You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 05:59:21 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?  (Read 4299 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« on: July 17, 2012, 01:17:00 PM »
I've been watching the news a bit again, and I notice that the politicians talking about 'downsizing' government are leaving out WHAT they are downsizing or the effects it will have on the layman.

-Downsizing the Department of Energy.
  Less oversight of energy producers, watching out for things like oil spills, fracking contamination of our water supply.
-Downsizing the Department of Labor
  Less worker safety protection. Less investigation into labor abuses such as illegal labor (they do this along with ICE), pay violations and such.
-Department of Trade
  These are the guys responsible for checking into business fraud, and have been put in charge of investigation of privacy invasion practices by online providers. In a decade their duties have doubled while their budget is constantly decreased.

Other fun things that 'cutting useless regulation and oversight' has given us. The repeal of the Glass/Steagall act in 95 (by my two favorite congressmen: Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi. With the repeal of this, a LARGE portion of the adventurist and opportunistic actions that led up to the mortgage crisis came out of the elimination of barriers between the commercial and investment banks.

I hear the words 'Industry should regulate itself' and blink. We tried that back in the 19th century and it didn't work anygood except for the big money bags like Rockafeller and his type. Why do you think a century and change later it will be any different?

I say we 'rightsize' government. You want to get rid of bloat, reform the defense contract business, stop agreeing to letting big pharma get away with drug deals that leave our people suffering. Perhaps look into doing something with the war on drugs, such as legalizing/controlling pot. Stop supplementing corporate farming that does nothing but stuffs corn and soy down our throats and reform a lot of support structure to encourage domestic investment and growth.

Oh right..that's not immediately profitable in six quarters or less.

Small Government was good when we were less than a million citizens and were still working around the steam engine. Today we need regulators to keep us safe and the market fair.

Just look at the energy issues that California started in the mid to late 90s with deregulating energy. The companies sold their energy to out of state interests for more profit and mayhem ensued.

 

Offline Caela

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2012, 09:59:56 PM »
I think you can "downsize" a lot of those departments without slashing them to the point of ineffectiveness. You don't have to eliminate them entirely but I would certainly like to see a lot of the "bloat" and redundancies cut out of the system. I'd like something effective and efficient, not something where a field agent does an analysis and it has to go through 20 middlemen before it gets to anyone who can do anything with his/her results 5 years later.

Yes I know that's an exaggeration but it was done to make a point lol.

I'd also like to see a stop put to some of the cronyism going on in these regulatory agencies. There is NO excuse for ex-executives from Monsanto, or BP, or any other major corporation to be sitting on the boards of the very agencies that are supposed to be regulating those industries. Can we say massive conflicts of interest!

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2012, 10:05:54 PM »
I think you can "downsize" a lot of those departments without slashing them to the point of ineffectiveness. You don't have to eliminate them entirely but I would certainly like to see a lot of the "bloat" and redundancies cut out of the system. I'd like something effective and efficient, not something where a field agent does an analysis and it has to go through 20 middlemen before it gets to anyone who can do anything with his/her results 5 years later.

Yes I know that's an exaggeration but it was done to make a point lol.

I'd also like to see a stop put to some of the cronyism going on in these regulatory agencies. There is NO excuse for ex-executives from Monsanto, or BP, or any other major corporation to be sitting on the boards of the very agencies that are supposed to be regulating those industries. Can we say massive conflicts of interest!

Dont' get me started about the intelliegence community. I've walked the periphery of the community for a long time.. and my dad longer. One of the few things we've both agreed is a diminishment of physical intelligence and a reliance on analysts, and more and more analysts.

Offline Caela

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2012, 10:24:41 PM »
Dont' get me started about the intelliegence community. I've walked the periphery of the community for a long time.. and my dad longer. One of the few things we've both agreed is a diminishment of physical intelligence and a reliance on analysts, and more and more analysts.

lol I won't get you started because I'll admit I don't know enough about the intelligence community to discuss it intelligently myself. All I can say about it is that, from the little I've seen in the news and read about it etc. it seems that the various agencies don't communicate well.

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2012, 10:40:47 PM »
lol I won't get you started because I'll admit I don't know enough about the intelligence community to discuss it intelligently myself. All I can say about it is that, from the little I've seen in the news and read about it etc. it seems that the various agencies don't communicate well.

SUPPOSEDLY the Department of Homeland Security is there in part to coordinate and consolidate the various intel agencies and make sure they play nice.

ELINT is majorly the purview of the NSA, Domestic is the balliwack of the FBI (With the DEA, ATF, Border Patrol/ICE, Secret Service and a few others adding to the mix), Foreign is supposed to be the CIa (with some of the above domenstic groups having points in it).

There is a truly HIDEOUS amount of data going through the community and at a certain level there is a 'deliver what the boss wants to hear' still in place despite the outcome of 9/11.

Ironically despite the amount of data, there has been dry spell of actually john on the spot physical intel. Because it's expensive, time comsuming, expensive, and oh yeah.. expensive. As well as the last ten years the US intel community has leaked like a sieve. You got the outing of Valerie Plame.. which the white house blasely white washed.. (Carl Rove's little punishment of Plame's husband put people in the ground..) and Wikileaks. No one who is a really intelligent person in that area of the world is going to easily trust the US to keep them safe for a long long time.

Offline Revolverman

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2012, 08:16:12 PM »
The thing with downsizing is that it almost ALWAYS end up cutting people who do the footwork (and cost/make the least) but it ALWAYS keeps the bloated, over-payed middle/upper management. At least here in BC and in Health care, something about 40% of the budget is Admin and Management costs.

So, Downsizing always ends up cutting meat and sometimes even the bone of the program, but the fat always stays, "justifying" more cuts. Funny how that works.

Offline Caela

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2012, 08:30:31 PM »
The thing with downsizing is that it almost ALWAYS end up cutting people who do the footwork (and cost/make the least) but it ALWAYS keeps the bloated, over-payed middle/upper management. At least here in BC and in Health care, something about 40% of the budget is Admin and Management costs.

So, Downsizing always ends up cutting meat and sometimes even the bone of the program, but the fat always stays, "justifying" more cuts. Funny how that works.

I would LOVE to see the "fat" cut! At my last job we had ten, ten managers! When they upped the number I asked on of the new ones what exactly she was going to be doing and she laughed and said, "I don't know really." Don't cut the people that DO the work, cut the number of people they need to go through to get the damned job done.

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2012, 08:44:09 PM »
The thing with downsizing is that it almost ALWAYS end up cutting people who do the footwork (and cost/make the least) but it ALWAYS keeps the bloated, over-payed middle/upper management. At least here in BC and in Health care, something about 40% of the budget is Admin and Management costs.

So, Downsizing always ends up cutting meat and sometimes even the bone of the program, but the fat always stays, "justifying" more cuts. Funny how that works.

When I joined the Navy back in 95, we had just finished bleeding the lower ranks white (Enlisted Ranks E1-E6 and Officers from LTJGs to Lt. Commanders) but the 'career managers' (E-7+, the cheifs) stayed where they were. I have had more than a few R.O.A.D Chiefs (Retired On Active Duty) Chiefs. The higher officers had the 'lists' and more than a few Lt. Commanders were blacklisted for being at the Tailhook events (had one find out SEVEN years afterwards when he went up.. he went to the press with his flightlogs and receipts (he flew in the first day and left that afternoon.))

This last turn of purges put a cap on time in rank for the chiefs.. no more making chief in twelve and staying there for 9 years. They have to show drive and intiative..and fight for those ever so scarce higher chief ranks and officer programs. I talked to one of my friends to hear how it was..

It's gotten pretty bloody.. It went from my first command back in '95 having 3 Chief Petty Officers to each spot that we actually needed them to nearly 1 to 1 now. Add in the downsizing, gutting of things like Surface Control Commands (a stupid move in my opinion), consolidating commands into a massive hybrid and putting us in fewer and fewer bases.. we're looking at a strategic vulnerbility that we need to reconsider.

A well placed black market nuke at the right time and place could erase anywhere from 50% to all of our fleet capacity in a theater and in some specialized communities.. ALL of it. Boom.. no assets, crews, knowledge. With one nasty bomb, you roll us back to the 1950s in some areas.

Offline AndyZ

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2012, 02:48:22 PM »
Would it be possible, rather than trusting the bloated and corrupt management to handle the cuts, to simply scrap everything and have someone rebuild the programs at a fraction of the cost and without all the fat?

I figure you could hire a consultant who actually knows how to run a business and is used to all her suggestions being ignored and not being able to say that it's the managers who really need to go, or something like that.

That's also assuming you even need half the programs in existence, but that's a whole different story.

Callie, if you think the nuke situation is bad, you should look into EMP attacks.

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2012, 03:00:36 PM »
Would it be possible, rather than trusting the bloated and corrupt management to handle the cuts, to simply scrap everything and have someone rebuild the programs at a fraction of the cost and without all the fat?

I figure you could hire a consultant who actually knows how to run a business and is used to all her suggestions being ignored and not being able to say that it's the managers who really need to go, or something like that.

That's also assuming you even need half the programs in existence, but that's a whole different story.

Callie, if you think the nuke situation is bad, you should look into EMP attacks.

I know about EMP.. but unless you're REALLY close with an EMP Pulse.. it doesn't kill the knowledge base.. just the tech and online data.. the point I am making is at least TWO of the communities I worked in are now located in a single base location. And they are VITAL for national security. Gear/Tech/Data can be replaced.. but the people who do the work are not so easily replaced.

As for scrapping everything and starting over. It's wasteful. It is time consuming.  You kill an whole Agemcy and rebuild in an effort to save dollars.? Sorry that isn't smart. You do throw the baby out with the bath water. You fix the problems, shake up the admin tree and reprioritze and speak frankly of what you need to do.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 03:34:58 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2012, 07:32:37 AM »
Lets get real here who the hell would dare move on us to invade us the only real threat to any nation, they try we go nuclear and noone wins classic MADD as a defense. That is why you have nuclear weapons to keep the nation from being threatened that way. That leaves fringe minor threats like terrorism and even if they used a nuke in a city it would not destroy the nation unless we let it. I think we could gut the military of half its numbers and divert part of that to intelligence services that can stop such terrorist threats we need a fine knife used in those cases not a sledgehammer.

As for the topic we are a big and powerful nation and so need a big governmentto oversee it.

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2012, 10:38:04 AM »
Lets get real here who the hell would dare move on us to invade us the only real threat to any nation, they try we go nuclear and noone wins classic MADD as a defense. That is why you have nuclear weapons to keep the nation from being threatened that way. That leaves fringe minor threats like terrorism and even if they used a nuke in a city it would not destroy the nation unless we let it. I think we could gut the military of half its numbers and divert part of that to intelligence services that can stop such terrorist threats we need a fine knife used in those cases not a sledgehammer.

As for the topic we are a big and powerful nation and so need a big government to oversee it.

You assume that it will be someone rational.. or that we will be able to figure out who did it. The detonation of a multi-megaton warhead leaves very little clues and it would be fairly easy to blame it on the wrong person. And how do you bomb the minister of a multinational terrorist organization? We're not always dealing with nationstates. And nukes aren't the only lethal tool to deny us assets in the field. Think about how much damage you could do to the fleet infrastructure with a handful of well placed wide area dispersal 'dirty bombs'. You poison the people in the area, contaminate the material.

There is a difference  between 'big government' and 'government as a regulatory agency'. One is what the GOP wants to use socially, legislating us in areas like abortion and treatment, the other is keeping the marketplace 'fair and balanced.'. Strangely enough it's okay for the GOP to pass laws like invasive ultrasounds and such for abortions but not okay to put in anything that keeps the big banks/corps from not crushing the little guys.

Offline Caela

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2012, 11:43:02 AM »
Lets get real here who the hell would dare move on us to invade us the only real threat to any nation, they try we go nuclear and noone wins classic MADD as a defense. That is why you have nuclear weapons to keep the nation from being threatened that way. That leaves fringe minor threats like terrorism and even if they used a nuke in a city it would not destroy the nation unless we let it. I think we could gut the military of half its numbers and divert part of that to intelligence services that can stop such terrorist threats we need a fine knife used in those cases not a sledgehammer.

As for the topic we are a big and powerful nation and so need a big governmentto oversee it.

In the case of an outright invasion, you're probably right. Attacking us would be a logistics nightmare! However, in this day and age, there are ways of attacking without using traditional weapons of war.

Hell, if they decided it was more important to cripple us, and were willing to take the economic hit in the short term, the mid-east and China could crush us using economics. Stop sending all the goods we no longer make for ourselves and stop shipping in the oil and we would be royally screwed in very short order. Or they could call in all the debts we owe and fully bankrupt us making our current recession look like a walk in the park. Granted this could all have a lot of unforeseen consequences to them as well but it could be done if they were willing.

As for being a big country, and this needing a big gov't, I call bullshit. What we need is an effective and efficient government and efficiency rarely = bigger. Most of our agencies are bloated with ineffective middle and upper management all doing a lot of the same things. You could streamline these agencies and make them much more effective and less costly. Let's also not forget that a number of our regulatory agencies are just as subject to being "bought" as our politicians are. Agencies like the FDA have no business hiring ex-employees from companies line Monsanto and Pfizer any more than the ATF should be hiring folks from Smith&Wesson. It is a massive conflict of interest that only serves the industries these agencies are supposed to be regulating.

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2012, 11:56:09 AM »
In the case of an outright invasion, you're probably right. Attacking us would be a logistics nightmare! However, in this day and age, there are ways of attacking without using traditional weapons of war.

Hell, if they decided it was more important to cripple us, and were willing to take the economic hit in the short term, the mid-east and China could crush us using economics. Stop sending all the goods we no longer make for ourselves and stop shipping in the oil and we would be royally screwed in very short order. Or they could call in all the debts we owe and fully bankrupt us making our current recession look like a walk in the park. Granted this could all have a lot of unforeseen consequences to them as well but it could be done if they were willing.

As for being a big country, and this needing a big gov't, I call bullshit. What we need is an effective and efficient government and efficiency rarely = bigger. Most of our agencies are bloated with ineffective middle and upper management all doing a lot of the same things. You could streamline these agencies and make them much more effective and less costly. Let's also not forget that a number of our regulatory agencies are just as subject to being "bought" as our politicians are. Agencies like the FDA have no business hiring ex-employees from companies line Monsanto and Pfizer any more than the ATF should be hiring folks from Smith&Wesson. It is a massive conflict of interest that only serves the industries these agencies are supposed to be regulating.

That is so true.. (emphasis mine). We need to thin out leadership in the agencies, BUT we also need to break the outlook of the last few presidents that if it's not directly tied to congress it's part of the executive branch. There is a serious set of imbalance of power in the federal government. Downsizing regulatory agencies isn't the fix we need. Streamline them yes.. cut some of the middle management, take a long hard frank look at the current policies in place and fix them.

There is a very incestuous relationship between businesses and their regulators..that needs to be fixed. Some agencies need MORE agents in the fields. Look at the number of large scale food issues in the last few years and tell me the Food and Drug Administration doesn't need some fixing?

Offline Serephino

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2012, 05:06:54 PM »
It was on the news last week that officials are concerned about the power grid.  Remember that storm a few weeks back that wiped out power to a good chuck of the Mid Atlantic?  Remember how long it took to get it turned back on? 

That was just a storm.  If a terrorist organization attacks the power grid, we are apparently fucked.  We rely too much on computers.  Everything needs electricity.  We use radar to see what's coming from where.  That uses electricity.  Landline phones don't need electricity, but who uses those anymore...  Communications and defenses are now all dependent upon digital technology because it's cheaper, faster, and more efficient.  It's also very vulnerable.  I've known this since I was a child, but what do I know?  When the local news ran the story my reaction was... no shit morons...

Offline Caela

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2012, 05:22:14 PM »
It was on the news last week that officials are concerned about the power grid.  Remember that storm a few weeks back that wiped out power to a good chuck of the Mid Atlantic?  Remember how long it took to get it turned back on? 

That was just a storm.  If a terrorist organization attacks the power grid, we are apparently fucked.  We rely too much on computers.  Everything needs electricity.  We use radar to see what's coming from where.  That uses electricity.  Landline phones don't need electricity, but who uses those anymore...  Communications and defenses are now all dependent upon digital technology because it's cheaper, faster, and more efficient.  It's also very vulnerable.  I've known this since I was a child, but what do I know?  When the local news ran the story my reaction was... no shit morons...


Hell forget a terrorist attack, at the rate our population is growing, and additions (like new power plants) to the grid aren't, it'll only be a generation, maybe two, before we overload it ourselves. Hell even now you've got cities that, almost, every summer have rolling blackouts because they can't handle the drain on the grid when all the AC's kick on.

This is a problem, mostly, with industry and the EPA butting heads. Plenty of places try to get the permits to build new plants, hell they need the energy and the jobs but are, often, blocked by the EPA. I am all for protecting our environment and making sure that industries use the cleanest technologies available to them, but I am not in favor of being so protective of a damned mouse that I'm willing to let people die (and when you have rolling blackouts in places like LA, in august, people DO die, mostly older folks, of things like heat stroke) instead. Not saying the EPA should be put on the chopping block, they serve a vital purpose, but I do think they need to be less stringent at times and look at the long term effects on people as well as the environment.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2012, 01:31:42 AM »
It was on the news last week that officials are concerned about the power grid.  Remember that storm a few weeks back that wiped out power to a good chuck of the Mid Atlantic?  Remember how long it took to get it turned back on? 

That was just a storm.  If a terrorist organization attacks the power grid, we are apparently fucked.  We rely too much on computers.  Everything needs electricity.  We use radar to see what's coming from where.  That uses electricity.  Landline phones don't need electricity, but who uses those anymore...  Communications and defenses are now all dependent upon digital technology because it's cheaper, faster, and more efficient.  It's also very vulnerable.  I've known this since I was a child, but what do I know?  When the local news ran the story my reaction was... no shit morons...



Actually, landline phones do use electricity - just not very much, and they're on a separate, dedicated power supply.  http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question62.htm  Something that can take out the power grid could possibly affect the backup generators that power the landline grid as well.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2012, 10:10:24 AM »
Is it any wonder the corporations want the restraints off?  Sure, they talk about the inefficiencies, but what they really want to do away with is regulations so they can return to the robber Barron days.  Anyone who wants to protect the people gets labeled a socialist.

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2012, 11:28:58 AM »
Is it any wonder the corporations want the restraints off?  Sure, they talk about the inefficiencies, but what they really want to do away with is regulations so they can return to the robber Barron days.  Anyone who wants to protect the people gets labeled a socialist.

You already got some of that. Like I've pointed out before, an expose of the beef industry like the Jungle by Upton Sinclair would get him sued these days. Truthfulness or not.

Offline Darius

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2012, 07:27:23 PM »
I have to say, power generation is not the entire problem. What we really lack is a power infrastructure than can handle the new needs. Everyone is a NIMBY (not in my back yard) when it comes to constructing new power distribution lines. The power grid in the desert southwest gets pushed to about 110% of capacity every summer. You can do that, just not for long durations, it causes excessive heat in the wires and they droop more causing other problems.

To the original point of the OP. Why should you be happy with downsized government? I'm not going to quote everyone, but someone suggested scrapping it and starting all over with someone from business putting it together. I believe that's a horrible idea. The government should never be run like a business. A business is out to make a profit, the purpose of a government is to provide services, protect infrastructure, and protect its citizens from all threats both external and internal. The last 'business' types who led government repealed protections and as a result, the air is dirtier, the water is less safe to drink, and they let the worst attack on this country slip through when they had advanced warning of it, and they wrecked the economy (that was really 30 years of bad decisions but let's not dwell on that). All in all, not a great track record on any front.

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2012, 09:36:26 PM »
There are a lot of stupid actions that were 'business wise' but consumer stupid.

For example you had the electricity crisis in California, set up by deregulation (around 2000/2001) and look who benefitted. Folks like Enron.
-The mortgage crisis was cause in part by removing the legistlative 'firewall' that kept investment and commercial banks apart, BOTH the people who sponsored the repeal of Glass-Stegall (Nancy Pelosi-D and Newt Gingrich-R) in the House admited that it was a MASSIVE mistake.
-Derregulation of the Airline industry led to the disruption of airlines in the US. EVERYONE of the big 5 US domestic lines were finacial looted, bankrupted, hacked up and devaluation as well as PanAm. At least a few of these airlines only exist in that someone bought their name and used it after the company went bankrupt. Read up on the atrocities committed by men like Frank Lorenzo.
-Look at the internet provider and cell service companies. We are seeing less and less money being put into infrastructure and support, and more and more excuses to pull every penny out of the services they DO provide. Cell providers cut back on upkeep by hiring contractors, who subcontract at rates so low that proper safety measures can't be followed. Looking into the cell service provider system tech's mishaps rates, they are among the highest in industry. Period. It's safer to be a high rise window maintainer, working the flight deck on an aircraft carrier and handling explosives. OSHA should be acting, but gee.. when you have a bunch of nutjob tea party downsizers.

Less regulation is okay.. as long as the aim is 'right sizing' and not elimiination for the benefit of business. Consider some of the incidents we've had in the last few years. Tainted foods of all sort.. because in the last 2 decades the number of safety inspection by the FDA has dropped by a third or more.

There is a LOT of reasons.

Offline Serephino

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2012, 10:19:26 PM »
Anyone who has Comcast knows they can't regulate themselves.  They just raised their prices a few months ago for no other reason than they felt like it.  This past week my net has randomly dropped for several minutes at a time.  You'd think with all that extra money they'd be able to keep their service running....

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2012, 11:20:01 PM »
Anyone who has Comcast knows they can't regulate themselves.  They just raised their prices a few months ago for no other reason than they felt like it.  This past week my net has randomly dropped for several minutes at a time.  You'd think with all that extra money they'd be able to keep their service running....


Exactly.. I read an article somewhere that the ISPs and Cell providers were using less and less of their profits for upkeep and innovation but using the 'need to stay current' as an excuse for rate increases. Time and time again folks try to push for regulation but the folks in congress don't want to touch it.

Looking over state level 'regulation' and you'll see even more atrocities. For example you got the "Level Playing Field/Local Government Competition Bill (H129)" which actually tilts the playing field against small municipalities starting up their own broadband service because it might make them competition in some future date.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/op-ed-north-carolina-broadband-bill-would-eliminate-level-playing-field/

They (the ISPs) provided figures 'proving' that something like 95% of the state was covered by broadband.. by tilting the figures in such a way that the FCC would never accept. You are considered 'covered' if ANYONE in your zip code has what they define as 'high speed internet' (like 1/4 the speed of what the FCC defines as high speed broadband). So, joe q public on the other side of the county has something like an old high speed phone line.. you're 'covered' by the ISPs definition. And thus you don't need a municipal broadband service or county coop getting into the game. (since they won't price fix as much or stick to lower rates like the ISP).

And when it passed..what did the Governor do? She let it pass into law by not signing it or vetoing it (couldn't find a poll that didn't make fighting the State House worth it.. )

Offline Serephino

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #23 on: August 08, 2012, 02:42:46 AM »
Comcast is my only choice at the moment, which pisses me off to no end.  You'd think that would violate ant-trust laws, but somehow it doesn't.  Verizon offers DSL  in the area, and so does Atlantic Broadband.  Thing is, they don't offer it in my town.  Verizon said they'd have to if I got something like 100 signatures from my neighbors saying they wanted the service.  Basically, they'd want to make it worth their while, and one new customer isn't worth it.  Atlantic Broadband did the same thing.  So I guess as long as there's competition in the general area it's all good. 

Offline BCdan

Re: Why should we be happy with downsizing governement?
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2012, 05:18:24 PM »
Not necessarily the examples you cited, but I think the government does a lot of stupid stuff for dishonest reasons.  I think welfare could be vastly more streamlined, corporate income taxes are extremely regressive, the government shouldn't be subsidizing single home mortgages, the drug war should have never been fought and a lot of regulations exist to keep out competition instead of protecting citizens. 

I think you can be unhappy with broadly across the board downsizing government, but when we get into specifics, I don't think you will find a single American who can't find a single thing to cut save for absolute authoritarians.