Holy communist manifesto batman! Let's let the government fix everything. Hold on, hasn't that been tried already? Oh yeah the USSR. That was a blazing success. Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely screws up these sorts of "initiatives" and most of the money ends up wasted anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us. - Brian J. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Matthew Black Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 11:15 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale I remember @home.com as being one of the defunct domains for which we always had outbound e-mail queued. But exactly how is this bill related to the domain name sale other than the fact that your press release snippet contains the text string "access@home?" Your post doesn't make that clear. Our government spends money on myriad of initiatives. Conservatives like to decry government spending as a total waste of resources. Keep in mind that every dollar spent by the government goes back into the economy, whether it be money to the oil industry (ala the new Energy Bill, money to Halliburton for Iraq operations), or low-income housing. The point is that the money goes back to citizens in the form of jobs, subsidized purchases (which help business sell items and services and create more jobs), or in the form of tax breaks to extremely wealthy individuals. Contrary to the rhetoric, the money doesn't vanish down a sinkhole. matthew black california state university, long beach Note: The opinions stated herein represent only myself and other like-minded individuals and may not represent my employer. On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:09:59 -0500 Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com> wrote:

re: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale

Interesting that you'd bring this up. The federal pork trasfer of $1 Billion that was announced on Sunday to "bridge the digital divide" references an "access@home" program as a part of its underpinning.

From: http://press.arrivenet.com/pol/article.php/679032.html

---snip:

LISC/NEF and One Economy Launch $1 Billion Initiative to Bridgethe Digital Divide; Sen. Hillary Clinton Helps Unveil Initiative

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Contact: Leslie Kerns of Solomon McCown & Co., 617-933-5013 or lkerns@solomonmccown.com or Susan Sheehan of Vogel Communications, 503-449-1666 or susan@ionafactor.com

NEW YORK, Aug. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Efforts to close the technological gap between America's haves and have-nots will get a boost this week. Local Initiatives Support Corp. (LISC) and its subsidiary the National Equity Fund (NEF) are partnering with One Economy to launch "access@home," a $1 billion initiative that will build more than 15,000 affordable homes with high-speed digital Internet connectivity and provide low-income families personal access to computers and technology services. The initiative expects to connect nearly 100,000 people to the vast advantage of the Internet.

---end snip

It makes for some interesting reading for those of you tracking where your

tax dollars are going. I'd be interested in reading some comments on this initiative, either on the board or by email.

frank@fttx.org

=============================================================

On Wed Aug 10 16:44 , "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" sent:

I know this is horribly off-topic, but seeing a reference to @Home kind made me a little nostalgic. :-)

[snip]

Apparently former high-speed Internet provider Excite@Home once felt likewise. But At Home Liquidating Trust, successor to the once high-flying Internet darling Excite@Home, said Wednesday it is selling the former broadband company's 119 domain names.

[snip]

http://news.com.com/ExciteHomes+119+domain+names+up+for+sale/2100-1030_3-582 6807.html

Don't get me wrong. They aren't all bombs. ;-) - Brian J. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:04 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale On 08/11/05, Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com> wrote:

Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely screws up these sorts of "initiatives" and most of the money ends up wasted anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us.

The Internet started out as a pork project. I'm just sayin'. -- J.D. Falk a decade of cybernothing.org <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> registered 24 June 1995

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:57:25 -0500 "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson@drtel.com> wrote:

Holy communist manifesto batman!

Let's let the government fix everything. Hold on, hasn't that been tried already? Oh yeah the USSR. That was a blazing success.

Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely screws up these sorts of "initiatives" and most of the money ends up wasted anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us.

- Brian J.

Wasted? Please elaborate. It's not like the money vanishes. The money goes somewhere, usually to pay non-government salaries. Corporate Amerika is wasteful too: WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, and Halliburton. These are companies that hurt the lives of millions of Americans, including 40,000,000 citizens of California who pay double the national average for electricity because Enron gamed the system. We pay 15 cents per kilowatt! That wasn't completely the government's fault. matthew black california state university, long beach Note: Options expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent my employer.

It's kind of funny that people keep making these general claims as though the money is wasted or goes to some unproductive purpose. Personally, I don't consider subsidized housing for the lower-class to be wasteful or a misuse of money. I wonder how many people who decry wasteful government spending would consider road and highway construction a waste of money. If traffic moves to slow to work for your pleasure, get a job closer to home or vice versa. After all, this is the land of opportunity and nobody FORCED you to buy a home far from work. Highway spending is all government financed, but few complain about that as a waste. Funny, when government spends money on something from which an individual doesn't receive an immediate and personal gain and suddenly it's labeled a government pork project. As far as people looking to government to solve some social ills and inequities, I don't see many people volunteering their income to help the less fortunate. Many people seem to have money to burn when donating to their favorite P.A.C. or a nonprofit "charity" that sponsors their child's sports or music program. What about donating money to something from which they receive NO individual gain? I live in a collective society and accept the fact that some government spending does not improve my neighborhood. If government cancelled programs to which there was any objection, nothing would ever get accomplished. Discussion of government spending often spins into a discussion of simplifying the tax code or attempts to make it fairer. Keep in mind that almost all of the tax code consists of rules lobbied by and for corporate Amerika. Very little of the income tax code applies to individuals. As to the fairness question, most of the lower and middle class class are in a higher marginal tax bracket than the well-to-do. The latter get a 7.6% marginal tax break (no FICA or Medicare). So the middle class pay 32.6%; the wealthy pay 20% or less. Talk about disincentives! matthew black california state university, long beach Note: Opinions expressed herein are totally mine and may not represent those of my employer. On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:43:49 -0500 "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson@drtel.com> wrote:

OK. Wasted was a poor choice of words, but even if the money does get back to the people in some way, it is not doing so in a way that really accomplishes something. Private companies do not invest in something that will not have a return that benefits them. Political spending sometimes will have no return other than political capital.

It's like buying candy. You can buya a ton of it, and either eat it or give it away, but in the end it will be gone and very little will be accomplished other than the kids who now love you for doing it.

So wasted was a bad term to use. How about used with little return if any.

- Brian J.

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Matthew Black Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:20 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:57:25 -0500 "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson@drtel.com> wrote:

...

Holy communist manifesto batman!

Let's let the government fix everything. Hold on, hasn't that been tried already? Oh yeah the USSR. That was a blazing success.

Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely screws up these sorts of "initiatives" and most of the money ends up wasted anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us.

- Brian J.

Wasted? Please elaborate. It's not like the money vanishes. The money goes somewhere, usually to pay non-government salaries. Corporate Amerika is wasteful too: WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, and Halliburton. These are companies that hurt the lives of millions of Americans, including 40,000,000 citizens of California who pay double the national average for electricity because Enron gamed the system. We pay 15 cents per kilowatt! That wasn't completely the government's fault.

matthew black california state university, long beach

Note: Options expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent my employer.

Hi, With apologies to the topic fairies .. Crist Clark wrote:

It matters how you look at income taxes (figures never lie, but liars figure). The top 3% of earners pay about 40% of all income taxes. The top 1/12% pay about 10% of the taxes. Why do the super rich guys want a flat tax? And the other obvious problem, you pay a lot of taxes, probably more than you realize, besides income tax.

The top few percent will pay a lower _percentage_ of their income to the government in tax than a middle earner would (a high earner will typically save more, or in other words their marginal propensity to save is higher) - they are also able to save more and afford better accountants who will help them avoid paying tax ! In the UK, income tax is hugely regressive - a middle earner may end up paying 51% of some proportion of their income in direct tax alone (combining NHIS contributions and income tax) - this then falls to 41% (combined) when the NHIS contributions hit a certain level. The tax burden on high earners is further reduced when one considers that indirect sales tax in the UK is 17.5%. -a