They left out the Atheists? Honestly, doesn't anyone read the "right wing talking points" memoes anymore?
Atheists are automatically covered under "Nazis." Don't you watch Ben Stein, or listen to the Pope?
Yeah it's fun to be villianized and discarded. Woooo Atheism!
Well, that sounds to me like declaring war on the unions and enslaving the employees.Of course. Current American "wisdom" is that unions are for Communists, and big corporations know better -- and if we give an inch to those dirty commies, we'll lose our unique awesomeness and become a hellish place like everywhere else in the world.
If that reminds you a little of the 1930s overseas... well, it does me, too.
I don't want the government owning businesses at all -- that's not its function, and shouldn't be. I also don't want businesses owning all of their workers under the benign indifference of government. But that defies the "all or nothing" stance that's always so popular in politics.
Interesting...and also interesting points all around. I do not agree with everything that has been said(obviously, the more conservative stuff rubs me the wrong way), but I am glad to see this thread still going.
As near as I can tell, in the US, education is local. It's governed by local standards with a local board of education adopting standards and very little federal oversight. Which is a big part of the problem. Standards vary to such a frightening degree that a high school education from a good school district and a poor one are hardly even comparable. The federal government gives grants to schools, but education is funded through property taxes mainly, with some state contribution.True. And that's sad. I think it standards should be nationalized. A co-worker moved here from Texas. His kid is in the 4th grade. But what he learned in Texas puts him 1 to 2 grades behind here. And that's killed the poor kid's self-confidence.
Grewing up, moved around a lot and saw how the standards varied from city to city. In one school I'd be in several AP classes, and in another I'd need a tutor to catch up. Because of that, my grades kept my from attending the college of my dreams.
So from my experience I say that the Department of Education NEEDS to standarize education standards on a national level.
I agree, it's just the HOW of it that's daunting. I think there needs to be some serious education reform in the States (just watched a terrifying video about some halfwit teacher who was preaching creationism inside the school system).
I agree, it's just the HOW of it that's daunting. I think there needs to be some serious education reform in the States (just watched a terrifying video about some halfwit teacher who was preaching creationism inside the school system).As near as I can tell, in the US, education is local. It's governed by local standards with a local board of education adopting standards and very little federal oversight. Which is a big part of the problem. Standards vary to such a frightening degree that a high school education from a good school district and a poor one are hardly even comparable. The federal government gives grants to schools, but education is funded through property taxes mainly, with some state contribution.True. And that's sad. I think it standards should be nationalized. A co-worker moved here from Texas. His kid is in the 4th grade. But what he learned in Texas puts him 1 to 2 grades behind here. And that's killed the poor kid's self-confidence.
Grewing up, moved around a lot and saw how the standards varied from city to city. In one school I'd be in several AP classes, and in another I'd need a tutor to catch up. Because of that, my grades kept my from attending the college of my dreams.
So from my experience I say that the Department of Education NEEDS to standarize education standards on a national level.
Something similar happened to me as well when I was a kid moving around a lot from NY to CA back to NY and then to PA and then back to NY- lots of shifting around with classes and levels and such. A national standard for education might not be a bad idea.
Poor people spend most of their money on goods and servicies. How is a sales tax fair if as a percentage more of what the poor people earn will be spent on paying this tax instead of saving the money and the burden of the tax falls onto poor people. People call this fair. So does fair mean taxing the poor more than the rich mean it is fair. Who is really for redistribution of wealth now?
Also wouldn't a high national sales tax mean smugglers can get more money smuggling things in and selling them on the black market if the sales tax is too high? What about people going across borders to buy things where taxes are lower and there still is a similar price.
just a quick comment on the thread derail freehold and nathan.
A national standard would be a great idea IF and only IF it was made to help not continue the dumbing down of the citizens of this country.
My freind that home schools her daughter would under not circumstances place her back into the public schools here because they take the kids off of school property and bus them to the local baptist church for world religions class. The parents are all on board with it and so it's common practice and has been for decades. Being told all other religions are misinformed or are lesser or just plain ol' evil is what the class amounts to.
My point is that if a national standard were to be put in place then the educators would be forced to teach to the lowest common denominator of the education level.
If one state doesn't teach long division until the 4th grade then the rest of the states would have to follow. If VA wanted to spend a extra week or two studying the civil war because it was more relevant here or visit some of the battle feilds they might not be able to do so due to a national standard.
National standards are a good idea in theory but the practice "could" damage the education of america worse than anything else if it's done badly.
If that reminds you a little of the 1930s overseas... well, it does me, too.
Yep. Only that it is not overseas to me - which might explain my sensitivitiy to this kind of behaviour.
I don't want the government owning businesses at all -- that's not its function, and shouldn't be. I also don't want businesses owning all of their workers under the benign indifference of government. But that defies the "all or nothing" stance that's always so popular in politics.
Right. It is indeed not the task of any government to own businesses. But I see it as their task to ensure a safe and fair market for the businesses and consumers, for example.
Politicians generally seem to believe that the "common man" cannot be bothered with the complexity our world has, which is why they dumb it down to two extremes and paint the "other" extreme in such a way as to ensure that everybody accepts their view of things. Judging from what I see from the US these days, it is not even a hint of factual arguments that count, just populistic loudmouthing if not outright ad homimen attacks on the political enemy, with that Palin crosshairs map being a new low.
Stefan
Poor people spend most of their money on goods and servicies. How is a sales tax fair if as a percentage more of what the poor people earn will be spent on paying this tax instead of saving the money and the burden of the tax falls onto poor people. People call this fair. So does fair mean taxing the poor more than the rich mean it is fair. Who is really for redistribution of wealth now?
Also wouldn't a high national sales tax mean smugglers can get more money smuggling things in and selling them on the black market if the sales tax is too high? What about people going across borders to buy things where taxes are lower and there still is a similar price.
A fair tax in my opinon would be better than whats in place already. If everybody paid on what they bought and not on income then thats fair.
I'm sick and tired of "poor" people sticking me where it hurts.
Case in point my buddy scott and his wife have 4 kids that live with them and he pays child support on a one night fling so thats 5 kids off of HIS income of about 12-15K a year.
They get back ALL of their tax money AND about 7 grand a year MORE than they paid in because their "poor". How is that fair or right, they get MORE than they paid in because of their uncontrolled breeding!
I'm a educated single man and get back squate compared to those guys.
Now multiply that by a million or so and you'll see why we need a fair tax.
National standards are a good idea in theory but the practice "could" damage the education of america worse than anything else if it's done badly.
Any national standard executed badly is damaging. But this does not speak against the idea of national standards in general IMO.
The kind of religious "education" you complain about (and rightly so, IMO) is a counterpoint actually, because in a national standard, you would have to take religious education into account as well and define its contents somehow - or say, our education is purely secular, and religion is a private matter federal government has nothing to do with.
A standard that applied to all schools nationwide would not have to wait for some state to introduce a certain teaching content, because all would start out at the same level. A national standard should allow for a certain room for special or local topics, or even contain "local history" as part of its standard, to stay at your VA example. These few thoughts show that any schooling standard is a highly complex matter, not to be taken lightly, no matter what level of government decides about that.
Stefan
just a quick comment on the thread derail freehold and nathan.
A national standard would be a great idea IF and only IF it was made to help not continue the dumbing down of the citizens of this country.
My freind that home schools her daughter would under not circumstances place her back into the public schools here because they take the kids off of school property and bus them to the local baptist church for world religions class. The parents are all on board with it and so it's common practice and has been for decades. Being told all other religions are misinformed or are lesser or just plain ol' evil is what the class amounts to.
My point is that if a national standard were to be put in place then the educators would be forced to teach to the lowest common denominator of the education level.
If one state doesn't teach long division until the 4th grade then the rest of the states would have to follow. If VA wanted to spend a extra week or two studying the civil war because it was more relevant here or visit some of the battle feilds they might not be able to do so due to a national standard.
National standards are a good idea in theory but the practice "could" damage the education of america worse than anything else if it's done badly.
Quick response on the derail, then back to the topic at hand-
I completely agree. Your friend's situation is abhorrent- noone should be forced to homeschool their child due to such a disgusting practice(Note- happily Christian here, and well aware of the fact that I am a sinner, etc, etc.). I would be in favor of a (perhaps) painfully high national standard with respect to education that includes home economics, automotive(am willing to bend on that one as cars have changed significantly over the years and will continue to do so), and art, music or gymnastics/sports(individual student's choice- NOT the family's) alongside math, english/reading, history(slight preference for American history over international) and science. Religion is to respected, but excluded from such affairs.
Boy, THAT will get the 'states rights' crew up in arms. :)
Not as much as this;
States don't really have rights (well they do, but at the behest of the SOVEREIGN, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and really is that a right or an allowance?). We had a war about that, this one time. Then again niether do individuals in the right circumstances.
I agree that a federal education system could be problematic but it follows that there would be consideration for state and local history.
Addressing the point of government employees and pay - Some of us ARE paid well for the career field. I'd hardly say "over paid" as frankly our standards and requirements are different. Actually, in my career field working for the government is significantly less profitable then working in the private sector (65k vs 100 - 300k) so I think that we can all probably agree that sweeping generalizations on federal pay are a little out of place. Obviously the top levels make significantly more then the rest of us, but their salaries are still lightyears behind the staggering numbers that their corporate counterparts earn.
Poor people spend most of their money on goods and servicies. How is a sales tax fair if as a percentage more of what the poor people earn will be spent on paying this tax instead of saving the money and the burden of the tax falls onto poor people. People call this fair. So does fair mean taxing the poor more than the rich mean it is fair. Who is really for redistribution of wealth now?
Also wouldn't a high national sales tax mean smugglers can get more money smuggling things in and selling them on the black market if the sales tax is too high? What about people going across borders to buy things where taxes are lower and there still is a similar price.
A fair tax in my opinon would be better than whats in place already. If everybody paid on what they bought and not on income then thats fair.
I'm sick and tired of "poor" people sticking me where it hurts.
Case in point my buddy scott and his wife have 4 kids that live with them and he pays child support on a one night fling so thats 5 kids off of HIS income of about 12-15K a year.
They get back ALL of their tax money AND about 7 grand a year MORE than they paid in because their "poor". How is that fair or right, they get MORE than they paid in because of their uncontrolled breeding!
I'm a educated single man and get back squate compared to those guys.
Now multiply that by a million or so and you'll see why we need a fair tax.
So long as it's the other guy getting screwed over, everything's jake? I know that isn't what you are saying, but there are holes that have been pointed out in the current version of the fairtax proposal that make me wonder.
Yep. Only that it is not overseas to me - which might explain my sensitivitiy to this kind of behaviour.
Ich verstehe. My grandfather left just beforehand; with a name like "Goldmann," his family decided that staying in Germany would soon be an unacceptable risk.
So long as it's the other guy getting screwed over, everything's jake? I know that isn't what you are saying, but there are holes that have been pointed out in the current version of the fairtax proposal that make me wonder.Poor people spend most of their money on goods and servicies. How is a sales tax fair if as a percentage more of what the poor people earn will be spent on paying this tax instead of saving the money and the burden of the tax falls onto poor people. People call this fair. So does fair mean taxing the poor more than the rich mean it is fair. Who is really for redistribution of wealth now?
Also wouldn't a high national sales tax mean smugglers can get more money smuggling things in and selling them on the black market if the sales tax is too high? What about people going across borders to buy things where taxes are lower and there still is a similar price.
A fair tax in my opinon would be better than whats in place already. If everybody paid on what they bought and not on income then thats fair.
I'm sick and tired of "poor" people sticking me where it hurts.
Case in point my buddy scott and his wife have 4 kids that live with them and he pays child support on a one night fling so thats 5 kids off of HIS income of about 12-15K a year.
They get back ALL of their tax money AND about 7 grand a year MORE than they paid in because their "poor". How is that fair or right, they get MORE than they paid in because of their uncontrolled breeding!
I'm a educated single man and get back squate compared to those guys.
Now multiply that by a million or so and you'll see why we need a fair tax.
I had missed that.
Also, I wonder why that tax proposal is inapropriately named. Fair Tax would imply fairness of treatment, which would be taxing people at a balanced level in regards to their income. That should be called something that doesn't have a moral connotation on it.Also, try being poor for a bit. No one's "sticking" it to you when they don't know where their food is coming from. Abusing the system (which inevitably happens) when it goes on from both sides, the rich are just as morally culpable for their actions as the poor.
Edited for better civility.
Yep. Only that it is not overseas to me - which might explain my sensitivitiy to this kind of behaviour.Ich verstehe. My grandfather left just beforehand; with a name like "Goldmann," his family decided that staying in Germany would soon be an unacceptable risk.
To derail this topic now completely, I´ve heard and seen so much about the Third Reich and how it came to be that I´m highly sensitive to extreme-right positions. Even today, new evidence just how deeply involved my people (speaking of Germans in general) were with the Nazi crimes on all levels of society is uncovered with almost frightening regularity. Yeah, a family named Goldmann would almost certainly not have survived...
Stefan
|
My understanding is that the "fair tax" is supposed to be a national sales tax (anywhere from 20-30% depending on who you ask) on all sales. Feel free to correct that understanding.
On all retail sales of NEW PRODUCTS and ALL SERVICES to CONSUMERS. This includes imports by consumers. It also includes a "prebate" check every month to each family - the amount of sales tax they would pay if they earned the current poverty level of income and spent it all (i.e. if you're earning at or below the poverty level and spend your entire income, you get all that tax paid to you at the beginning of the month. If you spend less than your total income, that prebate will be a little extra money in your pocket). If you earn $2 million, you will still get this prebate. It goes to EVERYONE.
Essentially it takes all of our current taxes out of the random places they are embedded in our economy (corporate taxes passed on to consumers in the price of goods, income taxes that lower the buying power of average citizens) and shove them all into the place where they end up anyway - the price of the products and services consumers buy.
Taxes are necessary - but placing them in different places in the economy and setting things up so certain types of people are taxed more than others or certain industries are taxed more than others or certain activities are taxed higher than others all distort the economy to either encourage certain behaviors or pull in money from small or unpopular groups so larger voting blocs remain happy. I think the efficiency gains from shifting compliance and enforcement from every wage earner and corporation in the country to retail outlets and service providers will be not insignificant. Removing the depressing pressure of progressive taxes on income and placing it on spending will encourage saving, investment and production. Removing embedded corporate taxes from the prices of domestic goods will help our import overseas and domestic sales of domestic products. Black and grey market incomes will still be spent to a significant degree at retail outlets, capturing taxes from much of the underground economy. Simple and obvious taxes make it harder for Congress to play games with taxes in order to buy votes from large numbers of people by raising taxes on smaller groups...hopefully encouraging fiscal discipline (*snort* not really high hopes here...).
|
Let me explain a simple thing most "Americans" don't seem to get about the economy. The United States is a consumer based economy in order to make money people have to buy the goods and services that companies sell. This requires people to have jobs be they government or private sector so they can pay for those goods and services and pay taxes which then pays for other goods and services provided by the Government.
You cut hundreds of thousands of jobs you won't save money, but it will have a domino effect upon the economy. Those people unless they find another job can't buy the goods and services which means buisnesses no longer make profit off of those people and thus curtail thier own production cutting jobs themselves to maintain thier profit margins and the amount of people draining money from goverment programs increases.
Essentially the more money people are paid for jobs the more goods and services they can buy and the more the economy improves. This is why the economy increases when someone increases the minimum wage. How ever we also have this brain dead buisness model of maximizing profits which if you study basic economics is revealed to be a bad thing in the long run. Its been proven that lowering taxes on the wealthy creates a larger and larger gap between the amount of money the lowest and the richest have. We have reached the point where 90% of our Money is in the hands of 1% of our population.
Its also been proven that the wealthiest people have no incentive to expend the money they collect. Quite simply they can't spend it all nor do they want to. Do you see Bill Gates creating more Microsofts? No he is how ever giving away a good chunk of his money. My point is if people don't make enough money to buy your goods your company will not be able to sustain profits. The reason why Walmart has become so large has nothing to do with its quality it has to do with the fact that the United States average consumer can't afford to shop anywhere else.
Just a reminder.
It's interesting that what's happening on a national scale - the demonizing of opposing opinions - is being reflected on the boards.
Thanks for backing us up, Ross.
|
Poor people spend most of their money on goods and servicies. How is a sales tax fair if as a percentage more of what the poor people earn will be spent on paying this tax instead of saving the money and the burden of the tax falls onto poor people. People call this fair. So does fair mean taxing the poor more than the rich mean it is fair. Who is really for redistribution of wealth now?
Also wouldn't a high national sales tax mean smugglers can get more money smuggling things in and selling them on the black market if the sales tax is too high? What about people going across borders to buy things where taxes are lower and there still is a similar price.
A fair tax in my opinon would be better than whats in place already. If everybody paid on what they bought and not on income then thats fair.
I'm sick and tired of "poor" people sticking me where it hurts.
Case in point my buddy scott and his wife have 4 kids that live with them and he pays child support on a one night fling so thats 5 kids off of HIS income of about 12-15K a year.
They get back ALL of their tax money AND about 7 grand a year MORE than they paid in because their "poor". How is that fair or right, they get MORE than they paid in because of their uncontrolled breeding!
I'm a educated single man and get back squate compared to those guys.
Now multiply that by a million or so and you'll see why we need a fair tax.
Getting rid of ALL tax credits/exceptions would be a good place to start, pay your damn taxes its not that hard
|
|
Just a reminder.It's interesting that what's happening on a national scale - the demonizing of opposing opinions - is being reflected on the boards.
Thanks for backing us up, Ross.
It is in a large part due to the dumbing down of America. Less and less people are thinking for themselves and are letting other people think for them.
The one thing I truely hate is how society has been turned into a screw the other guy what about me mentality. Someone commented on how we need a fair tax, because its unfair that his buddy who makes 15k a year has 5 kids to feed due to his inability to keep it in his pants. How is it fair to punish his kids for the mistakes of thier parents?
Is it fair that Charlie Sheen makes 2 mil an episode while the poor grip makes 20k maybe a year in his union gig? Sure he's a funny guy, but what about all those people in the credits who make the bare minimum so he can have his 2 mil an episode salary? Is thier contribution so much less that Charlie Sheen can pull in 52 mil a year on the backs of thier hardwork and they make peanuts in comparison?
Should a trip to the movies set me back 30 bucks, because Tom Cruise's agent decided he needs to make 25 mil a movie? Is he suddenly going to not act as well or put forth as much effort if he was only making 5?
I do know for a fact if it only cost me 6 bucks to go to the movies I'd see 5 times as many movies as I currently do. Its also been noted that the current trend in block buster movies is unsustainable due to the cost of movies. When your movie costs 140 million, because you hired Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie its no wonder MGM went bankrupt.
So the real question is how much more should management make on the backs of its workers?
So why can't lawmakers do that, if it's so easy?
The only thing I can think of is that just because it's the right thing to do doesn't mean it's popular or easy.
When your job rides on your popularity then you do what you need to to keep it, thats for all parties not just the big two.
|
|
So why can't lawmakers do that, if it's so easy?
Because everyone has a pet project, and lawmakers are interested in:
getting reelected
getting money to get reelected
gaining more power to make sure they can more easily get reelected
I mean, I don't like the decisions that Obama is making - I don't like his political ideology one bit - but he's doing what we're asking lawmakers to do - follow his ideology and damn the consequences to his reelection chances and his party.
How is everyone liking that so far?
::shrug::
I don't know what the answers are.
I think the best one is probably elect me as Dictator for Life.
I would be a benevolent dictator.
I promise.
So why can't lawmakers do that, if it's so easy?Because everyone has a pet project, and lawmakers are interested in:
getting reelected
getting money to get reelected
gaining more power to make sure they can more easily get reelectedI mean, I don't like the decisions that Obama is making - I don't like his political ideology one bit - but he's doing what we're asking lawmakers to do - follow his ideology and damn the consequences to his reelection chances and his party.
How is everyone liking that so far?
::shrug::
I don't know what the answers are.
I think the best one is probably elect me as Dictator for Life.
I would be a benevolent dictator.
Hey thats my line?
I promise.
So why can't lawmakers do that, if it's so easy?Because everyone has a pet project, and lawmakers are interested in:
getting reelected
getting money to get reelected
gaining more power to make sure they can more easily get reelectedI mean, I don't like the decisions that Obama is making - I don't like his political ideology one bit - but he's doing what we're asking lawmakers to do - follow his ideology and damn the consequences to his reelection chances and his party.
How is everyone liking that so far?
::shrug::
I don't know what the answers are.
I think the best one is probably elect me as Dictator for Life.
I would be a benevolent dictator.
I promise.
Apparently we fall into different political categories, which is only slightly disappointing. I have no problem with the majority of things Obama has done or is trying to do, although I am well aware that there is room for improvement. That said, despite our differences, I would gladly elect you dictator for life, as I feel you would be quite benevolent.
|
|
Apparently we fall into different political categories, which is only slightly disappointing. I have no problem with the majority of things Obama has done or is trying to do, although I am well aware that there is room for improvement. That said, despite our differences, I would gladly elect you dictator for life, as I feel you would be quite benevolent.::shrug::
I don't know what the answers are.
I think the best one is probably elect me as Dictator for Life.
I would be a benevolent dictator.
I promise.
Flattery under my administration...will get you quite far, actually!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Flattery under my administration...will get you quite far, actually!Apparently we fall into different political categories, which is only slightly disappointing. I have no problem with the majority of things Obama has done or is trying to do, although I am well aware that there is room for improvement. That said, despite our differences, I would gladly elect you dictator for life, as I feel you would be quite benevolent.::shrug::
I don't know what the answers are.
I think the best one is probably elect me as Dictator for Life.
I would be a benevolent dictator.
I promise.
I, for one, would like to welcome our new Pathfinder-playing overlord and pledge my loyalty and support!
Edit: Can you make one day a week a gaming day holiday?
|
|
Flattery under my administration...will get you quite far, actually!Apparently we fall into different political categories, which is only slightly disappointing. I have no problem with the majority of things Obama has done or is trying to do, although I am well aware that there is room for improvement. That said, despite our differences, I would gladly elect you dictator for life, as I feel you would be quite benevolent.::shrug::
I don't know what the answers are.
I think the best one is probably elect me as Dictator for Life.
I would be a benevolent dictator.
I promise.
I, for one, would like to welcome our new Pathfinder-playing overlord and pledge my loyalty and support!
Edit: Can you make one day a week a gaming day holiday?
I would be the ultimate GM. I could do...
......
The government funds things that corporations can't or won't and that serve the public good. Roads, police protection, defense, NPR, PBS, all these are things that corporations can't or won't provide without adding their own commercial spins. Contrast Fox News and PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer.Just an update, as of a few weeks ago the government has rescinded all funding to public broadcasting. It's only income at this point is from public and private donations.
Thats interesting. I have no idea what broadcasting services were funded and what this funding did. One idea behind government funding of broadcasting normally is that the media can work independent of any private support and concentrate on their work. If that was the case, it could be that really independent media will be less common and less wide-ranging in the future.
STefan
The government funds things that corporations can't or won't and that serve the public good. Roads, police protection, defense, NPR, PBS, all these are things that corporations can't or won't provide without adding their own commercial spins. Contrast Fox News and PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer.Just an update, as of a few weeks ago the government has rescinded all funding to public broadcasting. It's only income at this point is from public and private donations.
That's not quite true. There have been several bills in congress that would defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but to the best of my knowledge, none of them have reached the President for signing. The most recent such bill, passed by the House just this morning, still has to go through the Senate before it's submitted to the President to be signed into law. At that point, he still has the power to veto the bill.
So while it's entirely possible that public broadcasting will be defunded, it's by no means a done deal yet.
edited for phrasing
The government funds things that corporations can't or won't and that serve the public good. Roads, police protection, defense, NPR, PBS, all these are things that corporations can't or won't provide without adding their own commercial spins. Contrast Fox News and PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer.Just an update, as of a few weeks ago the government has rescinded all funding to public broadcasting. It's only income at this point is from public and private donations.
Thats interesting. I have no idea what broadcasting services were funded and what this funding did. One idea behind government funding of broadcasting normally is that the media can work independent of any private support and concentrate on their work. If that was the case, it could be that really independent media will be less common and less wide-ranging in the future.
STefan
Many of those public services have pretty much putting themselves in this position by taking a political view on reporting. When you tell half the people that have to decide on your funding that they are stupid, don't be surprised when they decide not to fund you.
Many of those public services have pretty much putting themselves in this position by taking a political view on reporting. When you tell half the people that have to decide on your funding that they are stupid, don't be surprised when they decide not to fund you.
The government funds things that corporations can't or won't and that serve the public good. Roads, police protection, defense, NPR, PBS, all these are things that corporations can't or won't provide without adding their own commercial spins. Contrast Fox News and PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer.Just an update, as of a few weeks ago the government has rescinded all funding to public broadcasting. It's only income at this point is from public and private donations.
Thats interesting. I have no idea what broadcasting services were funded and what this funding did. One idea behind government funding of broadcasting normally is that the media can work independent of any private support and concentrate on their work. If that was the case, it could be that really independent media will be less common and less wide-ranging in the future.
STefan
Thats why government funding mostly comes with a clause to remain politically neutral, and recieve the guarantee that politics won´t try to influence your work - at least, that is the theory.
Deregulation works GREAT in theory. Practical application--not so much.
Deregulation actually works really well. There are very few examples where reducing government's involvement in an industry makes it worse. Typically, governemnt regulation accomplishes two things: forcing cheaters to find a new way to cheat, and making things harder for the honest people.
Three things really, there's also increased incompetence at the government level because things get more complicated, or because it becomes clear the intrusion is not welcomed or often wrranted.
Let's take the recent FinReg issue. The government forces lending on institutions, threatening suits and penalties for 'discriminatory' lenders. Real predators (and not a few desperate firms anxious to get out from under the weight of 'government-backed' securities) find a new way to cheat, an icnreased number of government regulators literally rack up a huge bill for porn at their offices beause they aren't doing their job, and despite the fact that Madoff thinks he's busted over and over again, federal regulators don't catch him until it's too late to save his victims. Meanwhile, honest lenders and investors have lost money dealing with the rigmarole of increased government requirements in terms of reporting, restricted access to information and forced lending. The answer when it all breaks down and the regualtion we already had in place failed? Spend more money on more onerous regulation.
Curiously, I haven't heard that news story yet where the execs at FNM and FDM, who lied on their reports about stability to earn bonus money, nor the bungling regulators that couldn't be bothered to do their jobs, have been carted off to jail. Instead, we protect at least a part of the root cause by throwing FNM into the FOIA-free limbo of possible privatization. Sell it or don't. Let's crack open the books and see if the House politicians who defended FNM deserve forgiveness for an understandable mistake, or jail for complicity.
More regulation hurts the parts of the industry that didn't need it, and does little to hinder the crooks already in the system. Recall that in the case of BP, it actually generated more crooks. WHen you pretend to be the 'green company' that embraces all the crap you put the rest of the industry through, it's easier to position yourself for meaningful bribes.