. I think its fair.
 
All I have to say is WOW. It's pretty much a known fact that the media rarely conveys the honest truth and twists each story to attract more listeners/watchers/readers etc. It simply amazes me that the gov would try to setup programs to help support this nonsense. Why don't they setup a program that will create value within the media, not simply bail them out and enable them to continue their bad practices. Do something to force them to be more honest, force them not to use fear tactics to attract more audiences, force them not to bend over to their advertisers, and get them back to roots of what journalists, news casters, etc. originally wanted to do. But this will never happen.
 
complexx said:
All I have to say is WOW. It's pretty much a known fact that the media rarely conveys the honest truth and twists each story to attract more listeners/watchers/readers etc. It simply amazes me that the gov would try to setup programs to help support this nonsense. Why don't they setup a program that will create value within the media, not simply bail them out and enable them to continue their bad practices. Do something to force them to be more honest, force them not to use fear tactics to attract more audiences, force them not to bend over to their advertisers, and get them back to roots of what journalists, news casters, etc. originally wanted to do. But this will never happen.
Click to expand...

Yea, because of FREE SPEECH, I sure don't want the government forcing their will upon what they can report on.
 
TexUs said:
:rolleyes:
At Obama's current rate (I'm going to single him out as him and his goons have done more damage to our financial state than any president in history), in 2012 our debt will pass our GDP. That is a scary freaking thing, and the spend-happy idiots in Washington and the people that support them either aren't connected enough to reality to see nothing good will come of a situation like this, or just ignore it.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
LOL man. come on... the guy has barely been in office for not even 2 years, and has been given the task of cleaning up after many many years of lousy regulation among the financial markets which contributed to this lousy state we are in today. Not to forget to mention a couple wars where we essentially wasted many American lives and a fuck ton of money. It was barely 10 years ago that our country was in a state of surplus. Now I know that we were likely destined to have the financial market devastation we had anyway, but don't you think that without the wars, and perhaps some better regulation 10 years ago, we might not be in such a bad position now?

TexUs said:
So all in all, this whole tax thing is just a mess. This "bail out ______" nonsense is exactly what makes our tax code so complex and exactly what causes our GDP to fall.
If you want to survive, become competitive again. It's as simple as that. Adapt or fail.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
TexUs said:
Yea, because of FREE SPEECH, I sure don't want the government forcing their will upon what they can report on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, free speech is bending over and taking it in the rear end for your advertisers because they threaten to pull their business if you don't. The media is not in existence because of their right to free speech. They are still kicking because theres still a dime to be maid by big companies via advertising.
 
TexUs said:
Yea, because of FREE SPEECH, I sure don't want the government forcing their will upon what they can report on.
Click to expand...

My comment was intended to lead you to the conclusion that the media is already being forced to report on certain things and not others by the way.
 
complexx said:
:rolleyes:
LOL man. come on... the guy has barely been in office for not even 2 years, and has been given the task of cleaning up after many many years of lousy regulation among the financial markets which contributed to this lousy state we are in today. Not to forget to mention a couple wars where we essentially wasted many American lives and a fuck ton of money. It was barely 10 years ago that our country was in a state of surplus. Now I know that we were likely destined to have the financial market devastation we had anyway, but don't you think that without the wars, and perhaps some better regulation 10 years ago, we might not be in such a bad position now?
Click to expand...

Obama did more in one year to our finances than Bush did in 8. IE, most destructive president.
I'm not supporting Bush's spending at all, I'm just saying Obama has done more than any other president, which is why I'll just single him out.

The wars are a BS excuse... Bush ran one for 8 years and didn't spend as much as Obama did in 1. If Obama would've kept his promise to withdraw (instead of just moving the war to Afghanistan... yea.... big progress there :rolleyes:)- my point is that he doesn't have an excuse as far as wars go.

Regulation also contributed to the housing collapse. Go lookup the The Community Reinvestment Act. And guess which president later changed it to make it easier for banks to loan huge amounts of money to people with no money down and no means of repayment???? It took 10 years (Yes, it was Clinton) for that to eventually snowball in on itself, but it happened. It's just a case of government intervention causing us more issues than if they would've left it alone. Housing was a contributing factor of this recession we are now in.
It's also rather well known today, after we see the effects of the Great Depression, that the government's efforts to correct it actually PROLONGED the recovery. And yet we're doing the same thing today. Government intervention and regulation is just something that only creates more problems.
 
complexx said:
Yeah, free speech is bending over and taking it in the rear end for your advertisers because they threaten to pull their business if you don't. The media is not in existence because of their right to free speech. They are still kicking because theres still a dime to be maid by big companies via advertising.
Click to expand...
Go research what the government-regulated and controlled media in North Korea looks like. And then get back to me and pitch the whole "our media isn't around because of free speech" thing again.

complexx said:
My comment was intended to lead you to the conclusion that the media is already being forced to report on certain things and not others by the way.
Click to expand...
No, it's just they'll report on what financially benefits them the most. Fox News took some flak for reporting on stuff the other media outlets didn't. Obama tried to ban them from press outings. As a result? They swept the floor with ratings... People will use whatever corporation they most trust. I'm not advocating for or against Fox News, I'm just giving you an example of how the whole freedom thing works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top