Report: Verizon Claimed Public Utility Status To Get Government Perks 140
An anonymous reader writes "Research for the Public Utility Law Project (PULP) has been released which details 'how Verizon deliberately moves back and forth between regulatory regimes, classifying its infrastructure either like a heavily regulated telephone network or a deregulated information service depending on its needs. The chicanery has allowed Verizon to raise telephone rates, all the while missing commitments for high-speed internet deployment' (PDF). In short, Verizon pushed for the government to give it common carrier privileges under Title II in order to build out its fiber network with tax-payer money. Result: increased service rates on telephone users to subsidize Verizon's 'infrastructure investment.' When it comes to regulations on Verizon's fiber network, however, Verizon has been pushing the government to classify its services as that of information only — i.e., beyond Title II. Verizon has made about $4.4 billion in additional revenue in New York City alone, 'money that's funneled directly from a Title II service to an array of services that currently lie beyond Title II's reach.' And it's all legal. An attorney at advocacy group Public Knowledge said it best: 'To expect that you can come in and use public infrastructure and funds to build a network and then be free of any regulation is absurd....When Verizon itself is describing these activities as a Title II common carrier, how can the FCC look at broadband internet and continue acting as though it's not a telecommunication network?'"
Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, all these articles assume that the US government isn't run solely for the benefit of a handful of corporations. If there's evidence that it's not then I'd like to see it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its worse then corruption... its incompetence. Basically its all too complicated for the limited number of politicians to manage and most of them don't really care anyway. So its all left to bureaucrats that often don't really have authority to do anything unless its kept quiet... which means there is a "don't rock the boat" mentality which means they just take the path of least resistance in all cases.
Now you could give them more authority... but then you wouldn't have even a fig leaf of democracy because
Re:Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Decentralization isn't the solution to this. If you think the system is a clusterfuck now, just think about how much worse it would be if instead of one law there were 50+ (states + DC + territories) - or, thousands (county/city level). It would keep small businesses from easily doing work outside of one area, while allowing mega-corps the ability to even more easily venue-shop for their headquarters.
You want a solution that gives more authority to regional/etc. agencies? Simple: Allow each agency, at each level, to throw up a challenge to this type of shenanigans. Verizon pulled some bullshit costing NYC $4.4billion? Then NYC can turn around and enforce the Type II requirements, and send a ripple up the chain to have the feds declare it so nationally. However, you have to be able to stop some in-Verizon's-pocket federal agency from telling NYC, "no."
Re:Corruption (Score:5, Interesting)
You ignore the public utility regulatory agencies of the 43 states that have them. This entire morass came after the TCA of 1998 and subsequent revisions of the FCC rules and regs brought on in the post Judge Greene rulings that initially broke up the Bell System.
Public utilities had to deal with all of these regulatory authorities, and then calculatedly lobbied to create US Federal control so that they'd only have to bribe-- I mean lobby and render campaign contributions-- to one target instead of so many. In-state vs Intrastate vs Interstate issues helped hold them to the floor.
NYC is not a regulatory authority. NY State is, as is the FCC, and to a smaller extent, the NTIA.
Decentralization was good for several reasons: rights of way and easements are local, even personal issues. These are last-mile issues. State issues concern everything from keeping infrastructure support fair and even (including low-profit/sparsely populated areas) to zoning policy, and so forth.
The FCC has evolved what was once called "data communications" as a separate classification, away from telephony. Now these things are the same, but the public's needs have evolved. Decentralization isn't so much meaningless as it's the ability to tailor historical infrastructure to locally evolving needs, and is better democracy.
It's time to conflate consumer communications into a single mandate, IMHO. It has to service we consumers, whether in urban, suburban, or rural areas. Whether it's a text, phone call via wire or cell, or a browser session, it ought to have to meet a set of basic standards, where consumers have well-known and flexible rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Public utilities had to deal with all of these regulatory authorities, and then calculatedly lobbied to create US Federal control so that they'd only have to bribe-- I mean lobby and render campaign contributions-- to one target instead of so many.
So, I'm the first to agree that we need to rein in the telcos. However, one of the problems of local control is a lack of standardization. Look how hard it is to collect sales tax when every little town with 12 houses in the US can establish a local tax policy. Now, imagine this town wants everything to be charged by the kilobyte paid by the sender, another town wants the costs shared between sender and recipient, and another town wants everything to be flat-rate-unlimited. Some town wants usage for eac
Re: (Score:3)
You're talking about sales models, not the wholesale carriage that telcos, actually datacom providers, are supposed to render. I'm not talking about parochial harrassment of companies, rather that regulated utilities ought to be scrutinized at both state and federal levels. The for-profit model that most utilities have changed to was a mistake. Shareholder profit, rather than the basic needs of basic infrastructure to be a world-class connected republic, is the rule.
We're almost a third-world-quality connec
Re:Corruption (Score:5, Interesting)
This community is too smart not understand the virtues of decentralization in management systems.
Understand... I'm not trying to patronize you or slight you... just express my opinion here and hope you at least give it a look before rendering a judgement.
Here we go:
Think back to the old city states in Europe. Look at them in your mind on a map. Notice how at the center of each is a large capital city from which everything is run. Okay, note the history where in each of those powers going into nation states continually tried to expand. They'd eat far flung islands and various powers all over europe only to lose them again if they were too far from their base of power.
Note the continuing failure of those powers to hold on to anything that was more then about 500 miles from their capital city.
Then consider the great exceptions in this pattern... the colonial empires of Spain and England. Note that they had to employ a decentralized power structure because employing a centralized power structure was obviously impossible at that range. Notice how powers that previously were unable to hold on to things at more then 500 miles suddenly can hold on to things thousands and thousands of miles away.
Why? Decentralization. Limited autonomy.
Now consider the United States. The US is one of the largest countries in the world both by geography and population. Yet it holds together better then many powers a great deal smaller. Why is that?
There is a general lack of insurrection due to democratic and republican governmental forms. However, just as important is the state system where in local populations have a greater say in local administration then does the national system or people that don't actually live there. This ensures that government is more responsive to local issues, attentive to local sentiments, and that if there are conflicts of interest they tend to favor local interests rather then national interests. This helps bind the country together because there is less downside/cost to the union.
What breaks apart big countries is ultimately that the people in those countries decide it is in their interest to break up rather then stay together.
To help hold a union together, you want as much as possible for there to be few if any downsides to the union and as many upsides as possible. The instant it is more in the interest of a given portion of the country to break away then stay together you will have to hold a gun to their head to hold them there.
Holding that gun there is both expensive and unstable because the instant the gun comes off they'll likely slit your throat or equivalent.
Police states are very aware of this which is why they make a point of never putting the gun down. Examples of what happens when the gun gets put down would be the French revolution... bodies in the street, corpses hanging from rafters, and other fun stuff. A general explosion of violence against the authorities.
I'm going through all this just to explain my understanding of the basic political forces that hold large numbers of people together.
Now if you look at the US government, we have a federated system rather then a unitary government. That is, unlike France or England, the US has 50 states with limited autonomy as well as various territories that are afforded something of the same interdependence.
This is a hierarchical command structure. With lower and more localized elements given authority to make certain types of decisions independently while other nominally higher authorities are given responsibility over different decisions.
Ideally, you want the more localized systems to handle all problems that they reasonably can handle while those at the higher and more generalized level are left with either managing the interrelationships of these powers or dealing with miscellaneous problems that impact all the various states.
In effect, you want the localized systems to handle nearly everything themselves... really as much as you can pos
Re: (Score:2)
Understand, I am not saying the feds are evil or bad. I am rather saying that they have information overload.
Actually, it's worse than that. The Federal justice system is a complete mess and totally corrupt.
Take the example of the Gibson Guitar raid [forbes.com], which according to the CEO was incited by Lumber Union protectionists. After years and hundreds of thousands spent in legal fees, the warrant is still sealed. Really. And this is the way the Federal Justice system has developed since the 1980's.
Now I'm no Randian, or Objectivist, but I did read Atlas Shrugged in my youth, and this situation reminds me of the nati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In regards to corruption, I didn't say it didn't exist. And I would agree in the Gibson case. That is clearly a break down in due process with the FBI.
However, if we're honest we'll see that sort of thing at every level of government.
Re: (Score:2)
However, if we're honest we'll see that sort of thing at every level of government.
I don't agree with that. That is, yes, there is corruption, but at the local and state level the system of checks and balances seem to be working well, even if it sometimes requires appeals to federal courts to correct (which sounds ironic, but it's not when you see how things are playing out). Those checks have broken down once you have federal enforcers. The bureaucracies are so powerful they have become impossible to fight. Even getting a court to hear your case is difficult and expensive, as the agen
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends. In many areas you're quite right but in others the corruption is deep and institutional. Chicago ad New Orleans are examples of cities that really need to be utterly wiped politically and institutionally to have a chance at being clean.
Detroit is also quite bad I've heard.
But then many other areas are very clean... at the federal level you'll see much of the same... some people and organizations are corrupt and others are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, you make a good point about the islands of tinpot dictatorships.
Detroit is also quite bad I've heard.
That's why I've taken to calling it Detroilet.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing really unique about that. That has been the natural state of human politics for tens of thousands of years.
You only get peace when there is something that stops the war... such as a large dominant power or the physical impossibility of conflict.
Without that, humans war with each other. Always have.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but consider if you will the mongol empire same thing... decentralized...
Point is that centralization is not scalable... if you want to have a big country you need to decentralize or collapse.
One of the two.
Re:Corruption (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No to decentralization (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Its the same thing at the federal level, they just have more power. That's the only difference.
And in large part your state government is passing laws about nothing because 1A they meet too often and 2B they have less power then they use to because the fed has taken most of it over time.
Education policy for example used to be exclusively a state issue. Now its increasingly a federal issue which means states have less and less control over their education policy.
never mind that many states have never really
Re: (Score:2)
If specific states have a problem those specific states need to correct it. Don't drag every state into a giant federal clusterfuck simply because some states are run by halfwits.
then dont assume all central regulation is bad just because one current chairman is a former lobbyist toadie without the stones to use existing regulations to what should be done and label ISPs under Title 2.
two can play that game, and I'll win, because regardless of what you may think most government programs are actually successful and achieve the goals they set out to accomplish. and most actually go away once their mandate is met. several dozen come and go every year and you never hear of them, because
Re: (Score:2)
As to not assuming, you weren't paying attention.
Allow me to repeat, indifferent to whether the federal regulation is bad for every single state, if it can be done at the state level then it is likely destructive to the independence of those states.
While you can overrule badly run states with federal policy, keep in mind that you're also overruling well run states with the same policy which has the effect of constraining them to whatever the federal government wants to do. Lets say for example a given state
Re: (Score:2)
You say I use a lot of words but don't say anything with them yet ironically neither of you presented a counter argument or refuted my argument in my post.
The unfortunate fact here is that I did offer an argument and a basis for that argument and your comment to my argument contains no substance what so ever. You make an accusation and do not back it up.
Kindly back up your position immediately or I will be justified in assuming you have no basis for this claim and thus your accusation will be void by defaul
Re: (Score:2)
We already see some of that happening already with the EPA etc just doing what they want indifferent to law, court orders, or public opinion. But it could get a lot worse.
you were doing well until this bit of BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no. The EPA has repeatedly acted and regulated various things without congressional approval for it.
I really have no patience for a moronic political "ya huh, nu uh" debate on the internet right now. We'll just agree to disagree and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
The EPA has repeatedly acted and regulated various things without congressional approval for it.
Considering the level of scientific knowledge demonstrated by Congress lately, is that a bad thing?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its only bad if you want to live in rule of law or democracy.
If you believe your various political causes are more important then freedom or rule of law then by all means... put a gun to the heads of your neighbors and threaten to shoot them all if they disagree... You're in the right after all... You know best... ... Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Its only bad if you want to live in rule of law or democracy.
What does Congress have to do with this mythical "rule of law" you guys are so fond of bringing up?
Re: (Score:2)
They make laws... They belong to something called the "legislative" branch, you ignorant boob.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean those things that are selectively applied based on money, connections, and political expedience? Your vaunted "rule of law" is either a delusion, or leaves much to be desired.
Re: (Score:2)
Your cynicism as regards the honesty of the legislature leaves us with what?
Are you advocating for dictatorship or would you like to walk that back a bit?
Re: (Score:2)
Neither, I'm just calling bullshit on your "rule of law" fappery.
Re: (Score:2)
he also apparently doesnt understand the concept of a independent national regulatory agency, an agency specifically empowered to enact regulations with the force of law in a specific "theater of operations" (so to speak). he somehow thinks they are required to run to mommy for permission for everything they do, thereby uncercutting the entire concept of "independent". the entire point in being indepent is to keep them insulated from the pressures and vagaries of political "discourse", ie, lobbying and brib
Re: (Score:2)
Bull.
The EPA is an independent government agency.
They are not required to run to mommy for permission for everything they do.
FACT: The EPA Is Essentially Required To Regulate Carbon Emissions By Law.
Same goes for water and everything else they do. After all, what is the point of creating a independent national agency otherwise?
And "Agree to disagree" is the dodge of the ignorant who cannot support his position.
Here ya go, from http://mediamatters.org/resear... [mediamatters.org]
You've been show the path to edumication, but wi
Re: (Score:2)
You're giving them too much credit by ascribing this kind of thing to incompetence. Politicians know what they're doing, or rather they know whom to trust to do what they want. And what they want is to get re-elected. It is impossible to ignore the constant state of re-election campaigning that goes on now. Fundraising and servicing lobbyists are the responsibilities we ought to lift. Not the actual work of government. I think Douglas McGregor described the administrative overhead that appears as an o
Re: (Score:2)
Some of them do... a lot of them don't.
Consider further that a lot of nasty corruption is itself the result of incompetence because they think their actions are innocent or they don't hurt anyone.
You see this a lot of with the bribes they'll take to give one company or another an advantage.
From their perspective it doesn't matter so they might as well take the money.
What they don't understand is that it does matter because it distorts the market and changes business strategies to be less about provi
Re: (Score:2)
you're right... I didn't poof read a post on the internet... forgive me...
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I'll take a corrupt politician any day over an incompetent one.
The corrupt politician at least knows what the right answer is and could very well control his corruption so that it does no serious harm. While an incompetent one can do the same or greater damage simply because they don't know what they're doing.
I grant that the relative evil of either is subjective. But in my personal opinion, incompetence is worse.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You know the saying: the proper role of government is to help the rich get richer faster than they would without it.
Who has senators/congressmen on the committee? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who has senators/congressmen on the committee? (Score:5, Funny)
Law & Money (Score:5, Insightful)
To expect that you can come in and use public infrastructure and funds to build a network and then be free of any regulation is absurd
To expect a government to take decisions based on reason, morality or legality is naive. In what regards corporations, the only law is money, the only lawyers are lobbyists and the only judges are (corrupt) politicians.
If Verizon has made about $4.4 billion in additional revenue in New York City alone, they clearly had enough to pay for a lot of campaigning, lobbying and bribery.
Re:Law & Money (Score:5, Interesting)
Its not that simple.
First, verizon actually is deveral businesses in one. The internet portion is and has been considered an information service while telecommunications portion is regulated. The problem arises when those portions of the businessvare not separate from each other. The internet should be spun off into a subsidiary that leases access to the infrastructure to make it clear. Of course that would lead to others getting lessvrestricted access and cause competition.
It is the same problem with cable internet. Thecuse the regulated portion to build out infrastructure then ride the internet on top of it. It they were forced to separate and lease this out, there would be more competition for the internet all the way around.
But looking at verizon or comcast as one entity with obe type of product isn't accurate. The separation just needs to be more separated.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you just type that with a 'smart' phone?
Re: (Score:3)
It would have taken him forever to type that on a 'dumb' phone (I remember the T9 keyboards). Smart phones still win despite their 'problems'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.. i need to stop doing that too.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah.. if you cannot deal with an opinion different from yours or facts you wish to forget, it is problably you who should shut up and listen more.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet should be spun off into a subsidiary that leases access to the infrastructure to make it clear. Of course that would lead to others getting less restricted access and cause competition.
While I agree I'd go a step further. I'd completely split the last mile off of any kind of service provision. Have a utility provide a fiber/wire/whatever to each house from a central office. They would charge each house a flat rate if it is used at a rate based on cost - just like your water bill/etc.
Within the central office the utility would maintain coloc facilities and would charge a basic fee structure for anybody who wanted to put equipment in there, and for the attachment of connections to indivi
Re: (Score:2)
Well put. GTE became Verizon Global Networks and was a very separate division. As it became integrated and FIOS was rolled out things became very difficult. They obviously chose a favorable way to request treatment, which should be expected. If they didn't have that support, they would have pulled FTTN and limited how much they were willing to spend going to the home. In the end, it would have set things back more.
But, the government should only allow a limited time monopoly for these services. Phase i
Block their cookies (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Now imagine that the toddler somehow was responsible for forcing you to put the cookies on the floor and then to leave them unattended. Using something like lobbying.
Re: (Score:3)
By throwing a temper tantrum until you cave and leave the cookies on the floor? At that point, you didn't give the toddler the cookies... you just placed them where the toddler would be pacified. The toddler is the one who abused your "trust".
That sounds a lot like politics... "I sponsored this bill, but I didn't realize it would be used for this."
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the author of the Patriot Act say that recently. He was shocked, shocked! that his bill is being used/abused in the manner that detractors of the bill have been saying it would be for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By throwing a temper tantrum until you cave and leave the cookies on the floor?
This toddler has enough money to see to it that his current parents are voted out and replaced by more compliant parents in the next term.
End result: The cookies will be left on the floor. Either by you or your replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
And we don't just expect these organizations to behave like toddlers with no impulse control, we watch it happen regularly, and we certainly do need to rethink how we handle their criminal behavior. As for them not being run by sociopaths, isn't it already established that sociopaths are ideal candidates for upper managemen
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, we need to reconsider how much autonomy we grant them. For a few examples, toddlers cannot sue people or handle their own money. They certainly aren't allowed to handle anything that could injure someone (or themselves) and they are not permitted to have an actual job outside of the immediate family.
Perhaps if the corporations want to behave like they're two years old, they shouldn't be allowed to be more than a social club. Telecommunications is too important to entrust to a toddler.
Fair? FAIR?! (Score:3)
Who said the world was fair? Rules and laws only apply to those too meek to resist.
Mark my words: the worst that happens to Verizon is a finger-wagging and maybe a slap-on-the-wrist fine.
The most traditional pass time is... (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution is not more regulation, but simplifying it. If a corporation can make billions, by simply hiring 50 lawyers, or 500, to find a way to make billions, that is huge return on investment. Anyone who expects an efficient and responsive government is dreaming. The only effective solution is to make it so simple, that dodging becomes impractical.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is not more regulation, but simplifying it. .
Bingo! Simplify, apply equally, and enforce.
Re: (Score:3)
The only effective solution is to make [regulation] so simple, that dodging becomes unnecessary.
FTFY.
Regulation (and legalese in general) becomes complex because it has to deal with all the crazy ways that creative, highly motivated, self-interested entities will find to circumvent it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that more complex regulation is better. Regulation should be as simple as possible. The key to that sentence and the problem in your understanding of this matter lies in the last part: 'as possible'. Everybody can yell 'Well, just have every x below parameter y be illegal! Problem solve
Re: (Score:2)
Simple regulation can still be quite onerous. That's why industries lobby for exemptions for special cases. Low profit, high cost markets could not be served were the providers held to the same requirements that higher revenue markets are. And then the corporations start gaming the system.
What we need are less burdensome regulations with clear goals. You want more rural service? Relieve the providers of some of the urban regulations. But then watch them to make sure they aren't playing with definitions.* W
Bona fide carrier (Score:1)
"Ha ha," he nelsoned.
Reminds me of the WWE, who declared themselves "not a bona fide athletic competition" so they wouldn't have to pay for ambulances on standby*, officially answering once and for all the great debate.
* For the athletes. I'm sure they have ambulances on standby for the dozen or so fat audience members
Follow the money (Score:3)
Verizon "as paid to Obama and legislative leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his predecessor, former Rep. Roy Blunt (now a senator), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as well as to members of four congressional committees charged with developing the laws governing its business.
The President’s re-election campaign and groups tied to it have been the largest single recipients of the company’s aid, the study found, taking in nearly $224,000. Obama has spoken repeatedly of his support for Net Neutrality but the issue received little attention during his successful re-election drive last year and he’s had little to say about it during his second term."
http://www.commondreams.org/ne... [commondreams.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?
Quite easily ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the head of the FCC is a former cable and wireless lobbyist.
Wheeler knows all of the dirty tricks these companies use, likely because he was involved in them. Which means there is no way as the chief of the FCC he isn't aware of these shenanigans.
Which means he's quietly happy to allow it, knowing that when he finished his term at the FCC there will be some big fat checks waiting for him for all of his help through the years.
In other words, your regulatory system is broken when you start appointing lobbyists to be your regulators.
It's the fox guarding the hen house. You might as well appoint Bernie Madoff as the head of the SEC.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears the lobbyist apologists are slipping here on slashdot...
Wheeler knows all of this (Score:3)
This is all lip service. Every single American could march in the street, and threaten to burn down every FCC office, TV station and radio broadcast system, and net neutrality will still loose. However, the blow back from this could be intense. "fast lanes" for corps sounds like a very juicy target, thanks for separating all those packets for Anonymous.
Public Utility (Score:2)
So if they are a public utility they get to charge 10 x the amount shown on the dice
Reminds me of the airline industry.... (Score:2)
Class-Action Lawsuit Time! (Score:2)
Well, if the PULP lawyers see this, why the fuck aren't they filing suit for the American People?
Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Money knows no party affiliation, and your sainted Democrats are equally as corrupt.
The only difference between the two faces of the Oligarch Party is the range of hot-button issues they use to create an illusion of real choice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison.
Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you are partisan, because you made NO attempt to name any names that donated to the republican party. I'm not saying the Ds are innocent. I'm only saying that your comment is clearly biased. Do you think we can't find big donors for the Rs? Which do you think pulls in more money from special interests? I'm sure the data is there to find, and we can look at it in an unbiased manner instead of just spouting your own opinion as if it's fact.
Lets go to OpenSecrets: http://www.opensecrets.org/ove.. [opensecrets.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Resistence is Futile (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/d... [townhall.com]
http://www.americanthinker.com... [americanthinker.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the corruption is so bad that the only way for even an honest business to stay on top is to pay off both sides.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison.
You're right bullshit. Wanna go look at who the biggest recivers of money from media, pharmaceuticals, and wall street is? Give ya a hint, it's not the republicans.
Seriously, if I can find this shit and I don't even live in the US I guess it's easier to say "fucking partisan hack."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison.
While the Republicans seem to pull in more money, there are certainly moneyed interests that invest heavily in the Democrats. The **AA and unions come to mind for starters. Then you have stuff like ethanol additives to the fuel which is something both parties can agree to as long as it means paying more for corn.
Re: (Score:2)
These days the Republications want to privatize profits and socialize risk. The Democrats are a bunch of spineless wankers. Both are entirely useless for anything but looking foolish.
false equivalence_check the policy votes (Score:1)
good...let's get the false equivalence of arguments fallacy out of the way right now...
we can check this...we can look at the votes on *actual policy* and see which party votes for dumb wedge issues (creationism in textbooks, anti-abortion) and to enrich oligarchs by deregulating...deregulation is a Republican philosophy
obviously money influences all politicians...j
Re: (Score:2)
They're only dumb wedge issues when they're not your wedge issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Mod up.
Re: (Score:2)
Which party is trying to cut food stamps and unemployment when its a known fact these things helps slow and arrest the falling economy?
Which party thinks the poor deserve their fate, and if they die younger, poorer, and more often to violence "oh well its a cultural problem"?
Which party reguarly use dogwhistle attacks to appeal to racism, or openly ponders if certain folks were better off as slaves?
Which party regularly denies basic science because "God said so"?
Which party supports basic rights only for WA
Re: (Score:2)
"Cut unemployment", meaning put an end to the increasing length of time unemployment benefits have been extended. One might also ask "Which party wants a permanent underclass of people dependent on unemployment aid"?
Checking off the old standbys:
racism mentioned: check!
Downtrodden downtrodden further: Check!
Slavery mentioned: Check!
WTF is a WASHP BTW?
I think you need to de-partisan yourself a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
"Cut unemployment", meaning put an end to the increasing length of time unemployment benefits have been extended. One might also ask "Which party wants a permanent underclass of people dependent on unemployment aid"?
You really asked that?
The answer is republicans and their big business partners of course!
Tool.
Re: (Score:1)
From a European perspective the only difference is that the Democrats at least give lip service to being decent human beings, the republicans truly don't give a fuck.
Once they get in they're both as bad as each other though.
Re: (Score:2)
Corrupt government causing problems? Solution?
MORE GOVERNMENT!!!!!
When you're in a hole, keep digging. Sooner or later the walls will fall in on you and you won't have a problem anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguments about the exact depth of the hole are a distraction from working towards a properly constructed hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like a true engineer even if you aren't one! I salute you!
Re: (Score:2)
I think a different game needs to be played. The two party system needs to be broken by any means necessary, even if it means voting for people that you would otherwise consider unpalatable. Unfortunately, there are too many "lesser of two evils" dufuses out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no plan but if it were possible to have one, it would probably be something along the lines of voting for the most likely or most palatable that is *not* a D or R even if they *are* the most evil. At this stage, even a "less evil" D or R is an enabler for the evillest ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is a "robere"? Besides a French surname, I mean...