FTC Wants To Tax Websites and Bloggers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good god, the crying in this thread is unlelieveable...how anyone reading:

FTC Wants To Tax Websites and Bloggers?

How does a 5% tax on any electronic device (laptops, iPads, etc.) that allows you to access news stories via the internet sound to you? Where will the tax money go? As the Washington Times puts it…to the dead-tree version of the news.
Click to expand...

...turn that into "OMG SPIN!" "SENSATIONAL HEADLINE" "I'M CRYING ABOUT THE NEWS AGAIN!" "I EXPECT MORE FROM [H]" "I CLICK ON LINKS ABOUT STUFF I HATE JUST SO I CAN COMPLAIN!!"...

...seriously?

Anyhow, it is a link to an editorial, no one is forcing you or charging you to read it. :rolleyes:
 
Steve said:
Good god, the crying in this thread is unlelieveable...how anyone reading:



...turn that into "OMG SPIN!" "SENSATIONAL HEADLINE" "I'M CRYING ABOUT THE NEWS AGAIN!" "I EXPECT MORE FROM [H]" "I CLICK ON LINKS ABOUT STUFF I HATE JUST SO I CAN COMPLAIN!!"...

...seriously?

Anyhow, it is a link to an editorial, no one is forcing you or charging you to read it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I apologize... I will refrain from posting comments in the comments section. Guess comments go somewhere else.
 
orkan said:
Spin spin spin.

Every competent American knows exactly what the FTC's intentions are, and so does Steve.

"They are just showing feedback and results from a third party."

Yeah, and the nazi's were just doing the same thing when they were pushing their hate-the-jew propaganda. Didn't change the outcome then... and it won't change the outcome now. Too bad more Americans don't have the intelligence to think for themselves.
Click to expand...

Huh? So many look at this and don't come away with the Nazis connection and if one doesn't that person is not thinking for himself?

I would say that differing opinions are a sign that indeed people ARE thinking for themselves. I don't think that the Nazis were renowned for freedom of thought.
 
Corporations need to wake up to the fact that growth cannot be infinite. Eventually, things like the telegraph just stop succeeding. Please desist in trying to get the public to agree to your palliative care.
 
orkan said:
It is a well known fact that the president and his subordinates are circumventing congress and the checks and balances of the government by using the various agencies to enact "regulation" that does not require votes or approval by the citizens of this country.
Click to expand...

Source?

anonmoniker said:
It's well known that the Obama regime is upset that the mainstream media has lost its monopoly on information dissemination.
Click to expand...

Source?

I like it when people use the phrase "well known fact". It makes it easy to tell who's pulling conspiracy theories out of their asses.
 
orkan said:
Funny, Fox News doesn't seem to be hurting. Point in fact, they are breaking their ratings records all the time. It seems that people can tell the truth when they hear it. Maybe if some other networks and newspapers would try it REGARDLESS of their agenda, they might not be feeling such a financial pinch.
Click to expand...
You're equating Fox News with truth because of high ratings? I would sooner compare it with that other highest-rated Fox show: American Idol.
 
itanium said:
Hope and Change
Click to expand...


change_its_all_thats_left_poster-p228093717648873826tdcz_210.jpg

....is all your going to be left with when they get done.... :rolleyes:
 
I'm out of this thread.

This is the reason I live in South Dakota. Absence of foolish people that think the government is the answer. The government is not the answer to ANYONE except the government.

You people should try to do for yourself once, you might find it rewarding.
 
I bet that if the government stopped all agriculture support there would be plenty of people upset in South Dakota.
 
ghost6303 said:
....is all your going to be left with when they get done.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



and while we are on the topic- Fox news is the biggest threat to the US that we currently face. an organization with that much influence spreading outright lies every single day, rarely checking facts or authenticity, willfully distributing false, even fabricated, information to the masses. unfortunately they have many sheep that blindly follow papa bear and the wolf, without even processing what comes out of their mouths.

other people should also try and set the example of checking the facts before distributing stories like this one *cough*

</foxnews>
</rant>
<end>
 
Steve said:
Good god, the crying in this thread is unlelieveable...how anyone reading:



...turn that into "OMG SPIN!" "SENSATIONAL HEADLINE" "I'M CRYING ABOUT THE NEWS AGAIN!" "I EXPECT MORE FROM [H]" "I CLICK ON LINKS ABOUT STUFF I HATE JUST SO I CAN COMPLAIN!!"...

...seriously?

Anyhow, it is a link to an editorial, no one is forcing you or charging you to read it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Surely no one would confuse your intentions when you tack a question mark on the end of a headline like "FTC wants to tax websites and bloggers?"

"Liberals want to eat our children, take away our guns?"
 
Steve said:
Good god, the crying in this thread is unlelieveable...how anyone reading:



...turn that into "OMG SPIN!" "SENSATIONAL HEADLINE" "I'M CRYING ABOUT THE NEWS AGAIN!" "I EXPECT MORE FROM [H]" "I CLICK ON LINKS ABOUT STUFF I HATE JUST SO I CAN COMPLAIN!!"...

...seriously?

Anyhow, it is a link to an editorial, no one is forcing you or charging you to read it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that the FTC doesn't want to do that, and never said they did.
 
ianken said:
LOL. It;s the modem tax all over again and the same knee jerk clueless rants from uneducated posters about it. ZOMG! The Secret Muslim Communist Black Helicopter New World Order is going to tax my pr0n pipe! WTFBBQ!!!1!!!ONE!!!111

RTFA at FCC.GOV you newbs. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/journalism.shtm

And Steve? I expect shit like this from Gizmodo. Not [H].
Click to expand...


You are really trying to argue that the only reliable source is from the government agency involved? So the press secretary is the only place to get reliable news about the president? You fail at debating even the absurd imaginary version of who you disagree with. That's the mental version of getting all gutters in bowling with the little kid bumpers on the sides.
 
Print media as a large conglomeration of things has pretty well become a cesspool of sensationalized crap. People read the trash rags, and the newspapers saw that decades ago, so they started to push more sensation in their articles, more dramatized views and more editorial comments.

Most newspapers have a few of their own articles, the rest of the crap is reprinted from Reuters, and other sources anyway.

The websites are doing no different. The difference is, NY Times, Washington Times and those types of sources are losing money, and they can't figure out how to capitalize on the new media because they're sniffing the printing press inks all day long.

The new media sucks a dick too though for good solid information. Its bloggers that shouldn't do nothing but shut up and not say a thing. But they're making money. Drudge, Huffington Post both are in the same boat.

The middle ground has to be something between the two. Because its pretty obvious that integrity in the general media is a thing of the past. Its all about the entertainment value, thats what drives so much of it today.

Eventually this will all pan out, its just the unions that are part of most newspapers trying to keep the ties to their jobs in place, coupled with the non union based websites, and their free spirited approach to life clashing.
 
rally9x said:
I do enjoy how the Ars Technica (who I normally like quite a bit) article basicly lists anything that is a new fee or tax as a "terrible" idea but anything that is a new way to spend government money is not such a bad idea. They must think that the money that the government spends never comes from people and companies.
Click to expand...

They need to stop new spending and cut current taxes not create new ones. Take from one and give to another is not the American way. It never works, and promotes an entitlement mentality.
 
Trolling or idiot? Sometimes a difficult question reading some of these comments. In either case however, better to just ignore.
 
I read the document from the FTC, no where did it say anything about websites or bloggers being taxed.
 
orkan said:
I'm out of this thread.

This is the reason I live in South Dakota. Absence of foolish people that think the government is the answer. The government is not the answer to ANYONE except the government.

You people should try to do for yourself once, you might find it rewarding.
Click to expand...

Are you sure the reason you live in South Dakota isn't because of a lack of better options available to you because of poor lifestyle decisions early in life, or circumstances beyond your control like being born in a largely rural, economically depressed region prone to religious zealotry. These opportunity limiting factors surely wouldn't have prevented you from enjoying a more worldly education and exposure to progressive ideals that might have curtailed all the "Rraaghgh government bad, WAKE UP this is ARE country, don't tax me bro" bullshit that seems to seep from your posts.
 
bacon said:
They need to stop new spending and cut current taxes not create new ones. Take from one and give to another is not the American way. It never works, and promotes an entitlement mentality.
Click to expand...

Okay, no Social Security or Medicare benefits for you.
 
Sorry Steve, the headline and the fact that the answer is no just made me think way too much of this.


FTC Wants To Tax Websites and Bloggers?
thum_188014b12f34ad1cfd.jpg

I'm just asking Questions.
 
evilsofa said:
Okay, no Social Security or Medicare benefits for you.
Click to expand...

Tell me how to opt out of these shitty systems and in exchange keep the outrageous 15.3% tax for myself. I would GLADLY renounce my "benefits" under these programs. You know they're ripoffs when the government has to con the public by keeping half of the taxed amount off paychecks to hide the true cost.
 
anonmoniker said:
Tell me how to opt out of these shitty systems and in exchange keep the outrageous 15.3% tax for myself. I would GLADLY renounce my "benefits" under these programs. You know they're ripoffs when the government has to con the public by keeping half of the taxed amount off paychecks to hide the true cost.
Click to expand...

As a satisfied payee into these systems I would love for you to do this because the 15.3% of your salary paid in so far isn't nearly going to pay your benefits and costs when you eventually drive a 4 wheeler into a tree.
 
Don't like the Glen Beck connection?

Yes I do, don't know why, but yes I do have an account there.
 
I expect more from here. I just spent the last two hours reading the articles, tracing back the links, then going through 20-30 pages of this document.

I read the corresponding sections and found these to be proposals on thoughts of a future structure to preserve true news reporting and not just reporting on a report. But aside from all of this, it is not even a proposal; it was a gathering of ideas.

Ironic that the idea on paper is intended to serve news orginizations like this as a law to keep other websites that do not origionate content from stealing revenue through calculated misdirection.

Conservatives are right to worry that the Obama administration would target the Second Amendment and try to take away Americans’ gun rights. But it turns out it’s the liberals who are targeting the First Amendment and trying to seize control of the American media.
Click to expand...

...what?
 
Newspapers are desperately trying to save their skin. Locate bizarro interpretation of that "news." Outrage ensues. :rolleyes:
 
I am only going to say this once, get this tread back on track or it will be closed.

Name calling and/or personal attacks on the geographical location, educational background etc. etc. of other forum members has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Thanks.
 
pi3 said:
As a satisfied payee into these systems I would love for you to do this because the 15.3% of your salary paid in so far isn't nearly going to pay your benefits and costs when you eventually drive a 4 wheeler into a tree.
Click to expand...

Why are you satisfied about a forced investment of your wages at a negative rate of return, particularly when this "investment" isn't your property and the government may or may not give it to you when the time comes? Perhaps you're happy with a lower standard of living so that the later generations can subsidize baby boomers, but I find this inter-generational theft a deplorable state of affairs. I'm going to lose roughly a million dollars over my lifetime to this scam, more if they start taxing my entire salary instead of just the first $106,800 (and rising each year).
 
ghost6303 said:
and while we are on the topic- Fox news is the biggest threat to the US that we currently face. an organization with that much influence spreading outright lies every single day, rarely checking facts or authenticity, willfully distributing false, even fabricated, information to the masses. unfortunately they have many sheep that blindly follow papa bear and the wolf, without even processing what comes out of their mouths.

other people should also try and set the example of checking the facts before distributing stories like this one *cough*

</foxnews>
</rant>
<end>
Click to expand...

When I read a post like this I become more and more convinced FOX is and has been doing it right. It makes my day.:D
 
pi3 said:
As a satisfied payee into these systems I would love for you to do this because the 15.3% of your salary paid in so far isn't nearly going to pay your benefits and costs when you eventually drive a 4 wheeler into a tree.
Click to expand...

How can you be satisfied with Government programs that force you to pay into ponzi schemes?

Unrelated to your response, I'd like to point out that terrible legislation (ObamaCare, 3.6 trillion dollar budget, GM and Chrysler takeovers, etc.) all start as terrible ideas. Just because the FTC rejected these ideas doesn't mean some shitheaded politician won't latch on to them to pay back some of those newspapers that wrote puff pieces about him during his election campaign. I don't think anyone harbors serious doubts about the Government's willingness to steal from one group of individuals to pay off another.
 
anonmoniker said:
Why are you satisfied about a forced investment of your wages at a negative rate of return, particularly when this "investment" isn't your property and the government may or may not give it to you when the time comes? Perhaps you're happy with a lower standard of living so that the later generations can subsidize baby boomers, but I find this inter-generational theft a deplorable state of affairs. I'm going to lose roughly a million dollars over my lifetime to this scam, more if they start taxing my entire salary instead of just the first $106,800 (and rising each year).
Click to expand...

Because I don't view it as an investment and no one should. These programs aren't for my direct benefit at present, but for the sustainability of an aging population. I feel we have a responsibility to provide for those who cannot otherwise care for themselves (the elderly and sick especially). And yes, I suppose I am happy with a "lower" standard of living if it means I don't have to live in a society that would toss the needy out on the street just to save a few bucks.
 
pi3 said:
Because I don't view it as an investment and no one should. These programs aren't for my direct benefit at present, but for the sustainability of an aging population. I feel we have a responsibility to provide for those who cannot otherwise care for themselves (the elderly and sick especially). And yes, I suppose I am happy with a "lower" standard of living if it means I don't have to live in a society that would toss the needy out on the street just to save a few bucks.
Click to expand...

So... these programs have ended homelessness, poverty, inequality? Does our society toss the needy to the streets or provide homeless shelters for them (Ronald McDonald house, Habitat for Humanity, etc.)? That sounds like a bit of a straw man argument.
 
pi3 said:
Because I don't view it as an investment and no one should. These programs aren't for my direct benefit at present, but for the sustainability of an aging population. I feel we have a responsibility to provide for those who cannot otherwise care for themselves (the elderly and sick especially). And yes, I suppose I am happy with a "lower" standard of living if it means I don't have to live in a society that would toss the needy out on the street just to save a few bucks.
Click to expand...

The elderly can care for themselves by putting money away during their working lives. Retirement is supposed to be a reward for a lifetime of hard work and frugality, not something someone is entitled to regardless of what they did with their life. People who choose not to save can be door greeters at Wal-Mart. I don't have sympathy for a generation who voted for leaders that taxed them at a rate far lower than what will be needed to pay for the retirement benefits they want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top