How Russia hacked the Democrats email

[theengel]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

Oooops, sorry, I missed that. Personally, I think most politics is humourous all by itself. It really doesn't need comedians. It is mostly rich people trying to make other rich people even richer, and trying to hide it. It is a joke that writes itself. lol

On that, we can agree.

Our difference comes in how we think it should be fixed. You seem to more or less accept the idea that the government should regulate things in order to 'level the playing field.' My contention is that the less the government interferes, the more chance the little guy has of beating Goliath.

For example, think about our industry. Let's say the government imposed regulations on how we should handle waste toner. Here in America, it would probably come in the form of EPA regulations that impose mandatory inspections costing an insanely high amount of money. Like, they would say each bucket of toner being disposed should be inspected for $700 before you can do anything with it.

Guys like me would be out of business, because there's no way I could afford it. I know it's a cost you pass off to customers, but the larger companies would be able to dilute that cost across their overhead--I wouldn't. It would ruin me, along with hundreds of other inde techs, and strengthen the big corporations.

This is exactly what happens in hundreds of industries in America... including the farming industry, which I know you Canadians are dealing with right now (Monsanto).

Less government intervention would eventually destroy companies like Monsanto, because countless small farmers would have their hand cuffs taken off. They could find new ways of battling the giant. Monsanto wouldn't be able to sue every small fry and keep them from growing their own seed.

[Copier Addict]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

On that, we can agree.

Our difference comes in how we think it should be fixed. You seem to more or less accept the idea that the government should regulate things in order to 'level the playing field.' My contention is that the less the government interferes, the more chance the little guy has of beating Goliath.

For example, think about our industry. Let's say the government imposed regulations on how we should handle waste toner. Here in America, it would probably come in the form of EPA regulations that impose mandatory inspections costing an insanely high amount of money. Like, they would say each bucket of toner being disposed should be inspected for $700 before you can do anything with it.

Guys like me would be out of business, because there's no way I could afford it. I know it's a cost you pass off to customers, but the larger companies would be able to dilute that cost across their overhead--I wouldn't. It would ruin me, along with hundreds of other inde techs, and strengthen the big corporations.

This is exactly what happens in hundreds of industries in America... including the farming industry, which I know you Canadians are dealing with right now (Monsanto).

Less government intervention would eventually destroy companies like Monsanto, because countless small farmers would have their hand cuffs taken off. They could find new ways of battling the giant. Monsanto wouldn't be able to sue every small fry and keep them from growing their own seed.

But without regulation greed and human nature take over and the environment gets ruined even faster than it is being ruined now. You have to keep an eye on these big corporations or they put money ahead of their responsibilities as human beings.

[theengel]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

But the regulations don't stop them from doing that... the regulations only keep small business men from surviving. I'd bet my right arm that EVERY SINGLE regulation you can name, I can demonstrate how it helps big business by crippling small business. In my opinion, regulations are only there to eliminate competition and keep consumers in the dark.

[Phil B.]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

But the regulations don't stop them from doing that... the regulations only keep small business men from surviving. I'd bet my right arm that EVERY SINGLE regulation you can name, I can demonstrate how it helps big business by crippling small business. In my opinion, regulations are only there to eliminate competition and keep consumers in the dark.

yup the advantages of being able to afford lobbyists! and that my friends is how Congressmen/Senators can retire as multi multi millionaires after only a few years in office and making only $175-250k a year!

" Oh don't worry Joe... for $250,000 I will get your bill shoved thru .. no problemo!

[Copier Addict]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

But the regulations don't stop them from doing that... the regulations only keep small business men from surviving. I'd bet my right arm that EVERY SINGLE regulation you can name, I can demonstrate how it helps big business by crippling small business. In my opinion, regulations are only there to eliminate competition and keep consumers in the dark.

It maybe doesn't stop all pollution, but it creates consequences for polluting. Without these regulations they wouldn't think twice about polluting your water. And Monsanto only sues farmers who sign an agreement not to replant seeds saved from products bought from them. I am not sticking up for Monsanto, but just clearing that up.

[theengel]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

Oh wow... do some research on Monsanto and how they are affecting your industry.

Anyway, companies don't think twice about polluting water now. Not the big ones anyway.

But that's kind of a generality. Who can argue with it? We all want clean water and clean air.

If you actually look at the legislation and the rules imposed by bureaucracies (the ones that specifically apply to specific industries) you start to see patterns. The rules are not there to protect the environment--they're there to squash the small guy.

For example: the disposal of roofing material that contains asbestos. This is how it is in Ohio... I don't know how the laws apply nationally. But a local roofer can not just dispose of the asbestos roofing. A local resident can, but not a local roofer. And if a resident has a roofer replace their shingles, and then tries to dispose of them themselves, they are fined. A local resident can replace the shingles himself and dispose of them himself. But if he wants to hire a roofer, that roofer must get the asbestos 'inspected' before disposing of them. The fee to have it inspected and approved is really high--to the point that a small roofer cannot afford it because the cost is more than you could possibly pass off to one or two customers. But a big roofing company can pay the fee and easily become the ONLY company in an area to handle asbestos. And in the end, they don't do anything special to them. They are disposed of exactly the same way other roofing material is disposed.

[Copier Addict]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

Oh wow... do some research on Monsanto and how they are affecting your industry.

Anyway, companies don't think twice about polluting water now. Not the big ones anyway.

But that's kind of a generality. Who can argue with it? We all want clean water and clean air.

If you actually look at the legislation and the rules imposed by bureaucracies (the ones that specifically apply to specific industries) you start to see patterns. The rules are not there to protect the environment--they're there to squash the small guy.

For example: the disposal of roofing material that contains asbestos. This is how it is in Ohio... I don't know how the laws apply nationally. But a local roofer can not just dispose of the asbestos roofing. A local resident can, but not a local roofer. And if a resident has a roofer replace their shingles, and then tries to dispose of them themselves, they are fined. A local resident can replace the shingles himself and dispose of them himself. But if he wants to hire a roofer, that roofer must get the asbestos 'inspected' before disposing of them. The fee to have it inspected and approved is really high--to the point that a small roofer cannot afford it because the cost is more than you could possibly pass off to one or two customers. But a big roofing company can pay the fee and easily become the ONLY company in an area to handle asbestos. And in the end, they don't do anything special to them. They are disposed of exactly the same way other roofing material is disposed.

I certainly wasn't defending Monsanto, I think they are scum, but if a farmer chooses to sign a contract stating he /she won't save and replant seeds then I guess Monsanto has the legal right to sue.
Using asbestos as an example of over regulation was maybe a bad choice. The disposal of asbestos should be regulated to the hilt. It is dangerous stuff. I do see your point though. Having two sets of rules not a fair way to regulate. I don't think doing away with all regulation is the answer. That would give companies way too much ability to destroy the environment

[theengel]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

You REALLY need to look more into Monsanto. They've shut down farmers who have never had anything to do with them.

You miss the point about the asbestos. The regulations have nothing to do with safely disposing them. They're not created that way. They never were. Very few regulations are. If you go through the wording, it's easy to spot. It's all about money--not about safety.

[theengel]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

As a side note: this is why conservatives are often skeptical of liberal claims that certain things are harming the environment. Because the liberal answer is to pass regulation, which, in EVERY case, creates a barrier that small business is unable to get over, but which strengthens big business. If liberals were so much against big business, they wouldn't be passing the laws they pass. So as a conservative, when I see chronie (spelling) capitalism, I begin to question the motives behind it.

[Copier Addict]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

As a side note: this is why conservatives are often skeptical of liberal claims that certain things are harming the environment. Because the liberal answer is to pass regulation, which, in EVERY case, creates a barrier that small business is unable to get over, but which strengthens big business. If liberals were so much against big business, they wouldn't be passing the laws they pass. So as a conservative, when I see chronie (spelling) capitalism, I begin to question the motives behind it.

The main barrier we contend with is when conservative governments reduce taxes for the big corporations, that money has to come from somewhere and it always comes from the little companies.

[theengel]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

If I'm running my household, and suddenly I get fired or have a decrease in pay, I try to find a way to make up the income. But ultimately, I have to cut my spending. Why can't the government EVER do that? Why not just stop buying unneeded things? Why is that NEVER an option?

[gneebore]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

The main barrier we contend with is when conservative governments reduce taxes for the big corporations, that money has to come from somewhere and it always comes from the little companies.

Sorry but every time I hear that about lowering taxes I have to point out that every single time tax rates have been reduced tax revenues have gone up. It happened when JFK's tax plan was put into effect. It happened when the Reagan tax "cuts" were put into effect. It happened when the taxes were cut on capital gains from nearly 50 percent to 20 percent. In an even more bizarre example locally this is what happened. The state passed a local option sales tax. Any county could raise automatically the sales tax one percent. At the time it is now up to 2.5 percent sales tax added locally Sales tax in the state before the increase was 6 percent. After the increase 7 percent. A city nearby had to put out to bid a sewer reconstruction job. All four companies within the county that bid were under bid by the amount of sales taxes the companies would have to charge for the supplies needed to be provided to complete the job by companies in counties that did not pass the local option sales tax.
Or in another example. A while back in NJ there were no sales taxes on rentals of construction equipment. As a result the construction companies in New York and Pa and Delaware where there were sales taxes on rental of the same equipment would rent the equipment from dealerships in NJ. Just because of the sales tax only on rental of the equipment they would rent equipment from dealers near their state lines with NJ and save a few thousand annually or more. You guessed it the democrats passed a law where the sales taxes were placed on the rental of construction equipment and every single construction equipment dealership moved closer to where their rental customers were to save on shipping costs. Oh yes they also laid off up to half of the employees since they now lost a price advantage over companies in other states and didn't need that many employees to service and deliver the rental equipment. And guess what else also happened. NJ lost the income taxes from the workers, the businesses and the owners of the businesses too that lost revenues because someone decided to raise taxes on a minor part of business in the state.

[Copier Addict]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

Sorry but every time I hear that about lowering taxes I have to point out that every single time tax rates have been reduced tax revenues have gone up. It happened when JFK's tax plan was put into effect. It happened when the Reagan tax "cuts" were put into effect. It happened when the taxes were cut on capital gains from nearly 50 percent to 20 percent. In an even more bizarre example locally this is what happened. The state passed a local option sales tax. Any county could raise automatically the sales tax one percent. At the time it is now up to 2.5 percent sales tax added locally Sales tax in the state before the increase was 6 percent. After the increase 7 percent. A city nearby had to put out to bid a sewer reconstruction job. All four companies within the county that bid were under bid by the amount of sales taxes the companies would have to charge for the supplies needed to be provided to complete the job by companies in counties that did not pass the local option sales tax.
Or in another example. A while back in NJ there were no sales taxes on rentals of construction equipment. As a result the construction companies in New York and Pa and Delaware where there were sales taxes on rental of the same equipment would rent the equipment from dealerships in NJ. Just because of the sales tax only on rental of the equipment they would rent equipment from dealers near their state lines with NJ and save a few thousand annually or more. You guessed it the democrats passed a law where the sales taxes were placed on the rental of construction equipment and every single construction equipment dealership moved closer to where their rental customers were to save on shipping costs. Oh yes they also laid off up to half of the employees since they now lost a price advantage over companies in other states and didn't need that many employees to service and deliver the rental equipment. And guess what else also happened. NJ lost the income taxes from the workers, the businesses and the owners of the businesses too that lost revenues because someone decided to raise taxes on a minor part of business in the state.

I'm not sure where you get your information, but the Laffer Curve is a proven myth. When taxes are cut, revenues go down and deficits increase. Look it up.

[gneebore]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

I'm not sure where you get your information, but the Laffer Curve is a proven myth. When taxes are cut, revenues go down and deficits increase. Look it up.

Here you go.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

And a direct quote from the page referenced above
The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.

[Copier Addict]

Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

Here you go.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

And a direct quote from the page referenced above
The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.

Yup, Reagan lowered taxes in '81, but had to raise them again the next year because revenues dropped. Forbes Welcome