since you normally expound on your abilities of looking and researching 'facts', why is it that you continually harp on how Conservatives and Republicans are all for 'Big Business' because we believe that lowering their taxes would actually help the economy but fail to take note of the fact that
Big Business and Wall Street have actually increased their wealth under THIS administration?
And as for another thread regarding 'personal attacks', do you not see how you do this continuously by referring to us with derogatory terms by changing your spelling of those two words? Wasn't too long ago that the term "RINO" was actually 'banned' or at the very least discouraged here when WE used it to describe established Republicans that we didn't approve of. Is your terminology now the 'new normal' and considered to be okay? Would it be okay for people like me to re-name liberals, especially the radical types like Shuman, Pelosi, Reid, and BO, something equally insulting like "the Domestic Democrat Terrorists' because that's what they appear to be to ME.
government going to flop on this issue. The Barons of Broadband.
" Last week's big business news was the announcement that Comcast, a gigantic provider of cable TV and high-speed Internet service, has reached a deal to acquire Time Warner, which is merely huge. If regulators approve the deal, Comcast will be an overwhelmingly dominant player in the business, with around 30 million subscribers.
" So let me ask two questions about the proposed deal. First, why would we even think about letting it go through? Second, when and why did we stop worrying about monopoly power?
" On the first question, broadband Internet and cable TV are already highly concentrated industries, with a handful of corporations accounting for most of the customers. Once upon a time antitrust authorities, looking at this situation, would probably have been trying to cut Comcast down to size. Letting it expand would have been unthinkable.
" Comcast's chief executive says not to worry: "It will not reduce competition in any relevant market because our companies do not overlap or compete with each other. In fact, we do not operate in any of the same ZIP codes." This is, however, transparently disingenuous. The big concern about making Comcast even bigger isn't reduced competition for customers in local markets — for one thing, there's hardly any effective competition at that level anyway. It is that Comcast would have even more power than it already does to dictate terms to the providers of content for its digital pipes — and that its ability to drive tough deals upstream would make it even harder for potential downstream rivals to challenge its local monopolies."
It makes perfect sense for Big Business and their 'claque' (look it up, it'll be good for you, Increase Your Word Power just like that segment in Reader's Digest) of supporters among the Konservative and TeaPublican Right, because it will set a precedent for further consolidation, and will benefit even smaller entities, (provided they can avoid being devoured) because once there's a 500 pound Gorilla in a field any increases in fees and controls it can extort will devolve upon those smaller fry. If Comcast creeps its fees up 100% then the small fry can creep them up 90%. Until of course the United States finally becomes divided into different sections each ruled by a corporate Giant. Read Snow Crash yet?