“House Speaker John A. Boehner lashed out against efforts to regulate Internet traffic before an audience of evangelical Christian media leaders and pointedly responded to President Obama by comparing the challenge of the burgeoning national debt to the Sputnik-era space race,” Mark A. Kellner reports for The Washington Times.
“In a speech to religious broadcasters that received a sustained ovation at his conclusion, he said free expression is under attack by a power structure in Washington populated with regulators who have never set foot inside a radio station or a television studio,” Kellner reports. “‘We see this threat in how the FCC is creeping further into the free market by trying to regulate the Internet,’ Mr. Boehner said. ‘The last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades.'”
Kellner reports, “But, the Ohio Republican warned, one threat ‘dwarfs others in terms of the danger it poses to freedom and our children’s future… You may recall President Obama, in his State of the Union address, talking about a ‘Sputnik moment,’ the moment that shocks our generation into getting serious. In my view, America’s ‘Sputnik moment’ is our shocking national debt.'”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]
Related articles:
House passes amendment to block funds for FCC ‘Net Neutrality’ order – February 17, 2011
Rasmussen: Just 21% of likely U.S. voters want FCC to regulate Internet – December 28, 2010
FCC cites Android ‘openness’ as reason for neutered ‘Net Neutrality’ – December 22, 2010
U.S. FCC approves so-called ‘net-neutrality’ regulations – December 21, 2010
Tim Lee on ‘network neutrality’: Libertarian computer geeks should forge a third way – December 16, 2010
Google and Verizon propose ‘Net Neutrality’ rules, but exempt wireless’ – August 9, 2010
Big win for Comcast as US court rules against FCC on authority to impose ‘Net Neutrality’ – April 6, 2010
Don’t let the title “net neutrality” fool you. It is an attempt to regulate the internet. As far as I’m concerned, the internet has done just fine on its own.
You, my friend, are the fool. The REASON the Internet has done just fine on its own is *BECAUSE* it has operated under the principle of “net neutrality” so far. Get your facts straight before you post. You sound like a moron.
And why did it operate under that principle? Did Uncle Sam force it to?
It IS an attempt to regulate the internet. Like the OP said…the internet has done just fine on its own. I haven’t seen any major ISP attempt to block content. Sometimes they’re looking to throttle bandwidth, but that’s a different story.
And who, other than the rabid right wing media, has said that Net Neutrality has anything to do with content control? The whole premise of NN is that all packets get treated the same, no reduced speed for competitors offerings when the ISP is also a content provider, like Comcast. So lets block NN and let Comcast transmit content they have an interest in faster or cheaper. That’s going to work well for the little guy.
Are all of your ports available? Some of mine are blocked. Google “host a website on port 8080.” ISPs are blocking a free and open internet.
You sound like a person who loves to call other people a moron.
if the shoe fits…
I thought the correct term on teh interwebs was maroon.
wait…. so if it’s done fine so far, why are we doing this?
why hate speech? was the moron comment necessary? another example of an angry, fascist.
In the the 90’s when the Internet was just with the telcos the big bad gov made it be open so ISP’s could be independent. This gave AOL, PeoplePC etc. a chance to compete, with lower prices or faster services. The cable companies got a exemption because they said building the high speed system would cost so much. Now they charge whatever they want. Even with compatiton from FiOS the price is not any difference. Now the cable co’s want to tell you what you can read, and when. Now that’s freedom.
Of course this comes from a man who said that they were going to read the Constation in the House. Then they read THEIR water down version. The part where blacks were not equal was removed thus negating the reason for the hated 14 admendment. It also left out the part where the Republicans took away rights of the people (to drink). It was so disastrous that the Demacrats had to undo it. They lie to your face and you cheer them on.
I thought MDN was pro NN last year.
hehe. I enjoyed your post.. I am sure you realise you are wasting your time though. Conservatives are buying what the GOP is selling, because it means, apparently, “more for me”. Of course it only means more if you ignore the future cost of ignoring issues (apparently styrofoam cups are back at congress already!) and you think that printing money means you never have to pay the bills.
Yeah, I was hoping to see a MDN take on this, and I was disappointed to find nothing. Net Neutrality, if anything, can only help Apple, because Apple computers encourage the creation of user generated content. Net Neutrality, likewise, encourages the creation of user generated content. Net Neutrality is in Apple’s best interests.
Hey computer operator – you like freedom of speech, don’t you? Well, consider NN an extension of that – freedom of browsing. Perhaps we should make it a Constitutional amendment. You like those, don’t you? Come on, your type always wants to amend the Constitution…
Get a friggin’ clue. At least the Government is theoretically by the people, of the people, and for the people. Corporations are soulless entities created to provide liability protection to the major shareholders while often serving as a playground full of power and money for the greedy upper management.
Liberal-Marxists are liars and thieves. They hate the US. They hate hard work. They hate success. They are a sick, sad, pathetic group, of freaking losers.
All they need to do is offer the 32GB wifi version at the $499 starting price point. That would continue to completely decimate the slate wannabes for the next year.
…uh, ok.
Somebody clicked the wrong link.
I agree that the national debt and budget deficit is the most important issue facing this country at this point in time.
That being said, as I’ve said before, I’m a conservative, but I feel the Republicans are completely and totally wrong about Net Neutrality. They may be right that the new FCC rules are the wrong way to go about it, but that doesn’t mean nothing should be done.
Agreed 100% – these same Republicans will defend an ISP’s or telecom’s right to charge you extra for speedy access to certain websites, and a digital magazine’s right to acquire and sell your personal information without your knowledge or consent. Both moves are highly anti-consumer, so they do themselves no favors by championing either.
Someone has to tell Obama that piling on debt is like lighting a bonfire with your furniture. Pretty soon you’ll have nothing left to burn. Not only that you’ll have nowhere left to sit but on the smoldering embers of your foolishness.
..too bad Repubs weren’t worried about the national debt during the years when Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 were adding billions to it. The Reagan Administration incurred more debt and grew the size of the US government more than any president in US history. I’ve always found it highly amusing that when a Democrat is in the White House, Republicans miraculously start caring about the deficit, but when a Republican is in office, not so much.
Your post is so erroneous it doesn’t warrant a response
…meaning you can’t recognize a fact when you need one?
recognise a fact? Not likely when you watch faux news. Glad to see fox is still banned in Canada: they have a law that you cannot broadcast lies. Fox fails to meet that criteria apparently. They could change their policy and tell the truth, but that is not their business model…
anaknipedro, you’re an idiot. Sorry ’bout that.
The internet is a giant packet switching network originally designed and specified to withstand a nuclear attack by routing network traffic around dead nodes so that the destruction of a particular node wouldn’t knock the whole network out. In other words, it was a DARPA funded experiment for a network that would guarantee to the best extent possible that data would be able to reach its destination.
The only thing people wanting “net neutrality” are asking for is that the internet work the way the internet was designed to work. Nodes acting as checkpoints holding up or purposely slowing down data, nodes falsely reporting themselves as down to block data originating from certain sources while letting through data from other sources, etc. are all examples of network provides breaking the internet and specifically acting to interfere with the transmission of data–thereby doing exactly what the internet was prevent.
National Debt? Oh yeah Thanks Ronnie you dumb fsk!
You commies are certifiably insane. Maobama and his regime are the problem.
So the $1.4 trillion added to the debt under Obama is bad…but the $13 trillion left there (largely starting during Reagan’s tenure) isn’t. Also, tax cuts are always good (even when not accompanied by spending cuts) and entitlements handed out by Republicans (like, say, Medicare prescription coverage) are deserved by all good Americans™ but those provided by Democrats are all socialist conspiracies.
That’s conservative logic for you.
Thank you! Facts get in the way of lunatic, Glenn Beck rantings. Keep it up please, we need more of you and less of those idiots.
Lunatic???? Shawn you need to look in the mirror. If you can’t see what is happening right now is the end of the USA you are completely and utterly gone. Don’t worry though. The grown ups will save your pathetic, know nothing, asses in 2012 when we vote the Marxists the hell out.
hahaha. Marxists! What would you know about Marxism? But you are right, it is the end of the USA. It’s what happens when you build a nation on greed, dishonesty and selfishness. You’ve even changed the weather… Hurricane Karma is coming to teach you a lesson…
Okay, with respect to the Internet we have two options:
1) Let corporations do whatever they want and regulate the flow of information in doing so (examples would be Comcast blocking certain websites that contain content they don’t approve of or the throttling of speeds to hurt or help certain partners).
2) Let the government regulate (which would perhaps prevent some of the worst things corporations might do but would place a lot of power in the hands of government).
The sole reason I prefer option 2 is because we as taxpayers are all government shareholders, so to speak, so better it be a political issue than a financial one.
The free and open market might sort this out without government regulation, but it in a community like mine we have only a couple of options for our Internet service. And what if both are emboldened to throttle traffic or make side deals with content providers? It’s not like there’s so many players in the ISP industry. There’s a dangerous handful.
This is a case of picking between having a gut ache or a headache. Either way, it won’t be perfect bliss but arguments could be made in favor of either one.
Great post.
@MidWest Mac
Well put!
Aye!
This is right on. I never recall being able to vote on who the CEO of a corporation is. I’d much rather have the FCC trying to keep a level playing field than corporations.
Spot on!
You couldn’t be more wrong. Never, ever, trust politicians. Do you really think they are looking out for our best interests????? NO freaking way! This is not net neutrality. It’s net takeover by the government. Have you ever tried to get a thing done with a government agency? It is a complete disaster dealing with those union employees that know they can never get fired. I can’t believe what is going on in this country. Vote conservative next year!
In your second sentence, you say never trust politicians.
In your last, you tell people to vote for the same politicians!! In what universe do politicians (i.e. elected officials) do NOT represent the system of democratic government?? Would you rather have a dictatorship (such as, until recently, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya…)?
You don’t want government controlling your life, period, fool. Grow a few brain cells. Jack ass.
Well, actually, all your levels of government are owned by business interests. Look at Wisconsin: the governor sneaked in a clause to let him sell all your publicly owned businesses to whomever he likes, at whatever price he likes – no open tenders…the Koch brothers own him. Look at all the earmarks! Your military establishment, banks and media barons organise things to suit themselves. Even your supreme court is in on the act – what civilised country allows their corporations to buy elections?
Anyhow I guess you will eventually find out. In Europe they learned that lesson through feudalism and then during the industrial revolution. Germany knows all about the consequences of printing money. You are about to understand why they won’t do it again…
I agree, Net neutrality is a government power grab. If you are going to surrender power to a businessman or a government, choose the business man. The government is likely to change the rules when it sees fit and then force you to abide at the end of a gun. Case in point; Egypt’s government shut down the Internet during the first days of protesting. If the Internet is run by the free market there will be competing ISPs that will fill niche markets.
Bravo – a better example of the “useful idiot” I can hardly imagine – not a single line off-message!
Perhaps your “conservative” saints will give you a dug yummy in recognition of your efforts (keep dreaming)….
Yep.
Boehner’s still a crying fool, though.
Midwest Mac
Just stop that. Rational thought is not allowed here.
Net neutrality good, worrying about the national debt is a bit premature. We still have a weak recovery thanks to rising oil. Let’s not kill the recovery too quickly. Give it another year before we worry about austerity programs.
Two choices: spend or cut. The consequences for both are bleak…
Internet providers need to keep their hands out of the content users want to watch. The “free” market would allow ISPs to throttle or block competitor’s programing. This should never be allowed to happen. ISPs will and are abusing their monopoly by forcing their in-house services on the consumers (who really don’t have many ISP choices depending on their location).
Keep ISPs the dumb pipe that they are. If consumers start using an outrageous amount of data, then the ISP’s should have the right to adjust their prices. We all love unlimited data plans. But, I would rather pay for a tiered data plan, than to have ISP’s be allowed to throttle competitor’s online services.
All you Republicans ought to do your homework. Check this graph:
You have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican President who left office with less debt than when he started.
You will also notice the very steep rise in debt at the end of Bush’s term. Obama has already slowed the rate of increase, despite the stimulus. The stimulus, of course, would not have been needed except for the policies of the Bush Administration – remember the banking collapse started in Bush’s term, and it was Bush who bailed out the auto manufacturers…
Sometimes I think that the right wing of America has a fundamental problem with truth. I see so many aggressive comments and very little appreciation of the truth. Perhaps American conservatives should spend less time watching partisan broadcasters like Fox and more time finding out what is really going on.
Well done. It’s always fun to throw cold fact into the faces of MDN and the teabaggers and watch them respond by whining and/or deleting posts.
Thanks! Facts are so refreshing.
But why let facts get in the way of a good story?
If the GOP is for something, it’s good for the big corporations and the wealthy, but bad for the other 98%.
They can’t Handle the truth!
Hey shit head,
Who the hell controlled the purse strings during the end of the Bush years. Bush had to fight wars and clean up Clinton’s mess. Good thing Clinton had a Conservative controlled congress to keep him under control. You liberals are going to lose huge in 2012. Can’t wait to stop you efftards from destroying the country. Screw you.
Demoscumbags controlled congress for the last 2 years of Bush.
Too bad the ‘Demoscumbags’ were too late to stop:
1) Two illegal and bogus wars that gained the US nothing except DEBT.
2) ‘Starve The Beast’ outrageous Bush DEBT during a period of economic growth.
Too bad it was the Bush administration who invented:
1) TARP, aka ‘Troubled Asset Relief Program’ aka BAILOUTS for criminal members of the Corporate Oligarchy.
2) Monetary and deregulation policies that lead to THE WORST DEPRESSION IN 80 YEARS, still ongoing.
You want the RepubliTards running everything again?
I’ll bet my IQ against your IQ! I’ll bet my common sense against your common sense. I’ll bet I’d survive in the woods while whine for your trivial luxuries. I bet I can spot a leader while all you can’t even spot a leach. Ad nauseam…
Then again, having watched the WIMPY DemoCraps waste their time on trivial garbage rather than save the USA, I’d say we’re screwed from both directions. Politicians these days are really all of one party already: Blowhard, ‘look at me’, money worshiping DIMWITS.
But really who gets the MOST BLAME? The brain dead Corporate Oligarchy, the boss-of-you know-it-alls who are busily destroying the entire world’s economy all for the sake of THE QUICK BUCK. Congratulations you fscking idiots. You got your way and now you get to eat the results along with all the little peasant, the We-The-People you despise so much. The entire world laughs at your follies and cries at your results. Shite in, shite out.
😛
1: Clinton left the budget in surplus
2: The military wanted a war – they make heaps of money from gullible taxpayers when they can arrange a nice war.
3: An ex military establishment guy sat in the White house
4: They invented a reason to have a war
5: they are still making money from you suckers
This graph is meaningless since it is the congress that creates and passes the budget. For example, and because it is in recent memory, the graph continues going up when Clinton becomes pres but then goes down because congess changed parties.
Another example is Reagan. Carter, for those that dont remember, left this country in a real mess financial/inflation-wise. Dont remember all the details but Reagan did spend a lot on defense which eventually lead to the downfall of communism and the Berlin Wall.
Of coarse, no one whats to point out that Roosevelt and Bush II increased for the same reason and perhaps we can include Reagan and Bush I in that too (it was called the cold war).
The graph would be more accurate if it included parties in control of congress and historical events.
I suppose we all have selective memory when it comes to bashing.
Well if that is true, why are the right wing morons blaming Obama?
Because Obama just rammed thru Health Care and just like Bush II paid off his friends (incl Wall Street, Banks, Car companies, etc) and is on the forefront of pushing some radical stuff which includes massive spending. Of coarse, the democratic congress does not help.
Another answer to your question is they blame Obama for the same reason they blame republicans. Us rational and clear thinking people know where the blame really is. That’s why the graph is inaccurate or misleading.
To be fair, Bush II was a jerk (traitor) in the end. In my opinion, the U.S. would be much better off with a jerk Bush II than an America Dream hating Obama.
Health Care was a major plank of Obama’s platform. It wasn’t rammed through – it was passed by two elected houses and an elected president. It is not yet implemented, but your amazing tax cuts for the rich are! If it actually gets funded you might yet join the civilised world… The real problems in the US are the wholesaler export of jobs to low-wage countries; a congress and supreme court owned by powerful business interests, and a nation of people who don’t read, don’t understand and don’t care (except when they find it hurts themselves). The US will default on it’s debt; the still-essentially-bankrupt banks will fail; and the US federation will likely break up. People will look back upon the US much the way we look back on the USSR: a failed experiment.
Thanks for making my point. The Health care bill was passed by DEMOCRATS and some bribed republican traitors – at least that is what I read and believe.
Back to the point, though. The graph would be more meaningful if plotted against the congress rather than the president, including OBAMA. (BTW, the president does not run the country – CONGRESS DOES)
Wow! “A failed experiment.”? Wow!
It’s a sad, sad day in America when we have people like you with that outlook. If I believed what you believe (BTW, I read and care) I would be depressed and feel hopeless. Why do you even live?
it helps a little that i live in Australia. I have health care. People don’t carry guns. We don’t have fox. We tightly regulate our banking sector. The government is rolling out fibre to the door everywhere. Unemployment benefits don’t run out. We didn’t export our jobs. We don’t create wars to satisfy the greed of our military. Our public schools are excellent. Our teachers are better paid, our class sizes much smaller and every Australian child has a laptop. We don’t have earmarks. We don’t have governors who can steal elections. Our corporations are not permitted to make large, or secret, donations tom political parties. We have a professional public service to advise, impartially, whoever is in government. We have excellent labour laws. Australia is not divided by race, money or political persuasion. We didn’t print money. We don’t have a huge deficit. We pay our share of taxes and we know the cost of infrastructure and services and we get reasonable value for money. We have strong consumer laws, we have two excellent national broadcasters that tell us the truth. We have not built a national culture on greed, selfishness and dishonesty…
Ever wonder why it is only third world nationals that flock to live in the USA?
Wow! What a nice country/society you live in. Must be like heaven. I know people that have gone to Australia and they come back. I guess actions speak louder than words or perhaps you have a closed society like an Apple product.
“Ever wonder why it is only third world nationals that flock to live in the USA?”
No. But I wonder why they dont go to Australia.
Wow! A society where no one lies. I love it. I’ll have to check out Australia or am I not invited?
@maclouie
It is as difficult to get into Australia as it is to get into the USA. We are a country of immigrants just as the US is. You are right to observe that it is a great country in which to live. Australians travel a lot, so are able to compare life here with that in other countries. We also see a lot of US news, films and television. I’m sure Australians do lie, but it is not institutionalised the way it is in the US: the source of a great deal of hypocrisy in US society. I’m sure you can get a tourist visa – to qualify to live here you need a skill and/or qualifications we want. We get a lot of American visitors – it is an easy destination (you can read the street signs) – and I meet my fair share as I live in a beach town popular with backpackers and young travellers.
I have travelled extensively in the US over many years. I shared an old Cadillac with three friends years ago, driving from NYC to LA via the southern states. But I prefer Europe and travel there more often, and for longer. But, except in a few cases, for career choices, few Australians emigrate anywhere.
In my view the US is verging on a failed state. The population is poorly educated and most people seem to lack any critical thinking ability. As a consequence I suspect most Americans don’t understand the issues facing the US, and do not care to do so. The comments on this, and other, sites from those on the right is always the same – insults and mantras with no concern for the facts. Its all very childish… And the level of hatred from the right astonishes me. If the US was to turn around at all Americans need to pull together and get behind your elected President. That is never going to happen. I worked in banking – I read all the US papers. Your banks are carrying millions of homes on their books at much higher values than they are worth, and are hanging on to more than half a million foreclosures hoping that the housing market will recover. It won’t. It will be interesting to see the Wikileaks stuff on the American banks. I can’t wait!
Well, all the things you say about right I see exactly the same thing from the left. You ought to come to my side – there is more hope and optimism here.
With regards to other countries: I wont claim as much world travel experience as you but my travels to Germany revealed many problems and concerns among the citizens when I visited in 2007 (before the financial crash) so I am sure the grass is greener on both the right and left sides of the hill. Your reality is not everyone’s reality.
America was started as an experiment. I take offense that you pronounce it as a failure. But perhaps it failed a long time ago when it drifted from what it was originally intended to be. Pray for us (or hope for us, whatever your persuasion may be)
No, you are wrong. The deficit almost levels off immediately when Clinton is sworn in. Remember his line: it’s the economy, stupid.
I wonder how much all the earmarks add up to… Congress (both sides, but more so the GOP) is beholden to business interests to raise funds for elections and to stay in office by buying the electorate through tax cuts.
Deficits rise when there is a crisis. That’s normally okay, and spending can reduce the impact of a recession. But two things make this different this time: the size of the underlying deficit inherited by Obama, and the unregulated cowboy behaviour of the banks.
This time is different in another way: there is no answer. Whatever happens wi the budget, the US cannot raise enough money or cut enough spending to bring the deficit under control.
That is largely due to the export of jobs and the loss of tax receipts from well paid employees. No jobs=no taxes.
Humpty Dumpty: nothing can put the US back together again.
If is any consolation, China is heading the same way. Printing money is fun, until it isn’t.
As anyone knows, things dont change immediately when a president takes office. Any leveling off would be credited to Bush I just like the current problems today, even though it has been two years, is blamed on Bush II. Can’t have it both ways.
Your wondering is justified. I dont support Dems nor repubs. I just say get govt out. LIMITED GOVT means limit the dems and repubs. Cant you guys get it? Dems mess it up and repubs mess it up. Personally, I like the ideology of repubs but dont like their behavior nor corruption. DEMS ARE NOT INNOCENT EITHER.
The inherited deficit by Obama has been made worse by Obama and over-spending does not solve anything. See your own checkbook and explain your logic.
The deficit will come under control when the govt prints more money. That’s the ultimate solution and that is how all govts get out of debt. They pay the debt off with inflated money.
Once govt stops overspending then things will equalize. It’s just a matter of doing the right things and Obama wasn’t/isn’t doing the right things. He’ll get voted out and hopefully us voters can get rid of the corrupt politicians from both sides.
Then all will be well again. Just a matter of time.
@maclouie
Printing money? It is quite clear you know nothing about finance. In recent times Zimbabwe printed money. Do a little googling, or binging, if you prefer and read about the consequences of Zimbabwe’s money-printing exercise. While you are at it, read about what happened when the Weimar Republic printed money.
As for “overspending” you need to do the math. Perhaps you should sit down with an appropriations bill and see where your money is going. You will find that defence spending consumes an inordinate amount of taxpayer dollars, but you should look closely at where the rest of it goes. The most obvious things to cut are the “earmarks” that representatives add to a money bill. After that it gets more difficult – running a country as complex as the US requires a lot of people, a lot of resources, and a lot of money.
The US is not bringing in enough revenue to meet the basic needs of good government, whoever is in power. Taxes need to rise, but more than that, you need to get people back into work, and you need to lift people out of low-wage jobs so that they are earning enough to pay a reasonable amount of tax.
It is a HUGE deficit. It is not just what is being spent now, but what has already been spent. If you slash government spending, you add to unemployment (people lose their jobs) and reduce tax intake. Also, you make life very difficult for those affected (usually the poor and the lower middle classes) by cutting services such as transport, education and health.
If there was an easy answer both sides would agree on it. But there is not. Perhaps there is no answer. The USA is very vulnerable to external shocks. Interest rates are on the rise in Europe and Asia – if the US doesn’t increase rates to match the government will find it difficult to raise money to fund the deficit and the US dollar will fall, driving up the cost of imports. Oil prices are on the rise. Life for the lower and middle classes is going to get a lot more expensive.
Expect another bank collapse. A big one. The wheels will fall off after that…
@ Byronic the Australian
In case you have not noticed, governments, any government, prints money as the population grows. Governments are paid taxes using money it printed.
Now go balance your checkbook and leave mine alone.
BTW, do the math. Corporations dont pay taxes, people do. Economics 101. Even in Zimbabwe.
Mate, you need to do Economics 101.
The phrase “printing money” does not refer to the increase in the quantity of bank notes in circulation. It refers to the “invention” of money by the treasury.
Normally, when the government needs money to finance its expenditure it raises this from:
a) taxes (they take your money and the spend it somewhere else – no extra money is created…
b) asset sales (they sell something in public ownership, and spend the proceeds – no extra money is created
c) borrowings (they borrow your money, pay interest on it, and spend it somewhere else – no extra money is created).
Bernanke did none of the above. He just went to his computer and added a few zeros (well, a lot of zeros) to the amount that he had in the bank, and then used this to lend to the government.
He invented the money. Just like you might do if you wanted to buy something and had access to your bank account and could increase your balance at whim.
The consequence of printing money in this way is that it increased the amount of money in circulation. The consequences are inflation and a drop in the value of the currency.
As I suggested, google Weimar Republic for more information.
ps: you will not find this information on Fox…
pps: Corporations certainly pay tax. What planet are you on? Corporate tax rates are different to personal tax rates, and the tax breaks are different. Inevitably this reduces the return to the shareholders, not all of whom live in the USA of course.
Why does everyone on the right resort to insults in almost every post? It appears to be a substitute for rational argument based on a common understanding of the facts.
@Byronic
If you think my last post contained an insult then you are over-sensitive. Oooops! Is that another insult?
It appears that we are arguing semantics. My printing money comment is the same as your adding zero’s comment. Since I was the first one to refer to printing money your were in err to assume I meant something else.
Maybe this is why you think Fox lies because you dont understand their terminology.
So your last post just went in circles.
Corporations dont pay taxes. I have/control a corporation and we dont pay taxes – we are a tax collector for the government. What planet are you on? Do you have/own a corporation? I suspect people who claim corporations do pay taxes are usually those that don’t know how a corporation works.
I retrack my comment that implies you should take Economics 101. That is the problem – you did take Economics 101. It’s the education system that teaches the economic spin.
I had a boss once (I dont know what his bent was – right or left) but he figured it out and was able to articulate his understanding of economic and financial issues that change my understanding of things. His understanding was contrary to what they teach in universities and made way too much sense. Hence, I really think that is where the problem is – the education we think we get and the spin and misunderstanding spread by instructors that dont understand the subjects that they teach.
And then we can’t have an understanding ourselves because we get tripped up by semantics and definitions.
@maclouie
1. Yes I have several companies, though of course they are governed by Australian law.
2. US Corporate Taxation (Wikipedia): “Corporate tax is imposed in the United States at the Federal, most state, and some local levels on the income of entities treated for tax purposes as corporations. Federal tax rates on corporate taxable income vary from 15% to 35%. State and local taxes and rules vary by jurisdiction, though many are based on Federal concepts and definitions. Taxable income may differ from book income both as to timing of income and tax deductions and as to what is taxable. Corporations are also subject to a Federal Alternative Minimum Tax and alternative state taxes. Like individuals, corporations must file tax returns every year. They must make quarterly estimated tax payments. Controlled groups of corporations may file a consolidated return.”
3. I think you mean retract
4. Your comments about the education system may be applicable in the US, but I doubt you are qualified to comment on education systems in Australia and elsewhere. Economics 101 is an American term – we have no such subject here.
5. It does not appear that you have taken the time to educate yourself on the perils of “printing money”. Again, I suggest you read about the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe.
Whatever you believe the term “printing money” means, your argument either makes no sense, or is wrong. Printing extra notes has no effect on the economy, unless there is a shortage of notes preventing people from withdrawing cash from their accounts.
I hope you have read or listened to Michael Moore’s latest speech. Are you not horrified that 400 Americans now own more than half the wealth of the USA between them?
1. Good for you.
2. Then you know coprporations dont pay taxes and it doesn’t matter what the tax rates are so you dont need to keep quoting laws and regulations.
3. English is my second language so you dont have to bother correcting my spelling.
4. Well, since no one in the world was able to predict, know, nor handle the economic crisis I think it is accurate to say no one knows anything about economics. Everybody was trying to get rich – the whole world was and the manufacturing company I do work for in Europe lost big time as a result of their poor knowledge and are still contracting as a result. Therefore, the whole world is stupid and dont know much about economics. The proof is in what happened. Talk is cheap. Oh, wait a minute, I suppose everyone in Australia was immune because of their superior intellect. Good for you. You could have saved the world and you didn’t. You only search for places/people to place blame.
5. I know the perils of printing money and I dont understand our difference of opinion. Seems we agree on this.
6. Believing in Michael Moore is like believing in space aliens and conspiracy theories. I have not heard one truth come out of his mouth. Just “the sky is falling” talk. Give me a break. Michael Moore? You listen to him? I should have guessed. Frankly, he makes me sick to the point of puking. He’s as much a hypocrite if I ever saw one.
No, it does not bother me that either 1 or 400 or 4,000,000 person(s) owns most of the wealth. I am not envious and I wish them the best and continued wealth. Life for me or you would not be any different otherwise and we would be much better people if we would not let it bother us. At least they are not dictators.
Now go out and buy a piece of land and become a landowner. It will be good for you. Also, do some charity work. It’s good for the soul. In the meantime I’ll listen to CNN to get the other spin (which I watch every morning anyhow). BTW, they do not cover as much news as Fox so I dont know why you want to live in a box.
@maclouie
I watch the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) and SBS (Special Broadcasting Service). Both are excellent. I follow Huffpost and CNN on my iPad I subscribe to the NY Times and the WSJ, and read the British Independent. I sometimes watch the German DW news. I don’t need the nonsense and lies that Fox broadcast – even if I could get it in Australia, which I don’t think I can. Try watching PBS – you will get a much better coverage on key issues. SBS broadcasts James Lehman’s Newshour – that’s an excellent news/current affairs programme. You will have to leave your brain turned on though…
There are some people, including many Americans, who have been on top of the financial situation all along – but no-one listens to them.
And Americans never listen to a non-American, so it would not matter what an Australian said.
I still don’t think you understand Quantitative Easing, which is the popular euphemism for “printing money” used by the Fed and the Brits. At face value your comments across your various posts are contradictory.
The crash that is coming will not just affect the USA. It will be worldwide. Being CEO of The World right now would be your worst nightmare – things are boiling over all over the world.
But never mind. As I said, Americans never listen to a non-American.
Cheers from the beach on a warm autumn evening. I am glad you are there, and I am here…
🙂
@Byronic
So, here is QE:
“Quantitative easing is sometimes colloquially described as “printing money” although in reality the money is simply created by electronically adding a number to an account. Examples of economies where this policy has been used include Japan during the early 2000s, and the United States and United Kingdom during the global financial crisis of 2008–2009.”
Which is exactly what I have said throughout about the methods used to get out of debt. I think it is you that dont understand.
As I said, we are on the same page:
1) the graph initially referred to would be more informative if plotted against congress e=rather than the president. You living in Australia obviously dont know how our form of government works.
2) that the governments are/have spent more than they have brought in. It does not matter how the problem is addressed, either by raising taxes or reduce spending. I’d rather live in a society that lives within it’s means and let both the rich and the poor get richer.
3) that government policy is the cause of stress among the population and government should be limited and let people be free.
4) that corporations dont pay taxes but are tax collectors for the government
5) that taxes imposed by a government is forced ownership by that government. Any entity that takes increase from an individual or a corporation is the master and the individual or corporation is the slave.
These are all basic principles that are not confusing to understand but are easily hidden by spin doctors using high language skills to promote their agendas.
Now, with regards to insults, I could be oversensitive and whine after your last post, but I wont.
BTW, I saw those people who issued warnings about the pending crisis and I watch non-americans and have learned much in recent years. I did not understand their warnings at the time and it was all on Fox. Although you cry lies I’d be interested to know a specific lie that Fox promotes. To date I find their reporting insightful, consistent, all encompassing, and fair. Please enlighten me (so far you have not).
@maclouie
You are a dill mate – a complete and utter dill. Constantly restating your case only serves to illustrate your complete lack of understanding.
Here’s what happens when a government cuts revenues savagely: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703386704576186730201862132.html?mod=djemEurAnalysis_t
Being sure that you are right, and being determined to win an argument, does not make you either intelligent or correct. You still do not understand what QE is – you have just read the Wikipedia entry. Haha.
I have to laugh at your continued “mantra” that corporations do not pay tax. You’re on your own little planet sunshine. Stay there and stay warm.
You’re a waste of space mate – and I have had enough of your nonsense.
Sayonara…
@Byronic
Well, good. I win. Or, truth wins over illogical concepts.
BTW, you are really good at putting words in other people’s mouth’s (or at least mine) and maybe that is why you dont understand what they (or me) say. For example here you try to link to something that addresses cutting revenue:
“Here’s what happens when a government cuts revenues savagely: …”
and the link is not even about cutting revenues and cutting revenues is not even what either one of us was talking about.
I hear toilets flush CCW in Australia, is that true? Talking to you I am beginning to believe it even though I have not witnessed it. Just something I heard in school.
Yours truly and so-long chum,
Sir Dill Maclouie
PS next time try teaching your concepts to someone with an empty head. You’ll have more luck and satisfaction.
He said boner. He he he he heh heh hehhh
correction: the last president to reduce the national debt (as a proportion of GDP) over his term was Nixon. Nevertheless it is a sobering graph for those of you who like to blame the national debt issue on Obama.
All this Big Government regulation is doomed to fail because people always choose the path of least bureaucracy.
Yes, THAT’s the delusional spirit! MORE EMPTY PLATITUDES, DAMMIT!
That way, we can shrink government to a size where it can fit inside a woman’s uterus & regulate her metabolism….
Congress has the purse strings, not the president. That said, this president is intent on emptying out whatever we have left.
As byronic stated, “remember the banking collapse started in Bush’s term”. This seems to be a critical point that the anti-Obama people either ignore, distort or (sorry state of ignorance) don’t even know.
From outside your country, it is a mixture of amusing and sickening to watch the mindless right-wing frothing against Obama. Reagan dismantled the US manufacturing sector. Bush destroyed the world’s economies — with his “increased freedom” for the financial sector. What these kinds of people call a “free economy” is the removal of any obstructions for already pathologically rich to get mindlessly richer. Mindlessly supporting that kind of doctrine!!!! These people DON’T CARE
Surveys of many Western nations show all kinds of factors that are MUCH more positive elsewhere – infant mortality, life expectancy, literacy, higher education.
You are making up a false history. Don’t worry you’re not fooling anyone.
This one is too easy. Even the most dimwitted of MAC lemmings would agree corporations are best left alone to regulate themselves. We should trust them completely to do the right thing.
For 99.9% of businesses I would say it isn’t about profits so much as it is about a passion for selfless and generous service to the community out of the goodness of their corporate hearts. No watchdog needed.
I can’t wait until people’s internet bills start going up based on what sites they visit, and they all start crying about why didnt someone do something.
Yeah, blocking NN is giving people like Comcast the ability to charge you more for things you already get now at current prices. Sorta like tethering. You’re already paying for it, but they f*** you into paying for it twice.
Totally agree.
Net Neutrality is “Neutrality” It is a fair playing field for all. What’s wrong with that?
It is free now and our government wants to keep it that way. Are the republicans making any similar gestures?
The neutrality is determined by however the government sees fit if the net neutrality act occurs. When they decide it would be more “neutral” if they disallow data pertaining to first pornography, next fatty foods, then unhealthy lifestyle, then language they deem offensive, then guns, then just to be neutral we should allow our emails to all be monitored–don’t want to do that? If you don’t the government can imprison you for net neutrality infractions. Obviously this is a worst case scenario, but sadly the government usually fullfills or exceeds the worst case quicker than you think. Keep the Internet free and unregulated, don’t allow the government to control it. If an ISP throttles content, switch carriers to the competitor that doesn’t. This can occur only in a free market without government intrusion
Right. Just like the government suppresses radio, TV, newsprint, people speaking out on street corners, Hugh Heffner, Julian Assange . . . Oh, wait.
Fairness Doctrine jackass that you libs put in place and want back in place. Conservatives had to get rid of that POS. Just like we will next year in the voting booths. So long Marxists.
Actually, the ISPs want to control what you see. Well, they want to favourably price and favourably treat information. Just like Google uses their search algorithms to favour their own services. Or like cable companies that force you to take hundreds of channels of crap. Or like the music labels used to force you to buy albums with lots of crap tracks… Or fox only lets you hear what benefits murdoch and his pals on the right… A corporation owes you nothing unless you are a major shareholder. They just want to extract as much money from you as possible and that is why they hate regulation. They bought the GOP and the Supreme Court to protect their interests…
bite the hands that feeds you John. Aren’t you supposed to be on your knees fellating the corporations while pretending to just be checking for lumps?
Just got a letter from Anthem Blue Cross. I can stay in my current plan, and premiums will skyrocket (they are locking out new people to the plan, thus no more young healthy subscribers) or I can opt in to one of about a dozen new plans, all more expensive.
On their cover letter they blame it all on the new Health Care Plan.
This is big business at work, maybe they wrote the 2000 plus page plan.
This was predicted by everyone honestly analyzing Obamacare. Private plans will skyrocket and we will be financially forced into government plans. Then the competition will go out of business and the government will have control of everyone’s health care. The hospital will be like the post office or the DMV except with people in real physical pain when waiting in line.
This is big government at work, not big business
Wrong! The cost of healthcare is rising for the young and healthy because the health funds must now take everyone. If you are young and healthy you might not like that. But you won’t always be young, or healthy. Nor will your Mum, or Dad…
Insurance is about sharing the burden across the community. In Australia, Europe and elsewhere it has worked well enough for years. No Australian is refused health care, though the wealthy can still pay extra for private hospital care or buy extra insurance to cover luxury hospital rooms.
But the major difference here is that hospital and drug prices are tightly controlled. In the US they are outrageous. Until you regulate what the service providers are allowed to charge your health care will always be expensive.
Oh yeah, when you speak to a group of evangelical Christian leaders about “freedom” and staying out of peoples business….
It just seems silly.
He’s (the orange Boehner) drunk again!
In case you haven’t noticed, the national debt has grown by over 40% in 2 years of Obama and Democratic control of Congress. You can try to obscure the obvious but facts get in the way.
FWIW, Dems controlled Congress for most of Reagan’s and G. Bush’s terms. Further, the only recent balanced budgets came under Clinton when the GOP held a majority in both Chambers. Do you notice a correlation?
Please check your facts. The GOP majority was turned over in 2006 (and had been there since 1994). G Bush was sworn in 2001.
Also, Reagan SIGNED the tax increases and spending bills put on his desk. To suggest he was not to blame for the debt incurred under his watch is likewise to suggest he deserved none of the credit so lavishly bestowed upon him. Likewise, Clinton either managed (like Reagan with O’Neill) to find bilateral solutions with Gingrich or he was (like Reagan) merely along for the ride.
You can’t have your reality both ways.
I trust the free market competiion more than government regulators, being bought by lobbyists in DC.
Government should ensure there is competition amongst ISP and prevent monopolies.
If you don’t like your ISP, go to the competitor
That is the only way to ensure NN and it has so far.
If you don’t like your bank, you can go to another bank.
Somehow that didn’t prevent a global financial crisis.
Government should certainly regulate very business sector, after all we cannot trust corporations to do the right thing… right?
Wrong!
I can’t help myself:
DON’T CLOG THE TUBES!!!!!!!!
😀