That is a common misunderstanding amongst liberal socialists. I never can understand a person that thinks there is only so much wealth to go around and some have an unfair share. Wealth is created, and in ever increasing amounts, at least in a growing economy. If I buy something wholesale, and sell it at retail and make some wealth in the process, how does that take away wealth from anyone else?

Is there like, a trophy or something that goes to the winner? Maybe they should get a contract to manufacture electric powered vehicles to reward their expertise.

The problem is not that we have the extraordinarily wealthy among us, it is that there are not more of them. Increase incentives and benefits of accumulating wealth and you might find more more people become wealthy. Relief given to the poor often as not helps perpetuate the lifestyle. This is the opposite of communism, where everyone is poor equally. Let there be the rich, and let them keep their riches. More of us will want to become wealthy.

--My personal belief is that in a perfect world Communism is the best form of government, in an imperfect world, a combination of governmental --philosophies are the best. Taxing sales of online goods will not change our form of government to any degree, it will simply suppress online sales. Having lived through the cold war, I believe that the communists are really the winners. Capitalist countries continue the march towards socialism, while in Russia they are learning to be capitalists. Has anyone read Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged, or the Fountain head et al?. I believe the best forms of government must take advantage of human ambition and desire to do better. That is not to reward mediocrity as we are doing more and more in the US. The real issue is an additional revenue source to perpetuate government.

I agree precision weapons have made quite an impact on the nature of warfare. But it brings to mind an episode of Star Trek, where two planets had been warring for years. Computers would decide where the bomb would have gone off and calculate the casualties. The 'casualties' would then report to extermination stations. If they did not real war would be declared. The cleaner and more precise the weapons, the more incentive there is to use them. There are reasons to avoid war, human and material. Are we reducing those reasons by less collateral damage? Or will we use it more often since we can?

To serve man!

"I do not believe the administration knows how to work with a legislative body," Rep. Rogers said. "We have come a long way on some of their points."

No he cant work with legislative bodies. A good case for when compromise is not always the best course. Yet another way for government to get private information from private companies, never mind private companies sharing amongst themselves. Someday soon the time will come when what you buy is recorded, say you buy viagra. Not only will you start getting offers from condom companies, but your quote for medical insurance will be higher. Who know, maybe that points you out as a risk taker and car insurance will go up.

It would help if junk mail (usually 3rd class) was not subsidized by first class mail. If the rates were comparable you would have a lot less junk mail, lowered increases in first class mail, and maybe a postal service that can sustain itself.

One of the biggest hold ups to IPV6 implementation is those IP (tier 1 and above) companies that own IPV4 addresses. Now a salable commodity the IPV4 addresses are becoming more valuable as scarcity increases. The volume of IPv4 traffic makes it a more lucrative revenue stream. Implementing V6 will make those V4 addresses worthless, and so where is the incentive to change? Politics and people