D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
Just the opposite really. Net neutrality means that the goverment has less control over the internet because all traffic is treated the same. Be it fox news or air america.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
US Court Rules Against FCC on `Net Neutrality'
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Just the opposite really. Net neutrality means that the goverment has less control over the internet because all traffic is treated the same. Be it fox news or air america.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
I wonder how long till they cut off my streaming net flix? :-(
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
Very well said.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
The point is there is a true lack of competition. Comcast and Cox are a monopoly in MANY MANY areas. And they are buying up more and more smaller companies. So what choice do you have?
It's like the electric company saying "You can run our electricity on your refridgerator. There's a $50 surchage/month for that option and you can only run it at half power." How absurd is that? Electricity is electricity. Bits are bits.
If you have bandwidth hogs, just cut them off! Or make them pay more!
BTW: I was asked to do a study on 4G broadband. Even if EVERY provider was to switch to 4G, it could only satisfy a little more 4% of the US's daily traffic. There's a limit to how much data radio waves can carry, hate to tell you.
I havent seen any postes blaming Obama, so not sure what your point there is.
But i do agree that this isnt just about the current administration, it started well before that.
The commerce clause sure is getting a work out here lately. That little clause is the lynchpin for alot of new rules being put into place. I know there are lawsuits by states regarding the healthcare rules that are using that clause as a basis.
To be honest, I didnt realize just how much the FCC could really do with the laws at its disposal. But I hope someone is watching the watchers lol. I guess that should be us, the people, even though no one at the FCC is elected.
Exactly right, so the next question is how do you fix that? You fix that by restricting government. in this case, restricting the ability to make such exclusive contracts.
so your saying that minimum speeds should be mandated? that would make sense if comcast garunteed a minimum speed. think of it this way. In CA there are many times when electricty has to be conserved, so while your still paying for whatever you use, sometimes you have access to much less than other times. that would be similar to a bandwidth cap. im not saying a cap is right, but if your going to compare the two, then i could see that as an excuse.
im not following the fridge comparison. your not charged per device you use to access the internet, your only limited by speed and bandwidth (with some companies like comcast). wehter you get half speed or full speed is determined by alot of factors, so its hard to pin down just one thing.
and about the bandwidth hogs. Make them pay more? Is that like making the rich pay for everything? I cringe when hearing that kind of idea. And what consititutes a bandwidth hog? We get bent out of shape when Comcast has a 250GB cap, how would that change under net nuetrality rules?
i wonder though. you know most people dont use that much bandwidth these days. i know alot of people that have already switched to 3G for their isp and have been happy. During your study, did you find out how that traffic was spread out? Was it concentrated in certain areas outside of the general consumer uses?
But on your point about speed, I am fully aware that there is a limit to the power of radio waves. It was just an illustration of the competition for internet access. Its a viable option for alot of people, so you cant ignore that. As another example, I would point to Verizon, AT&T and Google pushing fiber service. I was shocked to find out that U-Verse is in my area. We arent exactly a huge city compared to others, so it was a welcomes suprise. I cant wait for Verizon to get here, that should really get prices down. Im on the verge of changing to U-Verse becuase of the savings versus Comcast and the better performance.
Reading the thread is good
As far as for why the Commerce Clause is getting a "workout", a bit of history on the Articles of Confederation is a pretty easy explanation. "Lately" is also relative, because it's been exercised pretty consistently over the past two centuries, increasing proportionally with increases in interstate and global commerce.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
+1 million
way too many shortsighted children in the thread badmouthing the economic system that has enabled the vast amount of the world's wealth generation of the past 100 years...
I weep for our country when the next generation takes the helm.....
Reading the thread is good
As far as for why the Commerce Clause is getting a "workout", a bit of history on the Articles of Confederation is a pretty easy explanation. "Lately" is also relative, because it's been exercised pretty consistently over the past two centuries, increasing proportionally with increases in interstate and global commerce.
alright you got me lol, i missed that one.
i didnt mean the use of the clause, but as far as the courts having to make decisions about its involvement in many of these matters. At least i havent heard alot about challenges regarding the clause in quite some time. I can see those issues only getting more heated as we move toward more and more commerce of this sort.
That wouldn't really fix anything. The big issue is infrastructure. If Comcast owns the cable lines, for example, then nobody can compete with them without laying their own lines or paying Comcast (which Comcast can refuse to do). Either way, you won't get true competition. This is were government regulation enters the picture - just like it does for utilities and phone lines which have similar situations.
Competition is great when you can have it. You simply can't with some things. Capitalism is not a solve all, it is not a magical fix everything. It is not the peak of civilization. It is not always the answer to a better country. Likewise, restricting government will not always fix things. Restricting government is not always a good idea. A free market requires regulation to stay a free market. Pure capitalism inevitably leads to a monopoly. Without government regulation, we would only have monopolies.
That is because you completely fail to understand what Net Neutrality is about. What we currently have is what the FCC wants to mandate. We currently have net neutrality. We currently are not charged per device (endpoint). Without net neutrality, you CAN (and will) be charged per device (endpoint) - only devices will be websites. Think back to the AOL days. Imagine if AOL charged 2 rates. The cheaper rate only included access to AOL's walled garden. You couldn't access the rest of the internet at all - only those sites that paid to be apart of AOL's little world. The second (much higher) rate gave you full access to every web site. THAT is what net neutrality prevents. Net neutrality has *NOTHING* to do with bandwidth caps or globally limiting speed if you exceed thresholds or minimum speeds or anything of that sort.
Please, for the love of god, understand what net neutrality actually is and isn't before you comment on it
SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
Oh good so Comcast can continue to cap my Download and upload speed even though my connection is capable of much more. There is AT&T DSL in my area but the speeds are pretty horrid. FIOS and Google fiber please, comcast just needs to die for good.
The control is better left in the hands of the companies and consumers. The company is trying to sell you (the consumer, the source of revenue) a product. If you dont like the service, bitch and moan to the company, switch companies, etc. This creates the possibility for competition becuase now other companies have a reason to bring you more options. You're the one with the power to do something right now, if you wish for government intervention you're relinquishing any and all power you have.
Im all for 'net neutrality', and its not at all consistent with a sentence containing the words 'government mandated'.
Im all for 'net neutrality', and its not at all consistent with a sentence containing the words 'government mandated'.
I'm with Paul.
fasterthanlight
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 677
Reading the thread is good
As far as for why the Commerce Clause is getting a "workout", a bit of history on the Articles of Confederation is a pretty easy explanation. "Lately" is also relative, because it's been exercised pretty consistently over the past two centuries, increasing proportionally with increases in interstate and global commerce.
For the Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign, Genachowski was Chairman of the Technology, Media and Telecommunications policy working group that created the Obama Technology and Innovation Plan.
oops. you should read more too.
One day, all you who think it is okay now to let the govt in the front door, will come to us who haven't let them in, and ask for us to help protect you. We will, because we want all to win, not just the anti business people.
If you opened up the poles for more fiber, cable, and whatever, you will see competition go up and prices go down. Econ 101.
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
The irony of you statement is that our parents said the same thing.. Most likely WE are from the same generation. (born in '72). The economic system as it is in it's current state is NOTHING like it was back when we were growing up. We now live in this Cult of Corporation that has done more harm than good if you ask me. where are my local shopkeeps? My local tire wholesaler? My meatmarkets?, produce markets?, and fish markets? Well they were drummed out of business by large corporations.
Capitalism has brought us some great things such as a higher standard of living but at what cost? It has led us into a few wars, broken family businesses, and moved entire industries overseas and away from our country in the never-ending quest for higher profit. Are those losses worth your inexpensive LCD TV? I personally think not.
The internet is my one luxury. every other dime I get goes to taking care of my family ( single parent) I am very tired of making others rich off of the sweat of my back. I am also saddened by the lack of opportunity in the land of opportunity. I have a guaranteed business loan from the VA, I'd love to use it, but to follow MY dream is a certain road to bankruptcy, there is just NO way I could compete with the large corporations, no matter what "service" I tried to use to differentiate myself from the pack, when the population is short on funds they will go for the cheaper option.
This was supposed to be a country BY the PEOPLE and FOR the PEOPLE. You (not you personally, just Capitalists in general) in the name of supposed freedom would gladly dismiss those basic tenets for higher profits.
This just can't be what our forefathers hoped for.
Well said.
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
Also I would like to charm in with:
It's awesome that we live in a country that we can have this healthy debate, most other places don't have this luxury. I don't hold any personal grudges with anyone regardless of their personal opinion,
BUT:
say our voicing get's in the way of profits. Our debates on which direction we believe this nation should go, are suddenly NOT in Comcast's best interest, would you agree that they should block this conversation from happening to maintain maximum profit levels?
That is what net neutrality is about and why it is a good idea to nip this in the bud before it reaches a darker more sinister level
It's awesome that we live in a country that we can have this healthy debate, most other places don't have this luxury. I don't hold any personal grudges with anyone regardless of their personal opinion,
BUT:
say our voicing get's in the way of profits. Our debates on which direction we believe this nation should go, are suddenly NOT in Comcast's best interest, would you agree that they should block this conversation from happening to maintain maximum profit levels?
That is what net neutrality is about and why it is a good idea to nip this in the bud before it reaches a darker more sinister level
They're rather few and far between. It's really great to see Google (and some other small independent ISPs) is taking the high road and pushing hard for what's 'right'. I just don't think it's enough in this situation. The Internet is public infrastructure; a large part of it has been paid for by the people through subsidies and even more now with a big injection of stimulus funds. It's an extremely important communication tool in today's society, both for business and individuals. The free market can never guarantee that everyone (that is serviced) has equal access to read, speak and participate in this critical infrastructure. I firmly believe that we need to codify the Internet's status as a public utility and guarantee its treatment as such before the ISPs get too far off the deep end.
MacLeod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,288
Im all for this decision. I for one dont want the government to have ANY meddling control in the internet. Let them have just a little bit this one time and in 10 years there is no telling what theyll do. Theyve already enacted sales tax if the online retailer has a store in your state. How would you like a sales tax on ANYTHING you buy online? Remember, the government takes from you incrementally. When the federal income tax was first enacted, it was only 1%. Now its 40% and has been as high as 70%!
So Comcast sucks, then dump them. Dish Network as well as DirecTv offer internet as do Verizon, AT&T and Sprint. Plus you have your local phone company which will likely have DSL. Yeah they may not have the speed of Comcast but you still have choices.
Keep the government OUT of the internet!
So Comcast sucks, then dump them. Dish Network as well as DirecTv offer internet as do Verizon, AT&T and Sprint. Plus you have your local phone company which will likely have DSL. Yeah they may not have the speed of Comcast but you still have choices.
Keep the government OUT of the internet!
The satellite offerings are by far the most lacking bandwidth and latency wise... They really aren't even an alternative to anything but dial up and only serve best the people who live in areas where they are unable to get a cell phone tower signal.....
Cell phone internet is great but they didn't fight for exclusive use of local municipalities telephone lines. Comcast has a right to innovate and develop their network as they see fit, with the money they receive from us (the paying customer), but when they sit on it and erect a 58 story e-peen in the middle of center city Philadelphia then I can assure you that they have some extra cash in the bank to accommodate the small percentage of high bandwidth users (if their claim of a small percentage is accurate to begin with).
I use to work for Comcast, granted that was years ago now and I was in a low level position, but I will tell you this. When you take a call from a customer and his node is maxed out and you can see it in SVP, it is even far beyond it's rated recommendation, all the modems in that area are showing signs of bad service and the customer you have on the phone has called in over 10 times in the past month... It proves quite clearly that Comcast is not only erecting 58 story e-peens but they are also not doing anything to support their users basic internet surfing needs, this goes far beyond bandwidth usage. These types of issue never seem to get resolved and I am sure a small amount do, but not ones that will cost Comcast 100 grand to fix... Oh but your bill is still due on time!
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
I honestly do sympathize with your complaints about corporations, but still ring hollow when you consider the way the globalized world economy works.
Jobs move overseas because the disparity in the standard of living is *so great* between those that live in countries like the US and Canada, and the third world. This situation has resulted in lower economic growth for the developed countries, and yet, this same capitalistic system has been responsible for lifting hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty in a little over a generation....
corporations and such would be foolish to not exploit the cheaper labor in other countries. The americans that otherwise would have had those jobs are then free to spend their time doing other, higher level jobs... and this system *works*. people love to bitch about it, but the unemployment rate, right up until the 2008 crash was at or below 5% (considered by economists at "full employment") for most of the time of the past 30 years or so.
sure, corporations make things a bit less interesting, mom and pop shops close down, etc etc... but they are also amazing wealth generators, and it is undeniable that they have raised the standard of living not just in the developed world, but worldwide...
like I said, i sympathize with you and share your despair in the plight of the little guy, but the truth is, corporations simply handle a wide range of things better for the general populace of the world.... corporations enable hundreds of millions of people to lead the kinds of lives they WANT to lead... that includes every SINGLE member of this board.
they are simply NOT the great evil that the general population wants to make them out to be these days, and the system in which they operate in is still the best we have....
i will acknowledge that pure captialism isnt enough since these things are run by people who can screw it up for the rest of us, but i think its important to point out that government involvement isnt always a good idea either. Trying to find that balance is always tough. On this case, Im not sure how much more government involvement should be adopted. If your going to treat the internet as a utility, then that would definitely mean an end to competition. I know I have zero choices when it comes to getting water or electricity service in my area while I have a few isp options. and if we use those utilities as an example, then pricing isnt going to go down becuase of it. On the other hand, if the government decided it was going to use our money to lay fiber all across the country, i guess thats good for the infrustructure, but also very costly.
Hey Ill gladly accept clearing up something i dont understand. I would wonder since we have net neutrality as an accepted practice up until now, if consumers would simply not buy services from the company that would throw that away. If competition is there of course.
You know, i realized that we do have instances today of charging extra fees per device for internet access. thats in cell phone service. Take the Ipad as an example. Even if you already pay for AT&T's 3G service, you have to pay yet another fee to use that service on an Ipad. So that certainly is an issue today, but i have a feeling that if sales slump becuase of that, AT&T would change its tune.
The difference is that we are now reaching the point where ISPs are starting to compete with other businesses that are online based. For example, Netflix offers a streaming movie service. So does Comcast. Comcast, however, controls the pipe that gets the content to you. The technology is there for Comcast to improve its streaming speeds without improving your connection as a whole, giving it an anti-competitive edge against Netflix. Google, which of course made all its money as an online business, is now getting into the ISP world. Would Google artificially slower your connections to Bing? Probably not. Should they be able to? No.
I easily see a slow, but steady, change towards a non-neutral internet. I firmly believe that *any* step in that direction should be prevented. Net neutrality aims to prevent that from happening. The fact that companies like Comcast oppose net neutrality should indicate that the concerns are very much real - otherwise why would Comcast care if the government requires them to do what they are already doing? It is clear to me that Comcast and other major ISPs plan to leverage the lack of net neutrality to their advantage.
It sounds like you are in your 40s, give or take? If so, YOUR generation is the next to take the helm. Try not to fuck it up for us 20-somethings (like me) who won't get our turn for 30-40 years, mmkay? Your parents have done a bang up job fucking things up already
Why do you demand that everyone should have to pay the costs for access to the internet in a way that you want but that others may not want or need? That is what net neutrality regulations do.
Lets say that the "evil" corporations like Google create an ISP that makes Google services faster but competitors sites less fast. In turn for doing this, if they didn't offer any competitive advantages no one would buy it. So, lets say the advantage was you pay 20$ less a month? Would that make it worth it? Maybe not to you, but to some yes. You are wanting the government to step in and say how everyone wants the internet to be because that's how you want it to be for yourself.
The fact is that a large number of people like yourself exist which have this expectation that the internet should remain as it is, and for that reason that option will almost certainly be presented anyway. Not having net neutrality allows for other possibilities for people who don't need as much access and may not want to pay as much for other sites (or, who want to have better access to google but need good/average access to other things).
As for giant near-monopoly situations (arguable in this case) such as Comcast, keep in mind that it is Government regulations of the past that in many cases caused those monopolies to come about. Government regulations like this force out competition by limiting the options providers can be provide. If they know they can only vary by price (lower, not higher) what incentive is there for them to get in the business of giving you internet? Some level of variation in service needs to be allowed for or there is no model under which business will come in. Yes, indeed, they have to know they can make those evil profits.
Anti-capitalists always look at the evils of Government-regulated capitalism without realizing that Government regulation is in many cases a cause of many of the problems. Why are drugs so expensive? Might it be that they can't be put out on the market for 10 years because of all the testing? Why is internet so expensive? It might possibly be because the private industry has little incentives because of the constant threat of government harassment (whether it be demands for copyright enforcement capabilities, or new regulation that prevents cost controls).
The primary reason for modern monopolies is not a lack of regulation, but too much regulation stifling choice for businesses and for consumers.
Lets say that the "evil" corporations like Google create an ISP that makes Google services faster but competitors sites less fast. In turn for doing this, if they didn't offer any competitive advantages no one would buy it. So, lets say the advantage was you pay 20$ less a month? Would that make it worth it? Maybe not to you, but to some yes. You are wanting the government to step in and say how everyone wants the internet to be because that's how you want it to be for yourself.
The fact is that a large number of people like yourself exist which have this expectation that the internet should remain as it is, and for that reason that option will almost certainly be presented anyway. Not having net neutrality allows for other possibilities for people who don't need as much access and may not want to pay as much for other sites (or, who want to have better access to google but need good/average access to other things).
As for giant near-monopoly situations (arguable in this case) such as Comcast, keep in mind that it is Government regulations of the past that in many cases caused those monopolies to come about. Government regulations like this force out competition by limiting the options providers can be provide. If they know they can only vary by price (lower, not higher) what incentive is there for them to get in the business of giving you internet? Some level of variation in service needs to be allowed for or there is no model under which business will come in. Yes, indeed, they have to know they can make those evil profits.
Anti-capitalists always look at the evils of Government-regulated capitalism without realizing that Government regulation is in many cases a cause of many of the problems. Why are drugs so expensive? Might it be that they can't be put out on the market for 10 years because of all the testing? Why is internet so expensive? It might possibly be because the private industry has little incentives because of the constant threat of government harassment (whether it be demands for copyright enforcement capabilities, or new regulation that prevents cost controls).
The primary reason for modern monopolies is not a lack of regulation, but too much regulation stifling choice for businesses and for consumers.
Other ideas:
A gaming internet service provider that gives bonuses to common gaming services such as battle.net or steam or xbox live. You get better ping on these services you use most, and pay less by having a bit slower access to the standard net sites including google, etc. Is this really a bad deal? For me perhaps, but not for everyone. Someone into gaming may only really care about that aspect of the web.
A gaming internet service provider that gives bonuses to common gaming services such as battle.net or steam or xbox live. You get better ping on these services you use most, and pay less by having a bit slower access to the standard net sites including google, etc. Is this really a bad deal? For me perhaps, but not for everyone. Someone into gaming may only really care about that aspect of the web.
There is a tax on every internet bill I have ever paid. You do realize the electricity is cheap for this very reason, and if it were left to the free market one or two companies would probably have a monopoly on it by now, and could charge what they wanted.
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
"The primary reason for modern monopolies is not a lack of regulation, but too much regulation stifling choice for businesses and for consumers"
you do realize how freaking crazy that is, if increased profits mean creating a monopoly than by your call they should have the freedom to do so. When it is impossible to create new competition.. Go ahead, whip some competition to a multinational corporation, I'll wait.
When the driving force of an organization is GREED the only outcome is satisfying that GREED by any cost whatsoever. Are we supposed to trust the businesses to just be good now? Cause from over here it sure looks like those same giant corporations are what caused the need for a 3/4 trillion bailout. Was it too much regulation that caused the american automakers to fail? or was it the fact that they made crap, in the cheapest possible way, to maximize the profit margins.
I am not against big business. I am against unchecked big business. The government has checks and balances in place ( i'm not jumping into that, it's there whether you believe it or not) to prevent any hostile maneuvering. Since the mega-corps are acting in that way, not for the benefit of the citizens but from of the citizens. which is what the Libs and Reps are all up in a tither about, it's just with a different organization strangely enough. Why wouldn't you want those same checks and balances to apply to any organization with an economic value greater than a lot of actual governments, to prevent it from going to far? ala- massive overseas outsourcing? -lead based consumer goods?
You say that it is great that things are cheap and the "standard of living" is great. I remember when finding something with a "made in China" tag was out of the ordinary, It was something that you would point out. Find me some "made in the USA" products that weren't originally manufactured overseas and just assembled here. We pay farmers NOT to grow crops and yet we buy or fruits and vegetables from other nations. Is that the great world economy? Is that what we need to rely on when we live in one of the most fertile places on earth?
Letting a group of HUMANS run amok will always end up with a dark end.
unless they are checked, hence the nature of religions and the afterlife with a final judgement.
you do realize how freaking crazy that is, if increased profits mean creating a monopoly than by your call they should have the freedom to do so. When it is impossible to create new competition.. Go ahead, whip some competition to a multinational corporation, I'll wait.
When the driving force of an organization is GREED the only outcome is satisfying that GREED by any cost whatsoever. Are we supposed to trust the businesses to just be good now? Cause from over here it sure looks like those same giant corporations are what caused the need for a 3/4 trillion bailout. Was it too much regulation that caused the american automakers to fail? or was it the fact that they made crap, in the cheapest possible way, to maximize the profit margins.
I am not against big business. I am against unchecked big business. The government has checks and balances in place ( i'm not jumping into that, it's there whether you believe it or not) to prevent any hostile maneuvering. Since the mega-corps are acting in that way, not for the benefit of the citizens but from of the citizens. which is what the Libs and Reps are all up in a tither about, it's just with a different organization strangely enough. Why wouldn't you want those same checks and balances to apply to any organization with an economic value greater than a lot of actual governments, to prevent it from going to far? ala- massive overseas outsourcing? -lead based consumer goods?
You say that it is great that things are cheap and the "standard of living" is great. I remember when finding something with a "made in China" tag was out of the ordinary, It was something that you would point out. Find me some "made in the USA" products that weren't originally manufactured overseas and just assembled here. We pay farmers NOT to grow crops and yet we buy or fruits and vegetables from other nations. Is that the great world economy? Is that what we need to rely on when we live in one of the most fertile places on earth?
Letting a group of HUMANS run amok will always end up with a dark end.
unless they are checked, hence the nature of religions and the afterlife with a final judgement.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,716
^^^ You could make the exact same argument for government, however government carries the bigger stick. Instead of "Greed," they covet "Power" and "Control." Government is essentially a different group of humans left to run amok as you say.
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
The difference is the WE ELECT our government officials, whether they're the one you wanted or not they were elected. "Vote with your dollar" is great if you have enough dollars to pull that off, or there actually is another option to choose from but unfortunately that is becoming more and more difficult for a crapload of Americans.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,716
If the healthcare debacle has demonstrated anything, it's that the government does pretty much whatever they want, votes can be bought and sold for special deals...all AGAINST the will of the majority of Americans. Americans are becoming increasingly distrustful of government in general. Congress has what a 20% approval rating? Nancy Pelosi has a 12% approval rating? Harry Reid's approval rating was even worse.
And how do you know that the health care bill is against the majority will of Americans? Did Fox News tell you that?
Regardless, Dems promised health care during their elections. They were elected. That government did what the people wanted. Perhaps not as well as some wanted, but the people voted for the party promising national health care. The government did what the majority asked.
dr.stevil
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,267
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/04/health-.html
keep telling yourself that this is what the people wanted. Hell, they have/had a super majority... they could of passed anything they wanted and STILL had to buy votes and make backroom deals to get this through.
SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
Yeah what great choices, shit internet and shit internet.
Exactly, and if people aren't happy with the way things turn out, and it's important to them, that government will definitely pay for it in 2 years.
Republicans or Democrats, not much of a diff really. Either party will fuck you in one way or another. Yay two party system!
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,716
+1...
First, just to get this out of the way, polls don't mean squat. They are very easily manipulated and simply changing from a positive question to a negative one is more than enough to drastically change the results. They also only poll a very small number of people (less than 1,000).
With that out of the way, did you look at the data? Washington post's poll showed that 48% approve of Obama's handling of the health care bill and 49% disapprove - which paints a very different picture from CBS's poll. Not only that, but the various polls all showed a majority of the people polled not having a damn clue what the bill actually meant - the majority found it too confusing.
People create businesses that compete with corporations every day. Name me a large business that doesn't have a small business counterpart somewhere in the world, except where government regulation doesn't cause that problem in the first case (and even then, it's an extraordinarily rare industry).
You can't trust anyone more than you can trust your neighbor. Ultimately, in most cases your neighbor is going to do right by you because they don't want to take the heat for doing wrong. If the corporation or business screws you over they can't get you to buy from them. They have lots of incentives to do what you want ($$). It's government regulation and government $$ that provides them reasons they can do what they do without doing what you want them to.
We didn't need a bailout at all. We needed to LET THEM FAIL. If we didn't bail them out then they would have failed on the merits. Government regulation and incentives are what is allowing them to continue screwing you. But remember, you love government so what are you doing going against it now? Are you feeling a little differently because of the bailouts perhaps? Welcome to the club.
Any business will try to maximize margins but the consumer benefits from this as well because they get cheaper cars that way. If the cars are so cheap that they fail or suck then people won't buy from them again (hence the huge problems with American automakers in comparison to the Asian ones, who arguably have much bigger profit margins and spend even less on their cars.. hmmm).
In regards to "too much regulation" on the auto industry I think you must have lived in a cave. Have you ever heard of the EPA/CAFE standards? Not to mention all the safety regulations, etc. that have to be met. Sure, some of those are good things, but not all of them have been realistic and they have imposed huge costs on the industry even when consumers were demanding something different (like SUVs, they were and still are fairly popular, even if no longer a growth segment). The constant drive for increased MPG is easiest to meet by decreasing the weight of the car, because you can only make an engine so efficient. Because of this, vehicle safety has been reduced as a counterbalance. Would you rather have good gas mileage or survivability in a wreck? Those are real questions consumers should be able to decide upon, but unfortunately the government mandates MPG amounts that force the issue a single direction.
I'm skipping because this is getting too long for anyone to read anyway, but did want to end with this as you kind of summed up your point here.
Governments are HUMANS too, please remember that. It's an important place to end the note. And checks and balances exist in both cases, but I can get more choices out of business as a rule than government. Why? Because government has more reason to listen only to the majority of people (or the loudest of people), and less reason to listen to the smaller/quieter groups. Business wants to maximize profit, so they will provide for the big guys, and then the middle guys, and then the little guys in the long run, because they have to do that in order to make as much money as they can.
They are always seeking to increase that growth by a few more % and have every reason to please me, because if they hurt me, kill me, piss me off, etc. then I can not buy from them... unless the government forces me to buy from them (oh.. gotta love health care bills mandating purchasing of a private product. I guess they at least let you choose who it's from - though they are eliminating choices there with tons of regulations requiring them to cover preexisting conditions, etc. even if I don't need or want to pay for other people's preexisting conditions with my premiums...).
im fine with capitalism so long as there are checks and balances, ie the post office, medicare... and the like. government programs that are set up to rival private corporations are usually a good thing, as both parties tend to keep eachother honest.
the real problem is unlimited corporate campaign funds coupled with career politicians. both should be outlawed. its rediculous to think a multibillion dollar corporation should have the same say as a single working man making $30k a year. and its just as bad that most of our politicians believe they are employed instead of doing a service for the country.
the real problem is unlimited corporate campaign funds coupled with career politicians. both should be outlawed. its rediculous to think a multibillion dollar corporation should have the same say as a single working man making $30k a year. and its just as bad that most of our politicians believe they are employed instead of doing a service for the country.