ZDNet Government

David Gewirtz

Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

By David Gewirtz | July 1, 2010, 7:31am PDT

Summary: Should governments mandate access to broadband? Should every citizen, as an inalienable right, have access to Hulu, Skype, and an unlimited supply of YouTube?

Just how important is broadband to society? How valuable is to to the running of modern civilization that every citizen have the chance to watch Jizz in My Pants (85.5 million views) at least once?

Will the world be a better place if every citizen could watch little Charlie bite little Harry’s finger (205.8 million views) at least one more time? Will we get world piece if every person could just watch the horrid Shakira Parody (33 million views) in the privacy of their own home?

Should governments mandate access to broadband? Should every citizen, as an inalienable right, have access to Hulu, Skype, and an unlimited supply of Jizz in Their Pants?

This is not a question the United States is yet willing to answer.

To one country, though, broadband is that important. To Finland, broadband is as important to civilization as the right to vote.

According to the BBC, as of July 1, every Finnish citizen will have a “legal right” to a 1Mbps broadband feed — whether they can afford it or not. If a Fin can’t afford to pay for the broadband, the government will apparently provide it for free.

This opens up a lot more questions: does every Finnish citizen get a free computer? Or a free iPad? Or some other device for accessing the Internet?

What happens if Finnish citizens go beyond the relative safety of YouTube and watch videos that might cause, you know, messy pants — and even more messy computers? Is the Finnish government guaranteeing a geek to fix every computer?

Will there soon be mandatory geek service in Finland like there’s mandatory military service in Israel?

What about file-sharing pirates? If you download too much music or yet another copy of Avatar (how could you possibly want to see that bore-fest again?), will Finland cut you off?

No, as it turns out. If you pirate music or movies, according to Finland’s communication minister Suvi Linden. “We will have a policy where operators will send letters to illegal file-sharers but we are not planning on cutting off access,” she said.

For pirates, that’s bound to lead to (so sorry!) Jizz in Their Pants.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “ZDNet Government”

The Cold War just got hotter. Deep undercover with a sexy Russian spy.

Video: Ultra-hot Russian superspy talks Internet entrepreneurship

Topics

Citizen, Tax, Finland, Broadband, Broadband Internet, Network Technology, Telecommunications, Networking, David Gewirtz

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Vendor HotSpot

The 360° Conversation around Cloud Computing

TECH VISUALIZER brings the social conversation to life... powered by Brocade

Learn More »

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

Ask a Question Start a Discussion

237

Comments

Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

Just In

Bush is no longer president, you idiot

SAStarling 15th Jul 2010

@Gandalf The Grey

The "Bush tax cuts" were given to everyone, not just "rich" people. By the way, the Administrative Branch doesn't have the power to give themselves anything legislatively. My GOD, man, how do you get dressed in the morning? Are you that much of a simpleton?

View in thread

Please Select
Please Select

0 Votes

+ -

Taxes

MoeFugger 1st Jul 2010

I already pay enough taxes for someone else's benifit.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Repeal the tax load

klumper 1st Jul 2010

@MoeFugger
I already pay enough taxes for someone else's benifit.

All that need be said in a single sentence.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

Schoolboy Bob 2nd Jul 2010

@klumper
I have to add that we do not want or need the government messing up the internet (forget "someone elses benefit," they can only screw it up for all of us). Seriously.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

ItsTheBottomLine 2nd Jul 2010

@klumper Agree - that's a great sentence!

0 Votes

+ -

Did anyone read the BBC article?

Alzie 3rd Jul 2010

"The Finnish deal means that from 1 July all telecommunications companies will be obliged to provide all residents with broadband lines that can run at a minimum 1Mbps speed."
They have to provide the line. Nowhere in the article does it say it is free to use, it is like the water line. If you want water you pay to have it, but they have to put it there in case you want to hook up.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

vze29knp@... 6th Jul 2010

@klumper
enough said. no knew taxes for freeloaders benefits. if they want it let them earn it.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

eggy1943 6th Jul 2010

@Bruce Eggum

Open Broadband saves tax.
With the connection free it would save the public millions. Public school students would not need published text saving millions. Access to community discussion, government information, Library?s etc. would all save tax money. Some features and programs such as movies and recreational programs could still be on a fee basis however they would be assessable to all, increasing their use

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

eggy1943 6th Jul 2010

0 Votes

+ -

You are all talking about free internet and the artical is about....

dougogd@... 7th Jul 2010

@klumper requiring companies to provide the connection to the internet so that everyone who wants it can pay for it. I does not say anywhere that it is free. The law just state that the companies have to set up the broadband internet for everyone not give it to them. You try to get a company to get a broadband internet setup in rural areas you can't they refuse to do it even if you are will to pay for all the costs. That is what the law is about. There would not be any free internet.

0 Votes

+ -

Enough with the taxes already!

SAStarling 1st Jul 2010

@MoeFugger I agree with you 150%. Redistribution of wealth is becoming an uncomfortably acceptable term lately. I don't like it one bit. We seem to have become numb to all of it, but in some ways I can see why... they won't listen to us anyway.

However, it is our duty as citizens to hold them to account. And if they won't listen to us during the year, then we have to "speak" to them again at the polls.

Reply
Flagged

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

tbensen@... 1st Jul 2010

@SAStarling
The problem with trying to "speak" to them at the poles is that there are too many other people who go for this kind of crap. There is no real way to make a stand now and be heard by saying "no."

It goes to what Johnny Vegas said, and we would be imprisoned or fined up the wazoo for not paying our dumb taxes we have right now anyway.
It's just cryin shame to what we have come to now.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

yobtaf 3rd Jul 2010

@SAStarling - You're just self centered and greedy.
Welcome to the material world everybody.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

yobtaf 3rd Jul 2010

@SAStarling You don't have enough money to bother with.
You're living in an angry little fantasy world where white people are on the verge of distinction.
Chill out and stop fearing the future.
Do something for somebody other than yourself.
You'll see how good you'll feel.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

condelirios 6th Jul 2010

@SAStarling In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Thus, due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_income_tax)

This little argument is the basis of progressive taxation...which in effect redistributes wealth... It is the basis of our economic policies here in the US that made us the richest country in the world following WW2. It creates a large middle class and promotes stability.

In 1980, we shifted our focus away from this... Reagan intervened and created a new cycle of short term bubbles which maximized the rich at the expense of the middle class.... it was reversed marginally in the middle 90s...and then dragged in an even more dramatic way by GW Bush's complete disregard for the long term economic impact giving the wealthy a huge tax gift... the raise in spending at the same time put a larger tax burden on us as a percentage...making us even less wealthy... Thus redistributing the wealth in the favor of the wealthy...creating a regressive redistribution of wealth. Or as I like to call it... being shafted.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

prof123 7th Jul 2010

@SAStarling How about higher taxes to invade Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. How about higher taxes to rescue the banks. I think that subsidizing internet access is not such a bad idea... much better than the above two examples and it would cost only a fraction of that.

0 Votes

+ -

Progressives = fiscal terrorists

LBiege 1st Jul 2010

The biggest threat to this nation is not some bastard hiding in Afghanistan but these society-eroding grasshopper progressives that do nothing everyday but sitting on their butt thinking how much more money they can steal from hardworking ants.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

ItsTheBottomLine 2nd Jul 2010

@LBiege Bingo!

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

Au1 2nd Jul 2010

@LBiege
I didn't know G W Bush was a progressive. Had a budget surplus until he took office and he pissed it away.

0 Votes

+ -

@Au1: You don't understand

rick@... 2nd Jul 2010

@Au1: You don't undertand: It's a good thing when Republicans piss away our tax dollars for the benefit of their wealthy friends. When the Republicans are in control, we should all be proud to take it up the a$$ for their benefit. Remember, all that money they had out to their friends will eventually "trickle down" to the rest of us.

Government spending is only bad when Democrats do it. That's when it becomes "stealing" and a "threat to the nation."

Rick

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

Gandalf The Grey 2nd Jul 2010

@LBiege And who got us into Trillions of dollars into debt sending our guys over to find that bastard? And then go invade an entirely different country?

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

dedrizen Updated - 2nd Jul 2010

@Rick

Um, Republican or Democrat. Does it matter which party is spending the money? There are so called "blue dog" Democrats known for being more fiscally conservative.

No, what people like me find ironic is that the Republicans blame Democrats for excessive spending while the Democrats are in control. Then, when the Republicans are in control next they spend more and we end up distrusting them. So the Democrats blame the Republicans for spending too much and we vote the Democrats into control. And what do the Democrats do? Spend even more!!! Both parties are guilty and until we admit that, we are doomed to keep repeating the cycle.

By the way, as for the broadband for all, I disagree with that. I didn't have a cell phone until about three years ago and even now it doesn't have a data plan (email and internet). It is just the basic cell phone. As for internet, I used dial-up, even for online gaming until I started working in the field for a company where I occasionally had to download big software updates for equipment I worked on. An eight hour download that failed after seven hours was really, really annoying. I stopped playing Everquest years ago, so I don't know if many games could even work over dial-up anymore.... Still for news and email, dial-up was great. Sure, video stank, but the internet worked for what I needed. Now if someone decided to gather up a charitable fund to bring broadband to the middle of nowhere, or a private company does it on their own, then I have no qualms with it because it is voluntary. But government to do it, broadband is a service, it is not a right.

0 Votes

+ -

@Dedrizen

rick@... Updated - 2nd Jul 2010

@Dedrizen: I agree totally. Both parties are equally corrupt and equally dangerous to our future. I just get so tired of these Republicans ranting and raving about Obama, as if they have no memory at all of what happened when Bush was in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

Personally, I won't vote for either Republicans or Democrats. For me, it's Libertarians... http://www.lp.org.

Rick

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

MichaelWells 2nd Jul 2010

@LBiege
You are correct! This is what happens when our government went out of it's constitutional authority with the "New Deal". The government redefined "general" welfare to "specific" welfare; and now we sit with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, not only the worlds largest ponzi schemes every designed but they are all also bankrupt. While we sit teetering on the verge of bankruptcy as a nation, the progressives continue to try to invent rights and spend money. This is not just a Democrat problem, but a Republican as well. Our public education system as left the last two generations so ill equipped to understand our constitution and vote accordingly. They are indoctrinated early to take whatever they can. The worlds "greatest" generation gave birth to the "worst" generation.

0 Votes

+ -

@AU1, proud product of public education

frgough 3rd Jul 2010

All spending originates in congress. The budget surplus got p*ssed away when idiot Americans turned congress over to the democrats under Bush. We got a big surplus when smart Americans turned congress over to the Republicans under Clinton.

Look it up.

0 Votes

+ -

@frgough: Look it up

rick@... 3rd Jul 2010

I think you need to "look it up." Congress was controlled by Republicans for the first 6 years Bush was in office. And it was during those first 6 years that massive spending increases combined with tax cuts put an end to the budget surpluses that came into being when Clinton when President.

In the last 50 years or so, the Federal Government has ALWAYS increased spending FASTER when the Republicans are in control of the White House and Congress. Look it up.

Rick

0 Votes

+ -

@frgough: Look it up

rick@... 3rd Jul 2010

@frgough: It seems you are the one who needs to "look it up." Republicans controlled Congress for the first 6 years of George W. Bush's time in the White House. And it was during those years that massive spending increases, combined with tax cuts, did away with the modest surpluses created while Clinton was in office, and instead created crushing deficits which our great-grand kids will still be paying for.

Federal Government spending always increases faster when a Republican is in the White House, and it increases fastest when there is a Republican in the White House and Republicans control Congress. Look it up!

Rick

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

Hallowed are the Ori 4th Jul 2010

@AU1

I didn't know G W Bush was a progressive. Had a budget surplus until he took office and he pissed it away.

Again with the lie that Clinton left office with a surplus?

Here, go read this before embarrassing yourself any further:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

0 Votes

+ -

Amen, L

SAStarling 15th Jul 2010

@LBiege

0 Votes

+ -

You said it, LBiege!

SAStarling Updated - 15th Jul 2010

@LBiege - you got it exactly right.

**********
@robertmro

Race? Really? You're going to bring race into this? By the way, what makes you think I'm white? That explains all of your other unfounded suppositions. And "go out and do something for somebody other" than myself? I already do, but I do it of my own volition. That, my uneducated friend, is charity. Charity comes from individuals who have the goods/services/money to give to others FREELY. "Charity" given by the government is merely those things robbed from the producers in society to give to the moochers in society.

Let me give you an example. My friend and I are walking down the street and we pass by a homeless person. My friend wants to help this person (charity), so he pulls a $20 bill out of his pocket and hands it to him. Now as for me, I don't WANT to give him that "charity," because of two reasons: 1) I am free to make that choice; or 2) I know he'll only spend the money on dope or liquor. Either way, it's my choice. So, in your mind, you think it would be okay for my friend to, after having given the man $20, turn a gun on me and rob me to give the homeless man $20 out of my pocket?

That, robertmro, is what our government does when it confiscates our wealth to distribute it to others... as THEY see fit - not as I see fit. That's pure unadulterated theft. It's unfortunate that we've allowed it to come this far, but we are the ones to blame for letting that happen. We can change that, though, by changing those in power.

When people fear the government, their is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. Me? I prefer liberty.

0 Votes

+ -

Amen to that.

tbensen@... 1st Jul 2010

@MoeFugger
NT

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

travis.adkins@... 2nd Jul 2010

Great, more socialism. Just call us the NSRO, Non-United Socialist Republic of Obama!

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

ItsTheBottomLine 2nd Jul 2010

@travis.adkins@... LOL - I still like Oboo-boo...but that's great.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

Gandalf The Grey 2nd Jul 2010

@travis.adkins@... Stop watching the Fox News Channel and wake up. How about having Haliburton and BP split the bill!

0 Votes

+ -

Yes, all against taxes

rarsa Updated - 2nd Jul 2010

And if we get robbed in the street, we just go to the private police department and pay for them to investigate.

Lets pay the private fire department so they have our home in their list of houses to save in case of a fire.

Why not let the private citizens build roads, we can stop at each block and pay the 10 cents fee for driving that section of the road.

Yes, lets repel taxes, we are very smart and can do without them.

...

Now seriously, why don't you engage your brain next time and try to figure out by yourself how taxes can be used properly.

I agree with using them judiciously, but thinking that taxes are inherently bad is as smart as a rock. And I mean a very, very dumb rock.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

MC1171611 2nd Jul 2010

@rarsa Our founding fathers believed, as do I, that government is evil. They understood that some semblance of government was and is necessary (for the punishment of evildoers, according to the Bible), and thus allowed for a VERY SMALL government.

The enumerated powers, the ONLY authorities granted to the federal government, are clearly outlined in the Constitution; these include maintaining a navy, raising an army in times of war, and building post roads. Of course, the only other wording that allows the government power is "regulate interstate commerce," which is the loophole that created the monstrosity that we have in D.C. today.

Anyhow, the moral of this story is that the federal government is doing WAY more than they should, and they have ABSOLUTELY NO authority to mandate ANYTHING to ANYONE. If a state government wanted to do something like that, then it would be up to the people in the states; however, if the federal government tries to pull anything like that here, they are simply putting one more nail in the coffin of the "democracy" that has destroyed the REPUBLIC that our nation is supposed to be.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

rarsa Updated - 2nd Jul 2010

@MC1171611:

Pardon my ignorance but please tell me: doesn't it talk about keeping a justice system? This is a real question. I know, I could go and investigate, but you seem to be knowledgeable on the topic.

Full disclaimer: I am a North American but not an USian. (Mexican-Canadian). So my views are skewed. Oh, and I lived and worked (legally) in the US for about a year and decided it was not for me to stay.

0 Votes

+ -

Amen to that

LeonBA 2nd Jul 2010

Well said, rarsa.

We're taxed less than *any* industrialized nation. Americans whine about how heavily they're taxed and how the government wastes all their money, when in fact it's more the other way around.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

Michael Alan Goff 2nd Jul 2010

@ Leon

Those other countries also think that social programs are the greatest thing ever. The NHS in Britain costs around 100 billion a year, every year, and it keeps raising. The US has roughly 5 times that, which would mean that healthcare alone would cost 500 billion. That's like one and a half financial bailouts every two years.

They can afford that, we can't. Well, no they can't. Turns out things like the NHS run up deficits. Oh well, they should just raise taxes, right?

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

MichaelWells 2nd Jul 2010

@rarsa There is no need to engage one's brain, we have this thing called a constitution we are supposed to follow. It is been misused and abused since the "New Deal". We have specifically authorized functions that we can spend money on, they include defense and general (not specific) welfare. Let me see, since the unauthorized "Department of Education" was enacted in 1979, as predicted; our schools have turned into social laboratories and children are much less educated than before based on all known statistics and empirical data. The unauthorized ponzi schemes known as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are now bankrupt and have helped to drive up not only our national debt but the cost of health care due to the undercutting of benefits payed to providers; so basically we subsidize both of the medical programs twice, first with our tax dollars and secondly by paying more for our medical services to pay for the discrepancies in pay the federal programs dole out. To compare the fire department, police and roads (all of which are on solid constitutional authority) to subsidized broadband is disingenuous at best and fantasy at worst. For those that are old enough to remember when President Reagan de-regulated the utilities in the early 1980s not only did cable tv move around the country much faster, but also came down in cost.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

MichaelWells 2nd Jul 2010

@rarsa One last note, the "Commerce Clause" was originally intended to give the government authority to help to commerce moving; ie keep states from employing protectionist practices against other states and aid in building roads and other transportation to aid commerce. It was never meant as way for the federal government to tax commerce and regulate it to the point that it is difficult to trade. Proof of this is the fact that it took the 13th Amendment to provide authority for "Federal" taxes. All of this is not what was intended by our founding fathers.

0 Votes

+ -

In a government of the people

frgough 3rd Jul 2010

the people can only give to government that authority they hold unto themselves. You have the right to protect your life and property, therefore you can give that authority to government to do so on your behalf. You do not have the right to take the fruits of another man's labor by force, therefore, you cannot give that authority to government to do so on your behalf. It really is no more complicated than that. Socialism is institutionalized theft.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

yobtaf 3rd Jul 2010

@rarsa Finally a rational person.

Are all IT people so self centered and frightened.

I feels so sorry for you poor exploited white people who have money to be taxed.

What you don't understand is that what you make is chump change and the taxes you pay are to make up for the richest 5% who proportionally pay practically nothing.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

shadfurman 4th Jul 2010

@robertmro & rarsa

WTF are you talking about? "Poor exploited white people who have money to be taxed." Really? Your going to be THAT stereotypical? OMG I didn't realize you guys still existed in society (at least not in the open). I don't even make enough to live by, by government standards, and I do better than many who make a lot more. Instead of wining about your "right to..." whatever service, get off you as$ and WORK FOR IT. Those rich people who you say don't pay any taxes WORK FOR IT. You spend all your money before you get it. If you didn't, you'd be doing better and wouldn't be complaining that your not getting enough welfare. Nobody is responsible for your livelihood once your an adult. Don't tell me there aren't jobs, I know employers that are BEGGING for good employees. Its not the jobs that are lacking, its ethical people. I've offered 20+ people that supposedly NEEDED a job REALLY BAD a job at one of these places that I know are hiring, they ALL had some reason why they couldn't do the job. I choose to live poor because my time is more valuable to me than money. I make less than $1000 a month (thats less than 30 hours a week at minimum wage). I don't need any government support. And when this new healthcare bill takes affect they're going to take MORE of my money UNLESS I take part in their immoral scam. I have 1 sibling in a wheel chair and two more on their way into one with a genetic degenerative disease. We're ALL against this bill. As far as they can tell, it will actually HURT them, these are people that NEED healthcare. They'd be against it anyway, we were all brought up poor and taught how to live on limited means and EARN your keep. Healthcare isn't an "inalienable right" an inalienable right is a right that you have unless someone takes it away. If you were completely alone, inalenable rights are what you'd be left with. Your inalienable right to healthcare is what you can do for yourself. (Which, is why weed should be legal, cause it IS an inalienable right to grow a plant in your back yard.) Its really a bunch of crock that so many people don't have the logical fortitude to reason out how bad socialism is. Your for taking money from the rich and giving it too the poor... and who's greedy? The rich I know work 80+ hours a day 6-7 days a week most of the year. Most of the rich are rich because they worked their asses off and reinvested their money. Not worked at mcdonalds or a strawberry field and spent their first check on a new tv or a paintjob for their crappy car. Bunch of unethical lazy miscreant.

0 Votes

+ -

Wrong

MSFTWorshipper 6th Jul 2010

@rarsa Fire, police and the courts exist for the benefit of ALL citizens. Welfare programs OTOH exist for the benefit of SOME people. Kapisch?

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

Gandalf The Grey 2nd Jul 2010

@MoeFugger You mean like Haliburton? Or do you mean for kids to attend public schools so they can someday pay for your Social Security and Medicare?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

jedidethfreak 2nd Jul 2010

@Gandalf The Grey

Nobody's going to be paying for MY Social Security or Medicare. It'll be bankrupt long before I'll be eligible to use it, even though I've been paying for it since my fifteenth birthday.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

yobtaf 3rd Jul 2010

@MoeFugger All I see here is a bunch of greedy selfish people.
It makes me ashamed to be an American citizen.

What would it cost, a couple of dollars a month to give somebody the same advantages that you have?

I think that you're all ranting out of fear.
Fear for you job, fear for you race, fear for your obsolete vision of what the US is.

Fear isn't a good place make decision form.

Reply
Flagged

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Would you accept increased taxes to give broadband to every citizen?

HypnoToad72 5th Jul 2010

@MoeFugger - pity I can't tell government to set aside all the money going to you, directly or otherwise, and tell them to give it away as subsidy for well-to-do corporations instead... that and if I told authorities not to let you drive on roads or use police or fire services or get military protection, amongst other things, you might not like that either...