Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Little

The Federal Trade Commission

Rate this topic

13 posts in this topic

Newspapers are going the way of the dinosaur. I buy 2 a day for my 90 y/o grandfather who lives with us.

 

My biggest peeve is the Sunday paper. $2.00 why does the reader have to PAY for advertising.....

 

I know this is a little off base from the thread but it shows how I feel. Taxing the internet (which is what the gov is trying to do) is wrong. If they succeed in this where will they stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are enough successful models for online news services, and there is no reason to artificially keep print news afloat.

 

I see no reason for the government to inject itself into this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Postthere are enough successful models for online news services, and there is no reason to artificially keep print news afloat.

 

I see no reason for the government to inject itself into this.

 

 

DITTO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Postthere are enough successful models for online news services, and there is no reason to artificially keep print news afloat.

 

 

I see no reason for the government to inject itself into this.

 

$$$$$$$$ When it comes to our .GOV, follow the Money. $$$$$$$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy."

 

- Daniel Webster

 

"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy ... [is] not to be denied"

 

- Chief Justice John Marshall.

 

What would you expect from an administration that appoints Mark Lloyd as its FCC Diversity Czar?

 

"Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded ... This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters."

 

- Mark Lloyd.

 

Do the math on his proposal. Tax => Revenue. headscratch.gif

 

Look at the many quotes of Genachowski appointee Stuart Benjamin as a key FCC adviser, and you can tell where this is all headed.

 

"This essay addresses the question whether one should support regulatory proposals that one believes are, standing alone, bad public policy in the hope that they will do such harm that they will ultimately produce (likely unintended) good results. For instance, one may regard a set of proposed regulations as foolish and likely to hobble the industry regulated, but perhaps desirable if one believes that we would be better off without that industry. I argue that television broadcasting is such an industry, and thus that we should support new regulations that will make broadcasting unprofitable, to hasten its demise. But it cannot be just any costly regulation: if a regulation would tend to entrench broadcasting's place on the airwaves, then the regulation will not help to free up the spectrum and should be avoided. Ideal regulations for this purpose are probably those that are pure deadweight loss - regulations that cost broadcasters significant amounts of money but have no impact on their behavior. Am I serious in writing all this? Not entirely, but mostly. I do think that society would benefit if the wireless frequencies currently devoted to broadcast could be used for other services, and the first-best ways of achieving that goal may not be realistic. I am proposing a second-best - a fairly cynical second-best, but a second-best all the same. I would prefer not to go down this path, but if that is the only way to hasten the shriveling of television broadcasting's spectrum usage, then it is probably a path worth taking."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the record business was slow in changing.

But think about it-I read a blog post from Mark Steyn.

Last Friday, a Rabbi with a 125 dollar flip camera and a free youtube account took down one of the most infamous people in the history of American journalism, and the New York Times takes three days to write a story about it (Monday).

Thats pretty damn hard to wrap your arms around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostI thought the record business was slow in changing.

 

But think about it-I read a blog post from Mark Steyn.

 

Last Friday, a Rabbi with a 125 dollar flip camera and a free youtube account took down one of the most infamous people in the history of American journalism, and the New York Times takes three days to write a story about it (Monday).

 

Thats pretty damn hard to wrap your arms around.

 

How do you spell A G E N D A..............40.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ,gov trying to tax the internet is just a revenue grab. With declining tax revenues, look for more of these ways to grab new revenue streams.

The .gov wants a news outlet it can control. Most newspapers are in some pols pocket. They give news to the paper when the pol wants it printed. How many times has a newspaper sat on a story until they got the OK to print it. The internet breaks news at the speed of light, and the news is not in the news makers control. A politician wants to control his message, with the internet it is harder to control it.

Any govt tax I view as a bad thing, and have to be convinced it is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't commented yet because I haven't had a chance to read the original draft. What I read on some sites is very disturbing, especially coupled with the latest FCC maneuvers. In short it appears to follow the same Obama playbook; another tax, redistribute to those the govt. deems needy and gain control over yet another entitity.

 

Some highlights are:

 

A new 5% tax.

 

Tax credits to media based upon number of journalists employed.

 

Creation of a journalism division within AmeriCorp

 

Grants to Universitys to conduct investigative journalism

 

Increased postal subsidies for newspapers, periodicals and funding for public radio and tv.

 

This was discussed on a few threads about a year ago. I felt it was only a matter of time before a liberal admin. tries to help out a declining ally. It appears Obama isn't quite the "deer in headlights" he is currently labeled. This study was initiated over a year ago. Apparently this administration doesn't waste time when following an agenda of "change" for America.

 

-----------

 

One of the defining moments for the ascendancy of the internet and decline of MSM was the exposure of the Killian Documents story. Journalist superstar Dan Rather, his producer as well as 60 min. were taken down in a matter of hours by bloggers. This was a story they claimed to have spent years developing. Without the internet that tainted, baised (election influencing) news story may never have been exposed or just buried until after the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you feel the current administration is trying to capture more control of free individuals ability to communicate, or are they just trying to raise some revenue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostDo you feel the current administration is trying to capture more control of free individuals ability to communicate, or are they just trying to raise some revenue?

 

 

 

Both may very well be secondary considerations. I have to read the paper in detail. I think the main thrust is to both save and to have a hold on the media which has been more receptive to liberal an democratic ideals. I think they're also more interested in gaining power by selective redistributing of revenue rather than raising more.

 

I recall an interview back in 08. Obama was questioned about raising tax rates on certain high income individuals. It was pointed out that historically that actually results in an overall decline in total revenue collected. He didn't dispute that fact but instead replied that it was primarilly a matter of fairness not total revenue.

 

IOW agenda has priority over other considerations. The government or Obama decides how the public is compensated, not the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.