Because the content providers are not the ones using the bandwidth, it's the ISPs own customers that are using the bandwidth they paid for. Netflix doesn't push it's contents onto an ISPs network - the ISPs customer pulls it, using the bandwidth they've already paid for. If the ISP wants to charge more, or renegotiate terms with all those customers they promised "unlimited high speed" bandwidth to, that's a different story. Punishing the content providers is absurd. If you could punish the spam pushers, that'd be a different story, but companies like CNN, Yahoo, Netflix, Amazon... they don't force their content onto anyone's networks.

Even if the NSA was out of the equation, there's always some #@$hole out there who'll hack your stuff anyway... whether for gain (blackmail) or fun... you can't win.

Sure you could... if you like having to take extra steps every time you get a new book before you can read it. Maybe you don't care; technical issues like this are easy for us nerds, but most people just want things to work without hassle.

Good post. Mod points expired the other day. Great Lincoln quote.

I call myself a classic liberal... it actually has meaning compared to the common nomenclature used in modern politics... neither of the two major parties has a lock on conservative or liberal thinking. In fact, they both would restrict your personal rights and freedoms, just different ones... neither party is particularly liberal, except with other people's money.

So if I just make my own money with an image I made that happens to be identical to the real one, that's not counterfeiting?

But that's not the point... I don't live anywhere near where I went to school. Most people I know don't. But it's the area with the school losing potential tax revenue. Not that I really care.

Well... while I'm not one for hate and vitriol like most of the politically oriented people out there (it seems), I sit back and watch and: 1) I agree with the other response that neither of the two major parties actually represent a majority of anybody but politicians and businesses, and 2) I thought the tea party was an interesting idea until they became right wing on steroids. I thought they were interesting until they started campaigning against abortion, and inviting people like Sarah Pailin to speak at events. Again... I don't run out and start hating on either abortion or anti-abortion activists, I know they both have their opinions and beliefs, but I think it should largely stay out of politics at this point, and it's not going to change any time soon - both parties use it to rile up their bases, though.

So no hate against the Tea Party, but they are hardly a big difference between them and republicans - more like republicans demanding what the party SAYS they represent as opposed to how republican candidates actually act when they get into office. The GOP just needs some house cleaning, IMO.

People SAY they want freedom and liberty, but neither major party offers it. There's really only one out there that does (besides complete anarchists), and everybody thinks they're "crazy" because they want freedom and liberty, which, OMG, requires people to take back some responsibility for themselves.

Yeah, because students spend as much as, for example, middle income families.

I disagree that you need to study this, which is what I've said - we want equal opportunity. We don't have it, but the opportunity is a lot more equal than 70%. What people are seemingly demanding is equal outcome. It's not a "problem" that needs to be corrected that women tend to choose certain jobs and men choose others - there is still significant overlap and we are continuously evolving as a society already. Not everything needs to be scrutinized to every tiny detail. If you're going to focus on something, focus on why women get paid less for like professions with like education and like experience - that's the ONLY "problem" in all of this. Even then, with more women entering college than men, and the gradually changing mores of society, I think it's a gradually self correcting problem.

The problem I have is that, right now, our economy is largely based on debt. That's not a good position to be in, and the recent (and ongoing) crash had a lot to do with people taking on more debt than they could deal with. I wouldn't mind a consumption based economy if people weren't going into debt to do it, and an economy rebuilt that way would be a lot stronger and less subject to crashes. The FairTax does encourage saving - I don't see that as a bad thing. There might be some short term economic problems, but we would emerge a lot stronger in the long run. Too many people are focussed on the short term. I also realize that it seems like the middle class would be the hardest hit, but like you said, they already are, and look at it this way - no more complaints about things like rich people making their money off of capital gains not paying their "Fair Share." No more under-the-table employment.

You're right... they've made the FairTax worse, now. I didn't see the latest submission to congress.... but complaint about the strawman stands, because it was prior to 2013 when I was hearing that nonsense about it. Still, I would suggest that, mortgage interest rates being what they are, they would not be subjected to tax - only the fees involved with the lender would be subject.

Lastly, the problem with your question is that it puts the FairTax in a poor position compared to other suggested (and the existing) forms of taxation, because it was designed to be revenue neutral. Now you're demanding something that the current system doesn't even provide, and then complaining about it. It seems like a way off base reason to campaign against it.

Poor people are better off even if retail prices don't drop (as proponents of the FairTax purport). The math is quite simple... a "prebate" on taxes up to the poverty level (even if you don't make that much money) and NO social security or medicare. People claim it'll hurt the middle class the most, which may be - but the middle class is already the hardest hit, and for those with debt or want to save, the FairTax is the best option available.

I see... still no valid complaint against the FairTax, then.

Only by those who create FairTax strawmen so that they can tear them down (like no tax exemption for mortgage interest). I don't think I've ever seen any valid complaints against the FairTax, so if you think it's been torn apart, then point me to an article tearing it apart that doesn't make lies and/or incorrect assumptions about it. The only people who actually understand the FairTax that still complain about seem to be the type who advocate taxation as a means of control rather than a means of revenue. Ultimately, while admittedly poorly named, and not without flaws, I've never seen a better suggestion.