Right, except this doesn't cost the taxpayers much and there are millions of Americans who can't afford high-speed internet. And you have no idea how badly Time Warner gouges their customers in NYC.Billy D Williams said:
NYC Mayor Bloomberg Announces Massive Public WiFi Network
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I usually don't like the argument 'If you don't like America than get out', but unlike most times the argument is used I'm actually going to use it to support a view that's actually relevant to the American philosophy, and that is that this nation was built on capitalism. If you don't like capitalism there are a plethora of other countries that don't practice it that are willing to accept you. Otherwise you should just accept that the internet is not a necessity nor a right, and taxpayer money should not be spent on providing a luxury service, nor should the government be undermining a company by providing a service that should only be provided by corporations. I don't even fucking like Time Warner, they're dicks, but I'm even less of a fan of wasting taxpayer money, especially when we are 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.sparafucil said:
Well, I'm a socialist, and like Thomas Paine (also a socialist), I like living in America. How about I continue to live in the civilized, urban part of America that is economically prosperous, ethnically diverse, and very liberal, and you live far away in your homogenous, dull, retrograde part of flyover America? Just stop bitching about how America's cities spend their local taxes, OK? After all, we are the engines of the national economy, not mostly rural and suburban red states. And frankly, we should be spending MORE during an economic slump to spur consumer spending and jobs. Basic Econ 101.Billy D Williams said:
I find it hilarious that I am retrograde (despite being an advocate of homosexual, racial and gender equality, also to the ending of the drug wars and the legalization and taxation of marijuana and possibly other drugs as well, separation of chruch and state (especially in schools) and am extremely tolerant of others so long as it doesn't harm me. Hardly old fashioned) and dull (despite testing within the top 95% of Americans intellectually), and homogeneous? I live in FUCKING ST. LOUIS! In the span of 5 miles I can find a hundred socialists, capitalists, democrats, republicans, libertarians, and skinheads to all get together and beat the shit out of eachother in a parking lot because there's a bit of fuckin everyone here.sparafucil said:
Also, the idea of increasing government spending to increase circulation and provide economic stimulus can be said about decreasing government spending so the taxpayers have more money to spend, and both methods have had mixed results.
Now please, go on telling me how much of a backwards redneck I am (ya, I know you didn't say redneck, but I get the feeling you were thinking it) and how I have no progressive thoughts in my mind, because I've learned that instead of feeling bad at how sad it is when people make blatantly wrong opinions of me its a Hell of a lot more fun to laugh at how wrong they are. So please... I'm waiting
I was going to say no that would be ridiculous but this is america after all. You can sue (and win) your competitors simply for providing better service and thus "having unfair advantage".Vie said:
because current internet infrastructure owners can sue them for that. yes, seriuosly.Valderis said:
I can see your point. You dont trust him like how we wouldnt trust EA running steam.AzrealMaximillion said:
No tax increase though. at least nto for first 5 years. First 5 years of coverage is paid by charity foundation (which may or may not be a money laundering front for the same Bloomberg).
I had to google what Big Gulp is as i never heard of it, apparently its some cola-like mix fizz drink?
I think that was the point. giving free acess to internet for people who otherwise wouldnt be able to get one.michael87cn said:
Sorry, this is 21st century, internet is not a "luxury" item, its a necessity.Billy D Williams said:
Do name at least one. You cant. There is none. Every single country in the world practice capitalism.Billy D Williams said:
It is a necessity, and right now it is also a right according to united nations
It is not. The first 5 years are paid for by charity service, not taxpayers.
If a company fails to provide even half-decent service while the government can, why not? the only reason government does not provide service is if the private sector is more efficient. If it is not it is governments DUTY to take over.
then you should stop by, i dont know, how about cutting the military budget that created a third of this debt, instead of cutting projects like these that costs insignificant amount in comparison?
I don't really know you or have any problem with you, I'm just tired of the "love it or leave it" attitude when it comes to unchecked capitalism. America is a big country. Surely, there is enough room for local governments of every ideological stripe.Billy D Williams said:I find it hilarious that I am retrograde (despite being an advocate of homosexual, racial and gender equality, also to the ending of the drug wars and the legalization and taxation of marijuana and possibly other drugs as well, separation of chruch and state (especially in schools) and am extremely tolerant of others so long as it doesn't harm me. Hardly old fashioned) and dull (despite testing within the top 95% of Americans intellectually), and homogeneous? I live in FUCKING ST. LOUIS! In the span of 5 miles I can find a hundred socialists, capitalists, democrats, republicans, libertarians, and skinheads to all get together and beat the shit out of eachother in a parking lot because there's a bit of fuckin everyone here.sparafucil said:
Also, the idea of increasing government spending to increase circulation and provide economic stimulus can be said about decreasing government spending so the taxpayers have more money to spend, and both methods have had mixed results.
Now please, go on telling me how much of a backwards redneck I am (ya, I know you didn't say redneck, but I get the feeling you were thinking it) and how I have no progressive thoughts in my mind, because I've learned that instead of feeling bad at how sad it is when people make blatantly wrong opinions of me its a Hell of a lot more fun to laugh at how wrong they are. So please... I'm waiting
Free wifi doesn't really cost taxpayers that much and it provides an enormous benefit for those who can't afford it. You may think the internet is a "luxury," but the same thing has been said about free public education, public libraries, and health care earlier in the 20th century, but now most Americans consider these things to be basic human rights that shouldn't be controlled by narrow corporate for-profit interests.
I do have a problem with Americans living in states that can just barely be considered First World telling New Yorkers how to run their government, yes. The very same states that take more in federal taxes than they contribute (See red state socialism).Ihateregistering1 said:
Ummm... why is that? The internet can provide information, sure, but you know what else can? The library! And you know what else the library provides? The internet!Strazdas said:
I will rephrase my previous statement to 'if you prefer a country that prefers socialism, there are a plethora of other countries that practice it'.Strazdas said:
Yes, and the United Nations is right. About everything. All the time.Strazdas said:
And no, its not a right. You are not entitled to the internet, but I already explained that above.
And charity is going to support it for how much longer after that? I wouldn't give a shit if it didn't cost money, but in the end after that charity well dries up it will. Human kindness only goes so far.Strazdas said:
Ummm... nooo...... The government should only be permitted to take over a service if it cannot be provided by the private sector (i.e. police, fire department, arguably healthcare (not getting into that debate however), even the postal service when the country was founded, although by now private sector could potentially have the ability to take over if permitted).Strazdas said:
Yes, because that is the only thing that needs to be cut. Once we cut military spending were going to be fine. It'll all work out after that. Nothing else should ever be cut but that because cutting that alone and not that along with almost every other area of spending. That will work.Strazdas said:
That's precisely my point: nowhere in Lando Calrissian's OP did he say ANYWHERE about where he lived, or mention anything regarding "red states vs. blue states" or anything of that nature, you simply jumped to the conclusion that for no other reason than he disagreed with you, he must live in one of those "dull, homogenous, retrograde, flyover parts of America". That is condescension and smugness in a nutshell.sparafucil said:
"...that can just barely be considered First World"
And it continues!! Have you been to any of these places that you seem to hate so much?
Additionally, "red state socialism" is largely a myth:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/24/red-state-blue-state-who-receives-the-most-federal-funding-not-ready-hold-for-wed-am/
Oh, and the South (where most of these "barely first world country" red states reside) is actually more racially integrated than the North:
http://www.economist.com/node/21547270
Except, as it turns out, I was correct: he does live in dull, homogenous, retrograde flyover America. How did I know? What do you expect from someone who thinks if you "don't love capitalism there are a plethora of other countries to live"?Ihateregistering1" said:
I've lived in the South, and know its history better than most.Ihateregistering1 said:
Right-wing think tanks and crank news sites are not credible sources. Try again.
There are some wonderful, liberal cities in the South (e.g., New Orleans, Atlanta, Charleston). Too bad they are surrounded by mostly-white, conservative suburbs and rural backwaters. You're not going to find much integration there, and, unlike you, I know this from experience.
You are assuming everyone has easy and free access to libraries. They dont.Billy D Williams said:
It also does not make it a luxury item.
That is better, thank you.
United nations being right or wrong is a topic we would need more than one topic to discuss. However internet is currently considered a right by all members of UN, including US. You may not consider it, however it is a publicly recognized right.
You are not entitled to oxygen either. Does not make it a luxury.
the charity supporting that one wont dry up. The contract is for 5 years. After 5 years they will likely do a decision of whether to find other benefactors, keep it from people, sell it or shut it down. Let them cross that bridge once they reach it.
anything can be provided by private sector including police fire department and healthcare. we have 3 private postal services here that are far superior to our public mail. Government has as much right to create business as any other entity. If it does it more efficiently than private sector - good. maybe they can use the profit to pay back the debt your so afraid of.
If you have a lot of things that you think are not necesasry will you first cut a thing that takes:
a) a third of the budget.
b) 0.00000000001% of the budget.
If you want to limit spending - start with limiting the places that actually have an impact.
So because they disagree with you, they are not credible sources? Also, considering that they took their statistics off of (among others) USA.gov, it's quite credible. Likewise, unless you can provide a counter-article that doesn't come from a "left-wing think tank or crank news site" then your argument carries no merit.sparafucil said:
"Except, as it turns out, I was correct: he does live in dull, homogenous, retrograde flyover America"
So because you made an assumption that proved to be correct, therefore it's ok to make any assumptions? So if I see a black guy and I think he's going to mug me, and he does, it's ok for me to just assume all black guys are criminals?
Likewise, 'homogenous'? This is the demographic make-up of St. Louis:
"The population was about 49.2% African American, 43.9% White (42.2% Non-Hispanic White), 2.9% Asian, 0.3% Native American/Alaska Native, and 2.4% reporting two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.5% of the population. (source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=table")
"...unlike you, I know this from experience"
And again with the massive, baseless assumptions. Guy, I spent most of my life in Georgia and Virginia. Also, you are aware that New Orleans and Atlanta rank as the #2 and #12 (respectively) cities with the highest murder rate in the US, right? If a high murder rate makes someplace a 'wonderful, liberal city' then it's all yours.
Are you really surprised that cities in states with conservative legislatures would have higher crime thanks to lack of spending on infrastructure, education, health care, poverty, and prison reform? That said, I would much rather live in New Orleans or Atlanta than whatever bumfuck Hickville enclave you call home, as would most people.[/quote]sparafucil said:
"He almost certainly lives outside St. Louis in a white suburb."
Baseless assumption.
"That said, I would much rather live in New Orleans or Atlanta than whatever bumfuck Hickville enclave you call home, as would most people."
Again, another baseless assumption. Oh, and I lived in Atlanta for 18 years.
"Are you really surprised that cities in states with conservative legislatures would have higher crime thanks to lack of spending on infrastructure, education, health care, poverty, and prison reform?"
I didn't say anything about states, I was talking about cities, and the cities with the highest murder rates are almost universally democratically controlled and have been for decades, regardless of the political leanings of the state legislature (Chicago, New Orleans, Atlanta, Detroit, Oakland, Stockton, Washington D.C., etc.) Much of that funding you mentioned above is controlled by city and county Governments, not state legislature. Also, you can't, on one hand, accuse those states of spending too many federal dollars, and then on the other hand accuse them of NOT spending enough federal dollars.
And the links are in the articles, but if you insist:
http://usaspending.gov/state-summary-tabular?fromfiscal=yes&fiscal_year=all&tab=By+Location&tabletype=statesummary
Unsubstantiated claims regarding diversity in the south? You mean the ones talked about in this other article I posted earlier?:
http://www.economist.com/node/21547270
Not an assumption, an inference. The probability of a middle class libertarian living outside the inner city is quite high, whereas the probability of you being mugged by any random minority you happen to see is exceedingly low.Ihateregistering1 said:
Cool, then I'm sure you know Atlanta is absolutely an amazing city to live in and undergoing rapid development and renewal. Have you visited the Beltline yet?Ihateregistering1 said:
Actually, a great deal of education and transportation is funded by the state, and the war on drugs is largely a federal issue. Gun control on a local level is meaningless without strong measures at the state and federal level, and poverty, perhaps the biggest cause of crime, cannot be tackled on the local level alone.Ihateregistering1 said:
The fear-mongering about inner-city crime is largely driven by the media that runs on "if it bleeds, it leads" stories to drive ratings. In truth, crime is at an all time low in American cities. Oddly enough, crime in suburbia is rising.
I'm really not interested in Dem vs. Republican cheerleading (although, there is no statistical correlation between high crime and Democratic mayoralty). My primary concern is the health of American cities, which are the cultural and economic backbone of America. 3% of the land mass in the United States generates 90% of the GDP and 86% of jobs. The Chicago metropolitan area alone generates 546.8B each year in economic output, greater than that of 42 states in the US. The history of all civilizations--their rise and fall--can be traced along the growth and decline of their cities, and cities depend on state investment in transportation, infrastructure, schools, health, housing, and countless other services. Providing access to the internet is simply not a luxury in the 21st century, and if we want to live in a civilization that values technological and urban progress, we need to acknowledge this.
That merely tells you spending by state; it doesn't account for state contributions to GDP and federal taxes.Ihateregistering1 said:
Most of the diversity in the South is confined to cities, certainly not at the state level. Your source even confirms this: "The Urban Institute, a Washington, DC, think-tank, recently compiled a report card on a range of measures of racial and ethnic equity in the country's 100 biggest metropolitan areas. The ten best cities for black-white equity are mostly in the South and in the West, while the ten worst are in the north-east and in the Midwest."Ihateregistering1 said:
That's really all it says about minority integration in the South, it doesn't go into greater detail. Granted, one can find low-diversity in many affluent parts of New England and the West Coast, but these are not areas I would hold up as models for vibrant cultural and economic centers.