UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> Jeff Monson: It's time for a change


1/28/12 12:25 PM
Ignore | Vote Down | Vote Up
Underground News
1074 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/3/08
Posts: 8084
The Underground News, Editor
 

Property rights in MMA came to the forefront in the last 24 hours, with a hacker collective going after UFC President Dana White for supporting SOPA, a now apparently dead Federal bill that would vastly expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property.

White responded back agressively defining the issue simply - "Hey don't steal my s---."

Former UFC heavyweight title contender, and Anarchist, Jeff Monson offers a perspective that is familiar to many who find no fault with pirating content protected by copyright.


1/28/12 1:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hollywood Blonde
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 20928
I'm liberal, not leftist. Monson's out to lunch.
1/28/12 1:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SuperMannyFraker
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/15/09
Posts: 920
Hollywood Blonde - I'm liberal, not leftist. Monson's out to lunch.

 
1/28/12 1:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
UGCTT_molsonmuscle360
174 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/7/10
Posts: 2331
Hollywood Blonde - I'm liberal, not leftist. Monson's out to lunch.


I'm a socialist and I think Monson is out to lunch. Dude is fucking bonkers. I'm pretty sure now matter how liberal, or left leaning you are, unless you have gone as far as the "anarchist" crowd, you are going to think Monson is fucking crazy.
1/28/12 1:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
hubbarocks
17 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/19/11
Posts: 91
Monson is as much of a brain-washed imbecile as he claims others are.
1/28/12 1:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jakeb
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/28/05
Posts: 80
Lol at the rich paying less than everyone else as a percentage. The "rich" pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. The lower 50% pay zero or very little. Get you facts straight. Phone Post
1/28/12 1:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Badmonkey
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/15/07
Posts: 5520
Boring to listen to and boring to watch fight Phone Post
1/28/12 1:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
THP
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/27/07
Posts: 7160
Monson wouldn't last five minutes in a boardroom with lorenzo or dana.
1/28/12 1:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
andre
421 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 50737
I respect the fact that he fights for free rather than for profit.

Or does he?

Everyone loves pirating stuff, as long as its not their work that's not getting paid for. Phone Post
1/28/12 1:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EvilMaster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01/28/12 2:01 PM
Member Since: 5/4/06
Posts: 60398
Say hello to my little friend!
Did Obama break constitutional law by signing the ACTA treaty?

Here at The Inquisitr we have been covering the whole SOPA, PIPA, and the Blackout of the Web but even before those two extremely flawed bills surfaced we were covering the international treaty commonly referred to by ACTA, even though all the trade organizations (funded by the entertainment industry) did their best to keep secret.

Most recently both James Johnson and H. Scott English wrote about the re-emergence of ACTA as a real matter of concern. The fact is that ACTA is even more insidious that either SOPA and PIPA might have been before they were shelved.

I first started writing about ACTA back in 2010 here at The Inquisitr and have been a vocal opponent of the treaty because it totally bypasses the direct involvement of elected politicians that could be held accountable for their actions. It is because of this problem with accountability that ACTA was never created as "a law" but rather as a "trade treaty" – as I wrote here in April 2010:

So why a trade agreement?

The simple answer to that question is – the laws; and legal rights, are getting in the way.

The entertainment industry has been trying in the US – with a lot of campaign bucks being donated – to get the laws changed to something more in their favor but there is this pesky thing called the Constitution as well as the Supreme Court that keeps getting in the way. While that hasn't stopped them it has made their task a lot more difficult.

Then you have all those really irritating foreign countries with their own silly laws. They've tried in Canada to influence our government by donating as much as they possibly can, by whatever means they can, to favorable political candidates running for office. There influence has also been felt in other countries around the world but in the end – or at least at this point in time the standing laws of those countries are proving more difficult to get around than the entertainment industry would like.

With all these headaches why not find another way to get what you want and not have to deal with these piddling laws which is what the industry has done. You see in the Global Economy trade agreements trump local laws. You might not think so but in reality they do. Just look at any WTO disagreements, in the end the WTO trade agreements will trump local laws – hint: the current battle between the US and Antigua over online gambling.

So rather than have to constantly fight against the constantly shifting landscape of local laws the entertainment industry realized it was much easier to engineer a global trade agreement outside of even the WTO, WIPO and other related world trade organizations typical responsible for this type of thing. By doing so they have in effect created a global trade agreement that could marginalize or replace the WIPO.

Fast forward to today and we suddenly find that an interesting situation has arisen in the Untied States in regards to ACTA. It seems that the President signed the ACTA treaty a few months ago, with apparently little or no fanfare, but questions are now being asked by those who do keep a very close eye on this – was Obama even allowed to sign ACTA?

It has been pointed out that any treaty between the US and any other country, which is exactly what ACTA is, requires Senate approval – which ACTA never got. What it did get was a change in semantics where is was now being called an "executive agreement" so that President Obama didn't need Senate approval.

However, and this is where the constitution comes into play, this "treaty" is about intellectual property (supposedly) and as Mike Masnick at Techdirt points out the president cannot legally sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and that it must be submitted to the Senate.

That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it's a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement? The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President's mandate. That is, you can't sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here's the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there's a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.

This is why Senator Wyden has asked the President to explain why Congress has been cut out. Scholars have noted their concern that if allowed, this will open the door to allowing the president to regularly route around Congress on international agreements.

I have said before and I will say it again – the success against SOPA and PIPA is only the opening skirmish of a much bigger war being waged around intellectual property. ACTA has been in the background for sometime but now that SOPA and PIPA have been shelved (temporarily) the fight needs to be now directed against the much more insidious and global version called ACTA.

However the question is now before us .. did President Obama knowingly and intentionally sidestep the US Congress in order to placate the entertainment industry; and in doing this did he break United States Constitutional law?
1/28/12 2:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
breakbeatbox
17 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/27/09
Posts: 579
I thought this would be about him finally dropping to 205.
1/28/12 2:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kugelfang
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01/28/12 2:18 PM
Member Since: 6/19/09
Posts: 18
look at the American Gini coefficient and its relationship to the income mobility and then tell me again, that a) the American dream still exists and if you factor in tax rates that b) the rich pay their fair share.

It's kinda funny, that Americans tend to not call for higher taxes on the rich because they think that they can make it to the top with hard work and should be rewarded for that afterwards. The problem is, that this isn't the case anymore, there is nearly no other Western country where personal wealth is as dependent on what your parents had than in the US.

Realize that the US was the best country in the world a few decades ago because everyone could make it from zero but this has changed drastically.

I can't believe I'm writing that in an MMA forum ...

... WAR WAND!
1/28/12 2:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BrianStannFan
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/19/11
Posts: 3534
EvilMaster - Did Obama break constitutional law by signing the ACTA treaty?

Here at The Inquisitr we have been covering the whole SOPA, PIPA, and the Blackout of the Web but even before those two extremely flawed bills surfaced we were covering the international treaty commonly referred to by ACTA, even though all the trade organizations (funded by the entertainment industry) did their best to keep secret.

Most recently both James Johnson and H. Scott English wrote about the re-emergence of ACTA as a real matter of concern. The fact is that ACTA is even more insidious that either SOPA and PIPA might have been before they were shelved.

I first started writing about ACTA back in 2010 here at The Inquisitr and have been a vocal opponent of the treaty because it totally bypasses the direct involvement of elected politicians that could be held accountable for their actions. It is because of this problem with accountability that ACTA was never created as "a law" but rather as a "trade treaty" – as I wrote here in April 2010:

So why a trade agreement?

The simple answer to that question is – the laws; and legal rights, are getting in the way.

The entertainment industry has been trying in the US – with a lot of campaign bucks being donated – to get the laws changed to something more in their favor but there is this pesky thing called the Constitution as well as the Supreme Court that keeps getting in the way. While that hasn't stopped them it has made their task a lot more difficult.

Then you have all those really irritating foreign countries with their own silly laws. They've tried in Canada to influence our government by donating as much as they possibly can, by whatever means they can, to favorable political candidates running for office. There influence has also been felt in other countries around the world but in the end – or at least at this point in time the standing laws of those countries are proving more difficult to get around than the entertainment industry would like.

With all these headaches why not find another way to get what you want and not have to deal with these piddling laws which is what the industry has done. You see in the Global Economy trade agreements trump local laws. You might not think so but in reality they do. Just look at any WTO disagreements, in the end the WTO trade agreements will trump local laws – hint: the current battle between the US and Antigua over online gambling.

So rather than have to constantly fight against the constantly shifting landscape of local laws the entertainment industry realized it was much easier to engineer a global trade agreement outside of even the WTO, WIPO and other related world trade organizations typical responsible for this type of thing. By doing so they have in effect created a global trade agreement that could marginalize or replace the WIPO.

Fast forward to today and we suddenly find that an interesting situation has arisen in the Untied States in regards to ACTA. It seems that the President signed the ACTA treaty a few months ago, with apparently little or no fanfare, but questions are now being asked by those who do keep a very close eye on this – was Obama even allowed to sign ACTA?

It has been pointed out that any treaty between the US and any other country, which is exactly what ACTA is, requires Senate approval – which ACTA never got. What it did get was a change in semantics where is was now being called an "executive agreement" so that President Obama didn't need Senate approval.

However, and this is where the constitution comes into play, this "treaty" is about intellectual property (supposedly) and as Mike Masnick at Techdirt points out the president cannot legally sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and that it must be submitted to the Senate.

That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it's a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement? The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President's mandate. That is, you can't sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here's the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there's a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.

This is why Senator Wyden has asked the President to explain why Congress has been cut out. Scholars have noted their concern that if allowed, this will open the door to allowing the president to regularly route around Congress on international agreements.

I have said before and I will say it again – the success against SOPA and PIPA is only the opening skirmish of a much bigger war being waged around intellectual property. ACTA has been in the background for sometime but now that SOPA and PIPA have been shelved (temporarily) the fight needs to be now directed against the much more insidious and global version called ACTA.

However the question is now before us .. did President Obama knowingly and intentionally sidestep the US Congress in order to placate the entertainment industry; and in doing this did he break United States Constitutional law?

 Great read thank you for posting.
1/28/12 2:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Filo_Beto
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/24/10
Posts: 227
I laugh at what some of tools here are saying. I'm a leftist or I'm socialist, b.s. Fist off I can't speak to what monsoon has spoken about in other interview but in this one their is nothing left about it. Technically it's what's happening right now. Corporations are paying less taxes or no taxes then some citizens.
1/28/12 2:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Sk1tzO420
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/12/10
Posts: 3251
In no way do the rich pay their fair share.
They might pay a lot collectively, but individually, they are way off. Most of them have bogus"charities" and LLCs to help them get most of it back anyways.
1/28/12 2:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Malachy Friedman
23 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/24/03
Posts: 10847
andre - I respect the fact that he fights for free rather than for profit.

Or does he?

Everyone loves pirating stuff, as long as its not their work that's not getting paid for. Phone Post

ok but when whats Dana gonna do with more money?

don't say pay the fighters more

the only way that happens is when the fighters are the draw and not the promotion
1/28/12 2:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Filo_Beto
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/24/10
Posts: 228
jakeb - Lol at the rich paying less than everyone else as a percentage. The "rich" pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. The lower 50% pay zero or very little. Get you facts straight. <img src="/images/phone/droid.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>


Bingo , you must watch fox. If you are "MAKING that vast majority of ALL THE MONEY" it would be safe to assume that tax revenue would be higher for this group.

But what you don't understand is the percentage at which some rich people pay taxes which can be less then 15%.
1/28/12 2:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Munk
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/4/08
Posts: 474
"which some rich people pay taxes which can be less then 15%."

stupid
1/28/12 2:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
decasere
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/28/10
Posts: 364
Munk - "which some rich people pay taxes which can be less then 15%."

stupid
What's stupid...the statement which is a truth, our the fact that the rich enjoy tax loopholes and countless other means to keep more of what they have and earn than those of us in the ever shrinking middle class? Phone Post
1/28/12 2:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EvilMaster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/4/06
Posts: 60399
Say hello to my little friend!
1/28/12 2:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EvilMaster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/4/06
Posts: 60400
Say hello to my little friend!
ACTA = Global Internet Censorship – Now Even Foreign Governments Will Be Able To Have Your Website Shut Down

Global Internet censorship is here. SOPA and PIPA have been stopped (at least for now) in the United States, but a treaty known as ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) is far worse than either of them. ACTA was quietly signed by Barack Obama back on October 1st, 2011 and most Americans have never even heard of it. But it could mean the end of the Internet as we know it. This new treaty gives foreign governments and copyright owners incredibly broad powers. If you are alleged to have violated a copyright, your website can be shut down without a trial and police may even show up at your door to take you to prison. It doesn't even have to be someone in the United States that is accusing you. It could just be a foreign government or a copyright owner halfway across the world that alleges that you have violated a copyright. It doesn't matter. So far, the U.S., the EU and seven other nations have signed on to ACTA, and the number of participants is expected to continue to grow. The "powers that be" are obsessed with getting Internet censorship one way or another. The open and free Internet that you and I have been enjoying for all these years is about to change, and not for the better.

So how come the U.S. Senate never voted on ACTA? Doesn't the U.S. Constitution mandate that all treaties must be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Senate?

Of course it does.

But Barack Obama has gotten around this by calling ACTA an "executive agreement", which is a load of crap.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of nonsense we are getting out of Obama on a regular basis now. He has shown endless disdain for the U.S. Constitution.

Some members of Congress are expressing deep alarm over ACTA. For example, U.S. Representative Darrell Issa is calling ACTA "more dangerous than SOPA".

There are some members of Congress that are even demanding that ACTA be submitted to the U.S. Senate for a vote. Unfortunately, their voices are very few so far, and ACTA is getting next to no coverage in the mainstream media.

But this new treaty is very, very serious. It basically mandates that all Internet communications be constantly monitored for copyright infringement. Sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter will have to monitor accounts for copyright infringement 24 hours a day.

If you are alleged to have committed a violation, you might not just lose your social media account or your website.

You could potentially be sent to prison.

Yes, seriously.

What we are talking about is Chinese-style Internet censorship for the entire globe.

The following comes from a recent Forbes article....

"Why does ACTA matter to the media and citizens?" writes Alex Howard. "Consider the phrase "intermediary liability." That's the principle that websites on the Internet, like YouTube, Internet service providers, web hosting companies or social networks, should not be held liable for the content created or uploaded by their users."

The new rules proposed in ACTA essentially transform Western ISPs into something more along the lines of ISPs in China and other more restrictive nations.

One of the worst elements of ACTA is that it would allow accusers of copyright infringement to completely and totally bypass judicial review.
1/28/12 2:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EvilMaster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/4/06
Posts: 60401
Say hello to my little friend!
If you don't think that ACTA will change the Internet, just check out the following excerpt from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson....

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

Big sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter may just decide that it is too much of a hassle to monitor millions of pieces of content. Allowing users to constantly post content on their sites would be a huge risk. In fact, if they are found to be allowing "copyright infringement", those sites could be permanently shut down.

The American people need to get educated about this new treaty before it is too late. There is still a chance that we could get the U.S. Congress to take action against this new treaty.

Under ACTA, Internet service providers will essentially be required to become the police of the Internet. This was explained in a recent article by Cory Doctorow....

New revelations on ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a secretive global copyright being privately negotiated by rich countries away from the UN: ACTA will require ISPs to police trademarks the way they currently police copyright. That means that if someone accuses you of violating a trademark with a web-page, blog-post, video, tweet, etc, your ISP will be required to nuke your material without any further proof, or be found to be responsible for any trademark violations along with you. And of course, trademark violations are much harder to verify than copyright violations, since they often hinge on complex, fact-intensive components like tarnishment, dilution and genericization. Meaning that ISPs are that much more likely to simply take all complaints at face-value, leading to even more easy censorship of the Internet with nothing more than a trumped-up trademark claim.

One of the big problems with ACTA is that it is way too broad and way too vague.

Vague language allows authorities to "interpret" the law any way that they see fit.

This can often lead to selective enforcement. Websites that authorities like will be left alone, while those that they don't like will be harassed or completely shut down.

ACTA was written in secret and it has been pushed through very, very quietly. The following comes from a recent CNN article....

Like many trade agreements, ACTA is a confusing mess. Even its signatories don't agree on how it's supposed to work. The way it's been pushed forward has also been unruly -- talks have been held in secret, without any kind of legislative oversight or input from citizens or public-interest groups. The public only became aware of it in 2008, a couple of years after discussions began, when Wikileaks published a discussion paper. Since then, drafts of the pact have been released to the public, each successively less onerous to critics. Reportedly, though, big media and pharmaceutical lobbyists have been privy to the talks all along

Of course – this is a chance for big media and big corporations to take control of the Internet.

The way ACTA has been pushed on us has been absolutely disgusting. In fact, one key EU official that was in charge of investigating ACTA has resigned in protest over how this whole thing has gone down. He says that ACTA is basically being crammed down the throats of the European people....

I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly.

As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands."

Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications.

This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade.
1/28/12 2:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EvilMaster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/4/06
Posts: 60402
Say hello to my little friend!
European Parliament Official In Charge Of ACTA Quits, And Denounces The 'Masquerade' Behind ACTA
January 28, 2012
Print Version


Tech Dirt

This is interesting. Kader Arif, the "rapporteur" for ACTA, has quit that role in disgust over the process behind getting the EU to sign onto ACTA. A rapporteur is a person "appointed by a deliberative body to investigate an issue." However, it appears his investigation of ACTA didn't make him very pleased:

I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly.

As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands."

Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications.

This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade.

Pretty rare to find such direct honesty in political circles. That's quite a direct and clear condemnation of the entire process. In terms of process, it will be interesting to see if this has an impact. While the EU did sign on to ACTA today, it still needs to be ratified by the European Parliament (more on that in a little while). Having Arif quit makes a pretty big statement, and hopefully makes it easier for Parliament Members to speak out loudly against ACTA... Still, this is an uphill battle. The supporters of ACTA have been working to get ACTA approved for years. To them, this is basically a done deal.
1/28/12 2:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EvilMaster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/4/06
Posts: 60403
Say hello to my little friend!
People are looking at SOPA and PIPA, but they should be looking at ACTA. Obama signed this shit last year. And nobody seems to know.

This is the scary shit. :(
1/28/12 3:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
RocketsRedglare
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/23/12
Posts: 31
Sure, let's raise the capital gain tax. Encourage people to save less. 

Anyone who thinks the capital gains tax is a loophole does not know that the I.R.C. is supposed to be a system of incentives and disincentives.  Absolutely no connection between the income tax and the capital gains tax.

Eliminate the mortgage deduction for who somebody considers rich at the moment?  Sure. Reduce construction and the jobs it spawns.

Piracy?  Yeah let's screw the big media.  Who gets screwed?  The young artists and musicians whose years of creativity are stolen before they have a chance to make any money.  The bigshots? They just raise prices. 

99% have no idea of the consequences of the slogans they are throwing out, because they have no idea of the interelationships and domino effect of their bullshit.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.