Think about someone who has a 100 IQ... and then realize that half the country is dumber than that.
Only if 100 is the median, not just the average.
Fund it with money creation.
Which is effectively taxation via inflation. We (USA) have particularly been doing this in recent times, with "Q.E." and the treasury buying their own bonds.
But this drives people to leave the American $ for holding on to the assets they've aquired. I'm seeing the purchasing of savings bonds being less in vogue than what I remember seeing from the generations before me. Real estate shoots up in price as a good way to store the value of your assets; which leads to people buying on speculation and other distortions in price less related to its actual value. Large foreign players are less likely to invest here, at least in methods that tie up their capitol in direct $ related assets, like China's purchasing of US Debt (which helped us get into this mess in the first place). All the talk of no longer trading oil on the global market in dollars. And the most recent development I've seen which I take as a significant crack in the dam, the move towards crypto currencies like Bitcoin.
Situations where the tax loss is smaller than the cost saving are rares. Most of the time, austerity just kills the economy without any benefit.
I challenge your assersion of that claim.
Additionally I submit that government spending causes the players in the economy to act in a way that benefits them the most in receiving that government spending while supressing their drive to be purely efficient and productive. In the end, we end up with a bunch of players chasing the freebies from the government just because they're free rather than being productive and sustainable.
But you probably won't believe this until this spending kills the host, as the GGP post called it.
Along with all the other fine comments taking a shot at the linked article "Cord Cutting Fantasies", I too have something small to add...
[...] to maintain their current revenues.
The tone I read in the argument contends that the content providers are necessarily entitled to have the revenues they do. I dispute that presumtion. I think the revenues of some of the content providers is higher than it rightfully should be because of collusion and other illegitimate market powers certain providers have.
I cancelled my cable TV some months ago when the "introductory rate" ran out. (I was no longer a new customer but rather just a loyal on, so apparently I didn't deserve to receive any special consideration anymore.) The expiration of the discounts put my bill at a level that I was not willing to pay.
Open letter to Charter Communications: When you can offer me a la carte on the channels I want, then you may call to solicit me about adding services. Until then, I'll pay my internet bill and stop f-ing calling, because I often work swing shift.
Sorry, but discrimination is discrimination. There is no direction. It either takes place or it doesn't. Using the term reverse gives advantage and power to one group over another.
The modifier reverse implies that it's discrimination that's purported to be done for the purpose of correcting discrimination. It does not give any more advantage to one group, at least anymore than the original discrimination.
the only really free speech is private speech
No, the only real free speech is anonymous speech. (Ask Donald Sterling how that "private" speech worked out for him.)
While TFA is an interesting approach, the simpler solution to one of the main thrusts in TFA (of having equal EC representation/distribution) is to simply change the EC to where each congressional district (or in this case, electoral district) is autonomous and controls its own vote independent from the rest of the state it's in.
Even if the two extra EC vote afforded each state are kept, I see this as a far better system than a strait popular vote system. Why? Because the EC has a side effect of doing something amazingly positive that few realize. It contains vote fraud to within the state it happens in.
Consider this for example: Imagine a politically corrupt jurisdiction in your state. Imagine that they start cranking out fraudulent votes. The votes they dilute are limited to the vote in their state. But in a popular vote system, they now dilute everyone's vote. By tweaking the EC system to treat congressional districts autonomously, the fraud is contained even further.
And since congressional districts are explicitly drawn to contain apportioned sections of the population (given a few constraints of not crossing state boundaries and the like), the goal towards equal vote weighting is more naturally furthered.
You can't be bigoted against an idea.
But if you hold a particular idea, can you be called a bigot and be summarily dismissed? And those ideas that are generally accepted to be bigoted never get a fair discussion because those that would argue in favor of them are marginalized and dismissed for merely advocating the idea.