It is a long step from saying that people will promote "solutions" they think will make things worse because they cannot get people to agree to their preferred "solution" to saying that those people are running things.

I am saying that if the Senate can remove the entire contents of a bill (including the title) and replace them with completely different contents, on a completely different subject, and it still meets the "originated in the House" provision of the Constitution, the Constitution no longer means anything at all. Of course, considering many other things that have happened since 2012, I don't think the U.S. Constitution actually matters as far as what the U.S. government does any longer.

If that technicality is good enough to meet the Constitutional provision, then that Constitutional provision has no meaning.

Since when have government run schools been "free market". In a free market, those who benefit from the purchase choose what to purchase and how much of their money to spend on it.
You can argue that those who are choosing to spend this money are the ones benefiting from it, but if you make that argument do not try to argue that the purpose is education.
The theory behind public education is that everyone benefits from a well educated population, therefore everyone should pay. The problem with that theory is that we then turn around and say that we should let experts decide how to spend the money. The "experts" can gain a lot more value for themselves from that money by allocating it in ways which do not improve educational results. So they do so.

Revealing a typical left wing tactic. When popular opinion opposes what you want, rather than argue the case and convince people to do things the way you would prefer introduce "improvements" to the current system which actually make it worse, then use the results of these "improvements" to argue that the system is hopelessly flawed and must be replaced.

For it to only be connected to devices I own. I am sorry, but I just do not get the "Internet of things".

Well, I will point out that, in a different area of government regulation, ALL of the cases of food poisoning from USDA regulated companies have come from large companies, none of them from the small companies.

The reason for this is simple. In big companies the guy who makes the rules about how to comply with the regulations does not actually see the workers doing the work day in and day out. As a result, he is unaware when what they are doing does not meet standards for the procedure. Those who do see what the workers are doing have other priorities. As a result of these priorities, they either let the workers get away with not quite following the procedures because it would interfere with productivity, or they miss that the workers are not following the procedure because they are not watching for that.

OK, your comprehension of economics is pathetic. I hope no one ever relies on your money advice or any other economic advice. As I said, you failed to explain where they were supposed to get money that did not come from their customers.

And where does that profit come from? Whether they roll the amount of the universal service charge into the rest of what they charge you, or split it out as a separate line item on the bill does not change the fact that YOU are paying it. They do not have any money that does not come from their customers, therefore any additional tax or expense (such as the universal access fee) which they have to pay is passed on to their customers. The amount of their profit is a completely separate calculation which is determined by how much more than their costs they can charge their customers. When costs go up for an individual company, that company is likely to need to reduce its profit margin. However, when costs go up for an entire industry, the cost to the consumer goes up.

Really? Where do you suggest they get the money to pay it, if not from their customers?

In other words the provision in the Constitution where the Framers wrote that tax bills MUST originate in the House does not actually mean anything.

The universal service charge is required to be passed on to you if the telcos want to stay in business. They have to get the money to pay it from somewhere. That somewhere is their customers. Yes, they could roll the universal service charge into the other charges rather than break it out as a separate item, but you would be paying it nonetheless.

The Iphone did not present a threat to Blackberry. What killed Blackberry was bad management. They abandoned their market to pursue the market opened by the Iphone. When Blackberry made this decision their sales were still growing but they were losing market share in the "smart phone" segment. What they failed to realize was that they were not in the "smart phone" business. They were in the "secure business phone" segment (secure may not quite be the right term, but it is probably how they should have viewed their market and represents the types of innovation they should have pursued).

Just yesterday on another thread someone asked "Wow, who is making the argument that we should 'sacrifice free speech for a better society'?" and today you come along and make that very argument.`

Except if you read the article I linked you discover that the author of that article does NOT agree with that. They appear to feel that no one should be allowed to express ideas which they find unacceptable.