Apr 13, 2011 Political
Dick Turban, a Senator, will introduce legislation to force companies that sell things over the Internet to calculate and collect taxes for the state (or locality) to which it is shipped. States complain that items bought over the Internet do not have the appropriate taxes collected and they miss out on revenue.
To me this is no different than when someone stops in one state and makes a purchase and then takes the item to his home state. What did the state in which the person resides do to warrant receiving revenue?
The matter will go nowhere for a number of reasons. There are thousands of taxes in many localities and it would be a daunting task to try to program websites to calculate the taxes. To top it off, some states like Maryland will raise taxes on a regular basis so that will mean more work and higher costs for web retailers.
The matter also has some Constitutional issue around it. Matters of taxes are supposed to originate in the House and the man introducing the legislation is in the Senate. Unless he gets someone in the House to introduce it, I don’t see how it can be introduced. Also, this is about state and local taxes so why is a member of the federal government involved in the issue?
Finally, the House is controlled by Republicans and regardless of whether one thinks this is a good idea or not, they do not want to be blamed for imposing taxes on people.
Even if this made it to the Senate I can’t see how they get the 60 votes needed for cloture.
This will be a sticky issue because more and more people shop online. Government likes to find things people do and tax it so it can get more money.
Dick Turban is saying that the playing field needs to be leveled so that brick and mortar stores can compete with Internet retailers.
Why is it that everything has to be a level playing field? Imagine if Major League Baseball required all teams to be the same…
I have an idea though. If Durbin wants a level playing field then have the states and localities eliminate sales taxes all together. Then the brick and mortar stores will be on a level playing field…..
Never surrender, never submit.
Apr 9, 2011 Political
Nancy Pelosi had something to say about the anti net neutrality rule voted on in the House on Friday. She said she did not think it was going anywhere. Imagine how Pelosi would have reacted if the Republicans had said that even though the House voted for Obamacare it was not going anywhere and then they decided to ignore what took place. Republicans are using legal methods to defund and repeal the albatross. Pelosi and her cohorts just ignore laws, procedures and the will of the people.
They have ignored a judges’ ruling on drilling moratoriums and they have ignored the ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Here is how Pelosi sees it:
“No one should be guarding the gate on the Internet,” Pelosi said. She said despite the House vote, the resolution isn’t likely to gain support in the Senate. “I don’t think this bill is going anyplace,” Pelosi predicted. National Journal
Funny, but politicians want to give Barry Obama an Internet kill switch and they want the government to be able to control the Internet, reportedly in the event of an emergency. However, her tune changes when she says that no one should be guarding the internet.
As far as I am concerned, companies provide access to the Internet and people pay for it (which might be considered guarding it by some). If those companies want to restrict certain access or control what goes on over their networks then it is their business.
The last thing we need is government intervention in the use of the Internet and we certainly do not need politicians controlling the Internet via kill switches or anything else.
I know that the Internet provides instant information (a lot of it wrong) and that does not bode well for people like Obama, Pelosi, Reid (and most other politicians) who like to say one thing at one event and a totally different thing at another. A hundred years ago communications were slow and these things were attributed to misquotes or miscommunication.
Today we have them in their own words and we can use those words against them. They do not like it one bit.
To control the people the government controls things like their health care and their communications.
What better way to get us closer to Socialism than to stifle messages they do not like. Remember, if government can decide how the Internet operates then it can decide what is on it and who can post to it. It can also decide who can access it.
Very dangerous indeed.
Pelosi is a moron.
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 7, 2010 Political
Don Imus made the mistake of trying to be funny about a female college basketball team and he used the term “Nappy Headed Hos.” As soon as he did the race baiting poverty pimps came out of the closet and none other than the cheif race antagonist Al Sharpton was leading the charge. Sharpton called for Imus to be fired and Obama got in on the act as well. Imus went on Al Sharpton’s radio program and had to grovel. After apologizing a million different ways, Imus was fired. He still went to the college to apologize to the ladies in person.
I am waiting for Sharpton to slither out from under his rock and start raising hell about the latest Nappy Head comment. This comment was made by Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressman James Clyburn. Obama FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said that free internet was a civil right for every nappy headed child (around the 2:50 mark).
I will not be holding my breath waiting for Sharpton to demand this woman’s firing because she happens to be black.
That will make all the difference in the world even though Sharpton went after Imus and the entire time preached how this kind of talk was racist and needed to stop. He will ignore Clyburn because she is black. If by some remote chance he says anything you can bet it will not rise to the level of demanding that she be fired.
As an aside, free internet is not a civil right for anyone, nappy headed or otherwise. It is no more a civil right than owning a cell phone, owning a car, owning a house or “free” health care. These are not rights of any kind whatsoever. They are commodities that are purchased by those who desire them and who can afford them. In the absence of the ability to afford them people do without or they work out some method of paying for them (particularly true with health care). However, with health care people often skip out on the bill and leave everyone else to pay for it. Remember, everyone has access to health care. The issue boils down to who pays for it…
But the issue at hand is the use of the words “nappy headed.”
If Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters are truly serious about race relations and stopping the use of such terms then they will be calling for Clyburn to be fired. If they ignore this then they are as worthless as I believe them to be and they should never be taken seriously again (I know, I can’t believe people take them seriously but they do). In other words, the next time they are outraged at something, tar and feather them.
I would not normally call for the firing of Clyburn. I did not think what Imus said and the way he said it warranted his dismissal and I would give Clyburn the benefit of the doubt even though it is quite obvious from what she says that she knew it was wrong. It was not spontaneous like the outburst from Imus. It was planned.
But I would still give her the benefit of the doubt for choosing her words poorly.
I would have. However, Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters set the standard for how this kind of behavior should be treated. It demands nothing less than dismissal because that is what they decided the punishment should be.
So I call on Sharpton to get out in the street and call for Clyburn to be fired and I call on Barack Obama to dismiss her for her insensitivity and use of racially charged language.
While I am at it, I call on the Congressional Black Caucus to get involved and call for Clyburn’s resignation.
It is time to put up or shut up folks. If you do not have the integrity to call for her to be fired then you have no right to complain about any future infraction.
The ball is in your court. What is your next move?
I bet Don Imus is taking gas over this.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 22, 2010 Political
In 1998 when Bill Clinton’s sex scandal was the big news, news that broke because Matt Drudge posted it after it was quashed in the MSM, Hilary had an opinion about the Internet. Hillary said she did not know what she was in favor of but it sounded like she favored some kind of regulation.
…I don’t know what — that’s why I said I don’t know what I’m in favor of. And I don’t know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it’s one of those new issues we’ve got to address. We’ve got to see whether our existing laws protect people’s right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can’t take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully. Drudge Report
Hillary said that without some kind of gatekeeping function it was difficult to defend a reputation. It probably did not occur to her that Bill’s reputation was hurt when he had the affair and then lied about it. If he had been telling the truth then it would have been Drudge’s reputation that needed to be defended.
Thirteen years later and with news of China continuing to censor the Internet, Ms. Clinton still has an opinion though it is different than it was back then.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for an unfettered worldwide Internet and urged global condemnation of those who conduct cyber attacks, as China sought to contain tension with the United States over the hacking and censorship of Google.
“A new information curtain is descending across much of the world,” she said, calling growing Internet curbs the modern equivalent of the Berlin Wall.
“We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas,” said Clinton in a major address that cited China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt among countries that censored the Internet or harassed bloggers. Yahoo News
Well things have certainly changed with regard to her position on this.
Did it change because the scandal left Bill relatively unscathed and now China is the focus?
What do you think prompted her position reversal? I would be interested to read your opinions in the comment section.
Aug 31, 2009 Political
Actually, this post is not as bright and funny as the farce The Producers, by Mel Brooks- this is just about the same old mundane dictatorial powers that any old power- mad Socialist would have, indeed, this has already been done in this hemisphere. As we have seen, Hugo Chavez has taken over the media in his country, all the better to keep “his” country on “his” message.
Apparently it’s like the new x-box- every little dictator now wants this, and Hussein is no different, To hell with those pesky little amendments, especially the first one- you know, the freedom to speak freely, to assemble, religion, all that jazz- well, we really don’t need that do we? Especially if people are going to be critical of the Resident- his feelings get hurt so easily.
This is troubling, but not unexpected, given the way the Resident is mangling all our other freedoms, in the name of ”an emergency”- ooooh, Uncle Hugo would be soooooo proud- little Barry is growing up- it’s just soooooo cute when dictators learn to take away their first liberties. Did anyone get a picture?