US Deficit Commission wants lower corporate taxes

Post Reply New Topic

You are incorrect.
Net neutrality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
quote:
In May 2010, after it was believed the FCC would drop their effort to enforce net neutrality, they announced that they would continue their fight. It was believed they would not be able to enforce net neutrality after a Federal court's overthrow of the agency's Order against Comcast. However, under commission chairman Julius Genachowski, the FCC has recently reclassified broadband internet access providers under the provisions of Title 2 of the Communications act in an effort to force the providers to adhere to the same rules as telephone networks. This adjustment is meant to prevent, "unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities or services."
...Opposition comes from free-market advocates, including think tanks such as the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The Goldwater Institute and Americans for Tax Reform have also suggested that this principle may violate the First Amendment.[44] Opponents of net neutrality also include large hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries.[5] Five of the biggest telecom corporations in the country—Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast, and Qwest collectively lobbied $218 million to Representatives and gave $23.7 million in campaign contributions from 2006–2008.[45]

A number of these opponents have created a website called Hands Off The Internet[46] to explain their arguments against net neutrality. Principal financial support for the website comes from AT&T, and members include technology firms and pro-market advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste.[47][48][49][50][18]

http://news.cnet.com/Senate-deals-blow- ... 89197.html
quote:
By an 11-11 tie, the Senate Commerce Committee failed to approve a Democrat-backed amendment that would have ensured all Internet traffic is treated the same no matter what its "source" or "destination" might be. A majority was needed for the amendment to succeed.

This vote complicates Internet companies' efforts to convince Congress of the desirability of extensive new regulations, especially after the House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept in a 269-152 vote on June 8.

Republican committee members attacked the idea of inserting Net neutrality regulations in a massive telecommunications bill, echoing comments from broadband providers like AT&T and Verizon, which warned the rules were premature and unnecessary. Alaska's Ted Stevens, the committee chairman, accused his colleagues of "imposing a heavy-handed regulation before there's a demonstrated need."

What's more, Republicans warned, adding the regulations would imperil the final passage of the broader telecommunications bill, which is the most extensive set of changes since 1996. "This is absolutely a poison pill," said Nevada Republican John Ensign.

Democrats had rallied behind an amendment, adapted from a standalone bill they offered in May, which would have barred network operators from discriminating "in the carriage and treatment of Internet traffic based on the source, destination or ownership of such traffic." That could have prevented Verizon from inking deals to offer high-definition video and prioritizing that on its network, for instance.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... rality.ars
quote:
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have each introduced an anti-net neutrality bill into their respective chambers. McCain's is known as the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009," but Blackburn's is billed as (seriously) the "Real Stimulus Act of 2009" (PDF).

This "real stimulus" consists of a single line, which is identical in both bills: "The Federal Communications Commission shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." While the bills target network neutrality, they appear to go much further by banning any sort of new rules on all IP services.

Shall I go on?

Three little words affected the banking and housing crisis more than any other factor - credit default swap. The banks were turned into casinos via deregulation proposed and supported by the GOP.

Ronald Regan and his buddies also bear some blame. The Regan administration was delivering $1.75 worth of government services for ever dollar collected in taxes. Is it any wonder we are in such trouble.

Jimmy Carter and his buddies also bear some of the blame. But go back to Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society.

ruveyn

Charity has it's place, too--and I give.

But charitable giving tends to fall in hard economic times, at precisely the point when it is needed most. The twin advantages of public funds are continuity and aggregation.

Deregulation of the financial sector wasn't really a partisan issue until now. Deregulation occurred during every administration from Reagan through G.W. Bush. Bill Clinton was also big deregulator. However, the biggest blame falls on the banks themselves, not government. The banks really began to run amok in the late 1990s after the dot-com bubble burst. When wealthy wall street traders jumped ship on the dot-com market they needed some place else to put their stash and it ended up going to the sub-prime housing market. There was no government forcing involved.

Last edited by marshall on 19 Nov 2010, 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You can argue Reagan on spending issues, but Ronald Reagan was not responsible for the Housing Bubble.

@ marshall

You neglect to mention George W. Bush tried to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several times starting in 2003.

That is true. He was responsible for the Defense Spending Bubble or one of the people thus blameworthy.

ruveyn

@ LKL

If you actually understood the net-neutrality bill (and you obviously don't). You would actually realize it was a censorship bill as well as a bill designed to hinder places that post videos.


Fact is, they are trying to push this through because the Supreme Court told them they couldn't regulate the internet in the first place without Congressional approval.

Since you obviously don't study history I am sure you would have no idea what the "fairness doctrine" really was either.

Ugh... its scary when certain thoughts have to be in a vacuum and can't tolerate competition. I think that alone should send off alarm bells for a lot of people.

This is a tu quoque error.

Whether or not you like what the Dems are pushing does not change the fact that the Repubs are actively pushing for anti-neutrality bills bought and paid for by the telecoms.

ACORN had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis. The idea that ACORN could twist the arms of the banks is the most absurd idea I've ever heard. The real reason for the lowering lending standards was demand for the raw material for the magical Mortgage Backed Securities rated AAA by Moody's and the other rating agencies.