|
Post by donr on Dec 13, 2017 10:26:12 GMT -6
You cannot assume gov't is an honest broker. 'Cause it isn't. The only freedom we truly have left is the areas in life the government hasn't yet gotten around to regulating. With government, enough is never enough.
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Dec 13, 2017 10:40:09 GMT -6
We should be careful for what we wish for. I agree with a lot of the comments about Google, Facebook, etc.! But I'm automatically always suspicious of anything the government gets involved in. And when they do, as 99% of the time, it'll be a disaster in the long run, let alone the side effects that manifest out of it. In a capitalist society things tend to work out through competition. There's always the possibility that if the FCC regulates the internet in more ways, as "Neutrality" is (nothing can be neutral when it becomes controlled), even programming, including radio - being controlled by FCC, could be determined by the government: very dangerous. I think your talking point was legitimate in 1980. In 2017 monopolies and corporate control of elections are much more a threat to our Democracy. Corporate control? You mean how the DNC completely rigged the nomination of H. Clinton making sure Sanders would not be an obstacle? Trump had absolutely NO backing from any corporation or establishment! Ironically his being elected has frustrated the entire establishment (Republican & Democrat) the media, & the rest of the tiers of pro & long term government personnel. For those that are semantically arguing about our form of government, it is, technically, a Representative Republic ... but it IS a Democracy.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 13, 2017 10:48:03 GMT -6
re: #4 - not really. The first youtube review just came out a month or two ago. To my knowledge that's the only one. We did a pretty good job without it. FYI, this review has been up for 5 months and has 5,000 views. Edit: and you replied to one of the comments on the video, also 5 months ago, thanking them for the review... Cool. Thanks for finding that. Yeah, time flies. That was the first youtube video that I'm aware of. But we had close to a couple years of groundbreaking sales BEFORE that video. Im' not anti-youtube. I just think they are taking advantage of creatives by paying hundredths of a percentage point below what they should be. It's obviously a viable business, and a help to people. Maybe playing fairly would be the next step to the ethical superiority you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 13, 2017 10:58:26 GMT -6
The Sand Hill Road investment banksters are who built Google and Napster are who took the music business down. What happened is the music business lawyers believed the propaganda that this was all the work of student hackers. Had they aggressively filed criminal charges we wouldn't have this problem today. Instead, the music industry wimped out in the name of good public relations, lost some cases they by all rights should have won and here we are.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 13, 2017 11:04:57 GMT -6
OK - here you go. This article is straight up. And guess what - it's BLOCKED using a google search. Gee whiz. Wonder why..... Wheres the net neutrality in that censorship? Bing seems to find it easily. Look, I got no time to duke it out with you pro-Googlites. If you want to support them, feel free. Virtually every pro-Songwriter, pro-Music organization does battle with them. Ascap and BMI are hell bent in lock down battle against them. Hell, they - google - put their ex-vp of Legal Affairs into the justice department to help keep laws almost 100 years old in place at the detriment of music and other creative artists to help youtube to continue their pro-piracy and underpayment tactics. But yeah, they love and fight for us "little guys". There's my straw man. If you feel like it, please explain how this is good for musicians. www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/#234c585a4530Google can change piracy any time they decide to. They can block pirate and torrent sites, they can quit stealing intellectual property, they can call up youtube and ask them to start paying their fair share. It's actually pretty simple. If they are so ethical, why fight so hard against what's right? Bill, I have a lot of sympathy for you. I imagine watching your livelihood crumble in front of your eyes while others appear to siphon off what little is left was a deeply traumatic experience, and looking for someone to blame is a natural reaction to that very difficult situation. The reality is there are a lot of things at play, and much of it takes place behind closed doors. Your last paragraph, in particular, is reflective of someone who simply doesn't grasp (and again, without the benefit of being in the room, as I was, I don't expect this) that things like getting YouTube to start "paying their fair share" is actually the farthest thing from "pretty simple" that you could imagine. I can't go into detail, but I can assure you that I personally spent 1000s of hours dealing with that issue and ones exactly like it. The reality is far beyond the scope of any conjecture you can find on the internet. (For example there are several inaccuracies in the Forbes article you linked that I readily identified from firsthand experience). Also I'm not sure who the "Ex legal VP" is that you're referring to. If it's Nicole I can tell you that she is probably the most ethical person I have ever met in my entire life. I can also tell you that the legal team (which I was a part of) were some of the fiercest little people advocates that I've ever known. And comprised of a higher than expected percentage of musicians, both hobbyist/part-time and former professionals (including a Grammy winner). So again, completely inaccurate to paint with such a broad brush. If you want to blame someone for things, go ahead and blame Google. But that won't bring the money back, and you'll be missing existing opportunities. Your choice. Actually, my "livelihood" and income is up and comfortable, but thanks for the concern. It's appreciated. I've watched many who are not nearly as fortunate or lucky as I have been fight the good fight and end up bankrupt though. But hey -- rather than pick apart my comment which came at the end of a 16 hour day at 1 in the morning with more work still to go, how about commenting on my two main points : 1. Where is the "net neutrality" in Googles delisting of that article. It comes up in the search but the link is "broken" so that no one can get to it, while direct searches or bing searches easily bring it up. Why, in Googles search, there are LOTS of articles heralding Google as being a proactive instigator and leader with great "morals" in the SOPA issues. Where is the neutrality in censorship? And how can one see that as anything BUT censorship? 2. Now, actually read the article. What do you think about that? I know piracy is not simple or easy. Especially when huge amounts of money are involved. The reality though is that if Google can mine all my on line searches and sell advertising and drop customized ads for me everywhere I go, I think they might be able to bloc torrent sites and the like from being the first in the response list when I search for Talyor Swifts new album. As for youtube's payout, it's honestly laughable and I have a hard time seeing anyone try to defend it without laughing. Actually, I think you might be the first I've ever seen. Looking over last quarters royalties, I've got pushing 1.5 million streams on youtube. $65. Sound fair to you? I completely understand how it's different than selling 1.5M singles or having an album cut on 1.5 album sales, but come on....$65? I think @johnkenn might have some thoughts on that. It's right in his wheelhouse.... You are right in one thing, there are many factors that play into why the music industry is in the situation it finds itself in. Google is just one factor. But this thread was about "net neutrality". And that's why they are a conversation factor. Sorry if I derailed the thread. Im obviously passionate about this topic.
|
|
|
Post by m03 on Dec 13, 2017 11:31:28 GMT -6
They aren't into protecting the little guy but they are competing for his business. There is a revolution coming in neighborhood wiFi which will create massive competition for the cable TV providers. If there's no regulation, and no moral/ethical/social impetus to protect the little guy, then I have seen very little evidence to support the premise that competition will step in to fill that void. In my experience telecomms compete for business, but that's business, generally -- they don't really care where it comes from or who it harms as long as the shareholders are happy. The problem here is that the current state of telecommunications companies in the United States is due in large part to government regulation, via locally granted monopolies. There's never been a true free market for most of those services, and we've basically incentivized their infiltration into regulatory bodies that will ensure that they never have to concern themselves with competition. If we're continuing down that path, crippling consumer choice and treating Internet access as a utility, then Net Neutrality makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 13, 2017 11:37:12 GMT -6
You cannot assume gov't is an honest broker. 'Cause it isn't. The only freedom we truly have left is the areas in life the government hasn't yet gotten around to regulating. With government, enough is never enough. So you don't think Wall Street should be regulated at all Don? How about pollution? Do you think what is put in our rivers, lakes and oceans should be regulated? Or, should anybody be able to dump whatever they want whenever they want?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 11:43:34 GMT -6
Bill, I have a lot of sympathy for you. I imagine watching your livelihood crumble in front of your eyes while others appear to siphon off what little is left was a deeply traumatic experience, and looking for someone to blame is a natural reaction to that very difficult situation. The reality is there are a lot of things at play, and much of it takes place behind closed doors. Your last paragraph, in particular, is reflective of someone who simply doesn't grasp (and again, without the benefit of being in the room, as I was, I don't expect this) that things like getting YouTube to start "paying their fair share" is actually the farthest thing from "pretty simple" that you could imagine. I can't go into detail, but I can assure you that I personally spent 1000s of hours dealing with that issue and ones exactly like it. The reality is far beyond the scope of any conjecture you can find on the internet. (For example there are several inaccuracies in the Forbes article you linked that I readily identified from firsthand experience). Also I'm not sure who the "Ex legal VP" is that you're referring to. If it's Nicole I can tell you that she is probably the most ethical person I have ever met in my entire life. I can also tell you that the legal team (which I was a part of) were some of the fiercest little people advocates that I've ever known. And comprised of a higher than expected percentage of musicians, both hobbyist/part-time and former professionals (including a Grammy winner). So again, completely inaccurate to paint with such a broad brush. If you want to blame someone for things, go ahead and blame Google. But that won't bring the money back, and you'll be missing existing opportunities. Your choice. Actually, my "livelihood" and income is up and comfortable, but thanks for the concern. It's appreciated. I've watched many who are not nearly as fortunate or lucky as I have been fight the good fight and end up bankrupt though. But hey -- rather than pick apart my comment which came at the end of a 16 hour day at 1 in the mooring with more work still to go, how about commenting on my two main points : 1. Where is the "net neutrality" in Googles delisting of that article. It comes up in the search but the link is "broken" so that no one can get to it, while direct searches or bing searches easily bring it up. Why, in Googles search, there are LOTS of articles heralding Google as being a proactive instigator and leader with great "morals" in the SOPA issues. Where is the neutrality in censorship? And how can one see that as anything BUT censorship? 2. Now, actually read the article. What do you think about that? I know piracy is not simple or easy. Especially when huge amounts of money are involved. The reality though is that if Google can mine all my on line searches and sell advertising and drop customized ads for me everywhere I go, I think they might be able to bloc torrent sites and the like from being the first in the response list when I search for Talyor Swifts new album. As for youtube's payout, it's honestly laughable and I have a hard time seeing anyone try to defend it without laughing. Actually, I think you might be the first I've ever seen. Looking over last quarters royalties, I've got pushing 1.5 million streams on your tube. $65. Sound fair to you? I completely understand how it's different than selling 1.5M singles or having an album cut on 1.5 album sales, but come on....$65? I think @johnkenn might have some thoughts on that. It's right in his wheelhouse.... You are right in one thing, there are many factors that play into why the music industry is in the situation it finds itself in. Google is just one factor. But this thread was about "net neutrality". And that's why they are a conversation factor. Sorry if I derailed the thread. Im obviously passionate about this topic. 1. I didn't respond to this part of your post because accusations of technical ranking conspiracy, the ethical difficulties around delisting, and the impact of piracy on the marketplace have been hashed out over and over and if you'd care to search and read more about them that information is out there. The general summary is: not that simple. (First amendment issues of censorship, examples of piracy actually improving sales, etc.) 2. I did read the Forbes article, and told you what I thought of it (it's inaccurate) in my first post. Is there another one? Generally, if it's an article authored by someone who was not in the room, particularly when it comes to national policy like Net Neutrality/Sopa/Pipa, I would personally not be inclined to put much weight in it, having seen from experience how much does not make it out. As far as YouTube's payouts go, I'm not saying the net result that you're seeing is good. What I'm saying is you appear to have no idea how something like a payout is negotiated, who is involved, and how it works. Again, I can't give details, but consider a couple factors you may be missing. (These are not specific to YouTube, just things I know to be true from corporate negotiation which will hopefully give you an idea of the potential scope of difficulties.) There can be third parties with a lot of leverage who actually have a strong interest in keeping your payout low, or directing money earmarked to you to themselves. There can be existing legal/contractual obligations that create unworkable conditions based on negotiations that happened decades ago before any of the lawyers involved realized this could/would present an issue (clauses that are triggered as part of an increase to payout). There canbe strong political pressure. (Horsetrading.) The entity itself may not be profitable (and not in a creative accounting type of way). There can be a lot of moving pieces. And those pieces can be large/legally binding enough that no matter how much someone wants to write DrBill a bigger check, they can't do it. So it's just not that easy. I respect your passion on this issue and hopefully you can respect mine. Maybe imagine if someone posted a review trashing the Silver Bullet without ever having used one before. I don't think you'd take kindly to it, but consider that's effectively what you're doing here.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 13, 2017 11:46:06 GMT -6
I think your talking point was legitimate in 1980. In 2017 monopolies and corporate control of elections are much more a threat to our Democracy. Corporate control? You mean how the DNC completely rigged the nomination of H. Clinton making sure Sanders would not be an obstacle? Trump had absolutely NO backing from any corporation or establishment! Ironically his being elected has frustrated the entire establishment (Republican & Democrat) the media, & the rest of the tiers of pro & long term government personnel. For those that are semantically arguing about our form of government, it is, technically, a Representative Republic ... but it IS a Democracy. Why don't you stop misinforming people. Trump Campaign Contributions
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 13, 2017 11:46:39 GMT -6
Can you name a specific benefit of gov't regulating Wall St? Washington social engineering always creates more problems than it solves, as far as I can see.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 13, 2017 11:54:06 GMT -6
Until corporations and other government-imposed limitations on personal liability are removed, regulations are required. Individuals need to have the right to sue the owners of a company with no limitations. Anything else is investors seeking to eat their cake and have it too. The American Revolution was all about this issue.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 13, 2017 11:58:42 GMT -6
Coming around the impact of Citizens United, who was supposed to benefit from that? www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/Clinton raised and spent almost twice what Trump did in 2016, almost $1.2 billion, to Trump's $650 million, and Obama raised more than Clinton in 2012. Trump's victory supports a notion that money isn't necessarily that important, and Citizens is hardly the boogieman it's portrayed to be. Drill down in that Bloomberg article, you'll see most of Clinton's money came from large donations. But then the Clintons spent years pre-selling influence on the premise of a sure-thing victory in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 13, 2017 12:02:09 GMT -6
Actually, my "livelihood" and income is up and comfortable, but thanks for the concern. It's appreciated. I've watched many who are not nearly as fortunate or lucky as I have been fight the good fight and end up bankrupt though. But hey -- rather than pick apart my comment which came at the end of a 16 hour day at 1 in the mooring with more work still to go, how about commenting on my two main points : 1. Where is the "net neutrality" in Googles delisting of that article. It comes up in the search but the link is "broken" so that no one can get to it, while direct searches or bing searches easily bring it up. Why, in Googles search, there are LOTS of articles heralding Google as being a proactive instigator and leader with great "morals" in the SOPA issues. Where is the neutrality in censorship? And how can one see that as anything BUT censorship? 2. Now, actually read the article. What do you think about that? I know piracy is not simple or easy. Especially when huge amounts of money are involved. The reality though is that if Google can mine all my on line searches and sell advertising and drop customized ads for me everywhere I go, I think they might be able to bloc torrent sites and the like from being the first in the response list when I search for Talyor Swifts new album. As for youtube's payout, it's honestly laughable and I have a hard time seeing anyone try to defend it without laughing. Actually, I think you might be the first I've ever seen. Looking over last quarters royalties, I've got pushing 1.5 million streams on your tube. $65. Sound fair to you? I completely understand how it's different than selling 1.5M singles or having an album cut on 1.5 album sales, but come on....$65? I think @johnkenn might have some thoughts on that. It's right in his wheelhouse.... You are right in one thing, there are many factors that play into why the music industry is in the situation it finds itself in. Google is just one factor. But this thread was about "net neutrality". And that's why they are a conversation factor. Sorry if I derailed the thread. Im obviously passionate about this topic. 1. I didn't respond to this part of your post because accusations of technical ranking conspiracy, the ethical difficulties around delisting, and the impact of piracy on the marketplace have been hashed out over and over and if you'd care to search and read more about them that information is out there. The general summary is: not that simple. (First amendment issues of censorship, examples of piracy actually improving sales, etc.) 2. I did read the Forbes article, and told you what I thought of it (it's inaccurate) in my first post. Is there another one? Generally, if it's an article authored by someone who was not in the room, particularly when it comes to national policy like Net Neutrality/Sopa/Pipa, I would personally not be inclined to put much weight in it, having seen from experience how much does not make it out. As far as YouTube's payouts go, I'm not saying the net result that you're seeing is good. What I'm saying is you appear to have no idea how something like a payout is negotiated, who is involved, and how it works. Again, I can't give details, but consider a couple factors you may be missing. (These are not specific to YouTube, just things I know to be true from corporate negotiation which will hopefully give you an idea of the potential scope of difficulties.) There can be third parties with a lot of leverage who actually have a strong interest in keeping your payout low, or directing money earmarked to you to themselves. There can be existing legal/contractual obligations that create unworkable conditions based on negotiations that happened decades ago before any of the lawyers involved realized this could/would present an issue (clauses that are triggered as part of an increase to payout). There canbe strong political pressure. (Horsetrading.) The entity itself may not be profitable (and not in a creative accounting type of way). There can be a lot of moving pieces. And those pieces can be large/legally binding enough that no matter how much someone wants to write DrBill a bigger check, they can't do it. So it's just not that easy. I respect your passion on this issue and hopefully you can respect mine. Maybe imagine if someone posted a review trashing the Silver Bullet without ever having used one before. I don't think you'd take kindly to it, but consider that's effectively what you're doing here. There are threads/posts thrashing the Silver Bullet. And yes, by guys who have never used one, and who have no intention of ever using one. I figure it's all good. It's perfectly capable of standing on it's own merits, and I figure the guys who DO use it can speak for themselves. I do not make even a small fraction of my income off the SB. I built it because I NEED it in my production environment. If it resonates with other people, that gives me a sense of satisfaction. Beyond that, the number 1 reason I built it with Brad was for my own uses. I am a writer first and foremost, and that's how I earn my living. Writers and songwriters have gotten the short end of the stick for decades, and Google carries on that fine tradition built by others, taking it to a new level that their predecessors could only have imagined. BTW, I don't have to be in the room with Google, it's legion of lobbyists or the politicians they influence to make an educated decision about what I think their motives are. That's part of the political process we live with. If they don't like it, they can take up shop offshore.... Oh wait......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 12:19:20 GMT -6
BTW, I don't have to be in the room with Google, it's legion of lobbyists or the politicians they influence to make an educated decision about what I think their motives are. You've never done the work a day in your life. You accused someone you've literally never met/known of being unethical. (Still waiting on that name btw.) Your posts reveal that you generally have no clue how the processes that you're bashing actually work. What part of that is educated to you? (Rhetorical question, I don't expect you to answer with anything that remotely addresses the issue.)
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 13, 2017 12:27:22 GMT -6
Yup. And by your comments, you're pretty much accusing me of being ignorant or an idiot. I don't have to know how a car is designed, be in on the engineering meetings, or on the assembly line to know if it's a piece of crap or a work of art. It's pretty obvious when you drive it. Just common sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 12:37:20 GMT -6
Thanks, Bill, both for making my point (that was beautiful), and for reminding me why I quit music forums a while ago -- you're saving me a lot of time! Cheers everyone.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 13, 2017 12:54:45 GMT -6
Can you name a specific benefit of gov't regulating Wall St? Washington social engineering always creates more problems than it solves, as far as I can see. Apparently, you didn't see what happened on Wall Street in 2008. But to answer your question, yes I do know of regulations that would benefit investors. If (a) paying for AAA bond rating by a Wall Street firms- even though the bond was full of NINJA loans- was illegal and (b) if it was illegal to repackage NINJA loans in CDO's that got AAA ratings and (c) it was illegal for mortgage loans to be even given to people with no job, income or assets- the collapse of our financial system would never have happened. I'll go even further: All Wall Street investment firms should have a 50% stake in their firms. Otherwise, you get what we got in 2008: Investment banks CEO's and traders making collectively billions of dollars in compensation off of a scheme which bankrupted our financial system. If they had a financial stake in the game, they would never have done it, because they would have lost their firm. But because they know that they could bankrupt the financial system and get a new stake, they did it. We do not have a free market financial system when it comes to Wall Street. What we have is a state sponsored casino with a Central Bank willing to prop up Wall Street no matter the consequences to the citizenry. Millions of people lost their jobs all across the country in a catastrophic financial event which should have been avoided with proper government regulation. There is no defense for this. All it did was show explicitly how corrupt the free market ideology is as it pertains to Wall Street.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 13, 2017 13:08:00 GMT -6
Coming around the impact of Citizens United, who was supposed to benefit from that? www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/Clinton raised and spent almost twice what Trump did in 2016, almost $1.2 billion, to Trump's $650 million, and Obama raised more than Clinton in 2012. Trump's victory supports a notion that money isn't necessarily that important, and Citizens is hardly the boogieman it's portrayed to be. Drill down in that Bloomberg article, you'll see most of Clinton's money came from large donations. But then the Clintons spent years pre-selling influence on the premise of a sure-thing victory in 2016. This isn't a political gotcha issue Don as far as I'm concerned. I think it is abhorrent that Obama and Clinton are as beholden to the companies that spent billions of dollars of special interest money as I do Republicans. As long as there's a requirement to have billions of dollars spent for politicians to run in our Presidential and Congressional campaigns we're gonna get politicians who do their donor's bidding.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 13, 2017 13:12:11 GMT -6
More and more people needing to co-exist? Expect more regulation, of everything. More people means more socialism, or a retreat to a feudal social structure sans 'democracy'.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 13, 2017 13:21:13 GMT -6
As long as there's a requirement to have billions of dollars spent for politicians to run in our Presidential and Congressional campaigns we're gonna get politicians who do their donor's bidding. This is the crux of the matter. As long as corporations can effectively exert more political muscle into the system than the politicians citizens they represent, the politicians will represent the corporations - not the public. I'm not sure how you fix this other than term limits, control over the huge lobby-iest industry, and stopping / limiting political contributions by corporations.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 13, 2017 13:29:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 13, 2017 13:33:54 GMT -6
You cannot assume gov't is an honest broker. 'Cause it isn't. The only freedom we truly have left is the areas in life the government hasn't yet gotten around to regulating. With government, enough is never enough. It would be much easier for dogmatics if things broke down cleanly and consistently but the reality is, of course, much more complex. Much to the chagrin of the right, government doesn't actually always screw things up. Much to the chagrin of the left, sometimes it does. Same goes for the Glorious All Knowing Hand Of The Market. Sometimes private endeavors produce great results, sometimes they abusively fuck things up. Drawing rigid boundaries around ideological assumptions is, to me, a surefire way to end up being wrong.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 13, 2017 14:11:48 GMT -6
I take your point, Ragan. Can you give examples of where Gov't got it right, and where the market didn't self-correct after an abusive f'up? What I see is, every crisis, real or imagined, is an excuse for gov't to proscribe more of our freedom, the crisis often resulting from previous gov't interventions.
I have more faith in the hive-mind of humans and chaos theory to work out problems than I do in Congress and DC bureaucracies, especially those that fall beyond the original intent of the federal government's purpose and power.
Which is why I don't support DC making rules about the internet that would, by making any rules, inevitably favor some constituencies and harm others.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 14:47:05 GMT -6
As someone who used to be able to adopt strong and ignorant viewpoints with great rapidity, the older I get, the more I understand how uninformed I really am. I am greatly discouraged at all the obfuscation taking place in politics. You can't really trust any news source these days. Well, I dunno about that. Therre are some news sources you can trust about 95% of the time.......... to lie. Just flip whatever they say on it's head and you're a good way there. Not naming names.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 13, 2017 15:09:40 GMT -6
Don, I think Citizens United has simply marginalized the parties more over social issues. The war of who runs the country has already been won. Exhibit A is that during a time of a robust economy, our lawmakers are cutting taxes to "stimulate the economy" and "help the middle class". Economic policy favors doing nothing when the economy is heating up, not cut taxes to stimulate it. Show me a middle class person who's getting a 15% tax break like me and my fellow S Corp shareholders and I'll believe the middle class is going to benefit like the rich. The middle class is more likely to have to need government assistance when something goes bad-illness, laid off etc- in their life. And the "cut" goes along with a cut in write offs. So, let's call it what it is: A huge tax cut for the rich with another lie about trickle down economics. And when the money doesn't trickle down and the deficit rises, who is gonna pay? I'll tell you who: The Middle Class through cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Honestly, I can't help it that people want the rich to be richer at their expense. I consider it a triumph of propaganda, where "the government" is now some destructive force instead of the cumulative will of all the people. The government- and this include both parties- is run by and for the rich. If community banks have suffered from Dodd-Frank that has to be rectified, though community banks have never been players on Wall Street. However, Dodd - Frank and government regulation-more than Dodd-Frank imo- is still important unless we want another financial catastrophe. And make no mistake, wealthy investors will not be hurt in the long term. Only the middle class will be hurt if our financial system collapses again. They have only so many years to earn enough money for retirement, while the wealthy have long term money that extends through the generations.
|
|