Washington Tax Plan Would Punish Violent Game Makers

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Alternate Character Interpretation, eh? I see you discuss politics alot. Well, that won't distract me. You know what I'm talking about.

 

[Gorrath]

Odd, because the Senate passed a lot less bills and zero budgets during the last session while the House 700+ bills and even passed a budget both fiscal years.

And "getting shot to pieces" and not even letting there be a vote on it are two totally different things. Harry Reid was concerned they'd pass.

What does any of that have to do with what I'm saying? The Republicans know that Reid's not going to let that legislation get to the Senate floor, that's WHY they're sending so much of it over, so they can play it up like they'd totally fix things if the Dems would just get out of the way. But we saw what happened to tort reform, immigration reform and tax reform when the Republicans held both houses and the Presidency. A fat lot of almost nothing. Did the 108th and 109th give us any of those big ideas the Republicans are screaming for, or was it business as usual with a bunch of debt ceiling hikes thrown in for good measure?

 

[Amir Kondori]

This is one of the stupidest, most pigheaded provisions I have ever seen. I don't care to protect publishers or their tax credits, but just from the view of good American fiscal policy this is stupid.
America's biggest export is entertainment products. That includes movies, TV shows, music and video games. These are industries we want to be supporting and keeping competitive, because they bring in a lot of foreign dollars. Some idiot is trying to backdoor an attack on "violent" video games, which is a murky thing to define at best, while possibly weakening a domestic industry which helps balance out our tremendous trade deficit.
Stupid.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

The power exists with the unions, trial lawyers, and environmentalists as long as Obama is president. Or did you not see him dither on the Keystone XL pipeline decision for years after review after review said it would be peachy and create jobs in the process? Or his gutting of the DC school choice program in the "stimulus" bill? Or the lack of any tort reform in Obamacare? Think, man!

We'll try a new tack:

Why are you in favor of private school vouchers, tort reform, Keystone XL, and fracking?

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Public schools are failing students in various places, especially black males in inner city schools (the drop out rate is just atrocious.) Students and their parents deserve choices. And the unions are fighting every single effort to give them more choices. The unions are pro-teacher and anti-student (because, as one case of a very candid union official, when kids start paying dues he'll care about their concerns.)

Fracking gets us more natural gas. The fracking boom will make the United States a net exporter of energy in a few years. And all the jobs. Look to North Dakota. Seems really simple to me why I or anyone would support it. (And let's remember how many falsehoods people like Josh Fox peddle.)

We have pipelines all over the country. It is the safest and most efficient way to transport oil and natural gas. Rail, which is what is getting the brunt of the slack because of the lack of this pipeline, is dirtier, much riskier, and not anywhere near as efficient.

In looking to reform education we should study the examples of other countries. Nordic countries have highly successful education, Finland in particular. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland] Finland has fully unionized teachers and no American-style private schools.

Case study on hydro fracking. [http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html]

Regarding the efficiency and safety of oil pipelines compared to other transportation methods. [http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-goelz/oil-by-rail-vs-pipelines-safety-records_b_4262327.html] On the difficulties associated with tarsands in particular. [http://tcktcktck.org/2013/04/spill-derail-leak-crash-a-week-in-the-tar-sands-industry/49747]

 

[Gorrath]

What does any of that have to do with what I'm saying? The Republicans know that Reid's not going to let that legislation get to the Senate floor, that's WHY they're sending so much of it over, so they can play it up like they'd totally fix things if the Dems would just get out of the way. But we saw what happened to tort reform, immigration reform and tax reform when the Republicans held both houses and the Presidency. A fat lot of almost nothing. Did the 108th and 109th give us any of those big ideas the Republicans are screaming for, or was it business as usual with a bunch of debt ceiling hikes thrown in for good measure?

That's quite the argument you're making. Mine has evidence. Yours doesn't. Try to find some. Because I'm through debating you with those wild claims.

They haven't had 60 votes in the Senate since, like, ever. Democrats did for two years. A "filibuster-proof" majority.

Wild claims? The 108th and 109th Congress were Republican majorities in both houses. Whether or not they had a filibuster proof majority is not the issue, the issue is whether they even tried to press their advantage in a meaningful way to create reform on tort, immigration or tax reform. They didn't and it's a matter of public record for anyone interested in looking. They also did raise the debt ceiling again and again, which is also a matter of public record. My claims about what the 108th and 109th did and did not accomplish are all a matter of record.

But you know what, I think I'm done debating with you too. After yesterday's debate over Net Neutrality in which you responded by dropping some op-ed that addressed none of my points when you said it addressed all of them and then brushing aside my speculation about what the Republicans are currently trying to accomplish in light of what they failed to accomplish when they were in power, I get the feeling you aren't interested in debate at all. You've given me no reason to expect that you'll actually address anything I have to say except to hand-wave it aside. I am left feeling like you are arguing in bad faith, which is too bad as I think you and I would probably agree on a lot of things. If i'm over reacting then I apologize, but I'm not going to waste a bunch of time formulating my points if you aren't going to bother even responding to them.

 

[Vivi22]

Personally I've always believed in a flat-tax system as they are simple and they close a lot of the loopholes that many companies use. Problem is that will never come to be in the US because both major parties, Republican and Democrat, are basically in the pockets of companies and as a result they would lobby against such a thing. There are downsides to a flat-tax system yes, but compared to the current system we have know anything would be better.

I don't think the reason there isn't a flat tax system is because politicians are in the pockets of companies when you consider that any flat tax system would disproportionately benefit the wealthy and shift far more of the tax burden to the poor and middle class than is actually reasonable (unless you think they shouldn't be able to afford things like homes and food anyway).

The tax system needs to be reformed and simplified, but a flat tax would be just about the worst way to do it.

 

[StewShearerOld]

You'd be surprised how much of the American legal system is predicated upon vague terminology.

 

[AkaDad]

Especially considering the Senate Majority Leader (a Democrat) just declared his critics un-American on the floor of the Senate. Seriously. He's gone Full McCarthy. Again.

I'd ask you if you even know who McCarthy was and what he did, but you obviously don't.

McCarthy had thousands of people investigated by the FBI for being Communists and their lives were ruined and you equate that to Harry Reid for giving a speech?

Everything you've said in this comment thread is a joke. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just throwing out GOP propaganda and talking points and making yourself look silly in the process.

 

[medv4380]

The Dems are beholden to unions (oppose school choice and vouchers, check,) trial lawyers (oppose "loser pays" laws and tort reform, check,) and environmentalists (oppose Keystone XL pipeline and fracking, check,) among others.

Well, I just had to listen to a bunch of Idaho Republican Demagoguery, and now I read your Demagoguery.

Let me make this crystal clear for you. Idaho is ranked Gallup [http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2013/03/dont-fail-idaho/].

However, Boise, the most liberal democrat part of the State, save for Sun Valley(Worm Hole to California), has a nationally ranked [http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/idaho/districts/independent-school-district-of-boise-city/boise-high-school-6235] school district. If you were to remove Boise from the State Ranking Idaho would be dead last in education.

Personally I don't care about the politics one way or the other. I care about the results. Clearly the Conservative Republican "Ideal" doesn't generate results.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

On the other hand, make violent movies and we'll go out of our way to make sure that anyone who downloads them gets threatened with having their internet cut off.

Democracy!

 

[the doom cannon]

mmmh, how about higher taxing on stuff that's actually meant to kill people - like guns.

They are taxed, and quite a bit. Do some research before throwing around your ideologies.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I'm really thinking America swings around the "Freedom" sign as a form of parody. Like an anorexic with eating disorders that thinks they're huge, you're in denial.

Captcha: 'Piece of Cake'
... as I was just saying.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

This makes me think of that one poem Yahtzee did for the Rymdown Spectacular. "Let's ban talking, books, and films and games and then go back to being sane."

 

[Saltyk]

After reading the discussion, I have to say that I feel this should either be for all video games (and probably some other media such as movies) or none. I also have to wonder why not violent movies or TV shows? Obviously, we all know the answer, but it still is a question to be asked.

As for the whole Republican versus Democrat discussion, the House Ways and Means Committee is made up of 23 Republicans and 16 Democrats. Any one of them could have added this provision. Don't forget that this sort of thing is bipartisan. Don't forget that Democrat California was the state behind the last major violent video game law.

We don't know who suggested this, but the article is VERY misleading in this case.

Jumping to conclusions is bad, m'kay.

The extremely corporatist GOP wants a flat tax because such a system heavily favors big business and the very wealthy (and the rhetoric appeals to their simple-minded base).

So Republican voters are "simple minded". Uh-huh. I do wonder what Democrat voters are? Enlightened?

 

[Roxas1359]

So Republican voters are "simple minded". Uh-huh. I do wonder what Democrat voters are? Enlightened?

Democrat voters can be simple-minded as well, just as Republican voters can be enlightened. Really both parties at this point are completely messed up and no one is to blame, especially with how well all the bipartisan things over the last couple of years has become a he said she said argument on both sides. It shows the inherent problem with having a two party system like how the US does, as having it that in the end you have to choose with one or the other. Because let's face it, you can vote a third party that represents more of your views, but the chances of them winning anything major to where they could actually have a chance to change things is very slim. Heck there are people who will run for the positions in that party for the simple fact that they know that they won't win unless they are backed by that party.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

The extremely corporatist GOP wants a flat tax because such a system heavily favors big business and the very wealthy (and the rhetoric appeals to their simple-minded base).

So Republican voters are "simple minded". Uh-huh. I do wonder what Democrat voters are? Enlightened?

Well Democrats do have a significant advantage among people with higher education[footnote]http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-detailed_tables/Detailed%20tables%20for%20Party%20ID.pdf[/footnote]

That's not what I meant though there's plenty of smart and stupid people in either (or neither) party. To quote John Stuart Mill: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative."

 

[Something Amyss]

We've already had similar laws shot down.

and the GOP dig themselves into a deeper hole for it.

I agree with the possibilities, but think it's incredibly unlikely this will be a hole-digger for the GOP.

AH yes, and while they're at it, ban all movies that rate higher than PG...because, you know, THAT'S a great idea....

Idiots...

But that's totally different because movies have a lobby aren't interactive!

Just because the GOP is coming up with this bill doesn't mean that both sides aren't still a bunch of self-serving ass-wipes.

Just because both sides are self-serving asswipes doesn't mean there's any real level of parity, either.

there already is? the government actually already taxes guns greatly. actually the government has an agenda to keep guns away from it's citizens as much as possible, if she hits the fan we would be less likely to fight back.

Which is why guns are so cheap and accessible. That's weird. Is this like Obama being a socialist, while accidentally coming up with all these capitalist policies?

That's funny. It reads "Washington Tax Plan Would Punish Violent Game Makers", but is reads as "Conservative Party Makes Another Kneejerk Reaction At Things It Doesn't Understand Or Like", and then it interprets as "Stupid Politicians Wave Arms Ineffectually At Issue They Can't Actually Do Anything About". *Sigh*

This is America. We love empty gestures and symbolic measures. We've repealed Obamacare symbolically like 9000 times.

Is this proposed amendment unconstitutional though? I'm no constitutional lawyer, I'm not even American, but I'm pretty the U.S. Constitution just prohibits the government from making laws that prohibit free speech. This on the other hand doesn't prohibit anyone from making any sort of game they want, it rather restricts tax credits to certain games. I don't see how lack of government support could reasonably be taken as actually infringing on a person's freedom of speech.

Such laws have been argued on free speech ground because it's seen as a form of government advocacy in the first place. That is, it's seen as the government endorsing X over Y. But then, I find much of the fight over video games should probably come down to commerce, not free speech. Even Brown v EMA strikes me as a commerce clause deal, not a first amendment one.

 

[Something Amyss]

Democrat voters can be simple-minded as well, just as Republican voters can be enlightened.

Can be doesn't really address the overall trend, though.

 

[RJ 17]

Just because both sides are self-serving asswipes doesn't mean there's any real level of parity, either.

Sure there is, and you just agreed to it: they're both a bunch of self-serving asswipes.