Trump Administration Predictions

[The_Doc_Man]

"Net Neutrality" as managed by the FCC was intended to prevent service providers from showing bias in their treatment of small business web sites. In the Wikipedia article referenced below, you would find that in 2003 the discussion started over how to treat ISPs, and in 2005 the National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services attempted to bring some order. The crux of the matter is whether an ISP is considered as a common carrier or an information service, because the neutrality rules differ for those two categories of internet company. Common carriers cannot show bias regarding their treatment of providers. Information services can do so.

The decision referenced by Thales750 was made based on (or as a consequence of) the Loper Bright decision that struck down the Chevron Deference doctrine. The REAL effect is that if the USA wants to treat the internet as a utility, Congress has to do it, not the FCC. The FCC cannot make up rules any more. Well,... they can, but courts don't have to defer to them if they do.

Here is a discussion of the subject:

Net neutrality in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Thales750]

"Net Neutrality" as managed by the FCC was intended to prevent service providers from showing bias in their treatment of small business web sites. In the Wikipedia article referenced below, you would find that in 2003 the discussion started over how to treat ISPs, and in 2005 the National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services attempted to bring some order. The crux of the matter is whether an ISP is considered as a common carrier or an information service, because the neutrality rules differ for those two categories of internet company. Common carriers cannot show bias regarding their treatment of providers. Information services can do so.

The decision referenced by Thales750 was made based on (or as a consequence of) the Loper Bright decision that struck down the Chevron Deference doctrine. The REAL effect is that if the USA wants to treat the internet as a utility, Congress has to do it, not the FCC. The FCC cannot make up rules any more. Well,... they can, but courts don't have to defer to them if they do.

Here is a discussion of the subject:

Net neutrality in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Especially when all this is about enriching the rich.
You wait, every derivative of this new precedence is going to target and injure the middle class. We have a bought and paid for Congress, and now all the regulations that have evolved in the last hundred years will be eliminated.

Long live the Crown. Paid for by the Citizens United Charity Program for the ultra rich.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

and now all the regulations that have evolved in the last hundred years will be eliminated.

No. The regulations that evolved without going through Congress are subject to being eliminated. But there still has to be a lawsuit to trigger the reversal so a case can go to court in which a regulation can be called out. And if Congress actually passed something to back up the regulation, then it will stay.

 

[Isaac]

Back to predictions.
The attack on small business, got a new champion today. Net Nutrality was struck down.

I noticed that but remember, remember, remember, please ....... it's not really net neutrality that was struck down at is core, meaning on its merit as a useful policy - the more accurate way to understand it is merely that the court found the agency had surpassed its rule making (i.e. illegitimate law-making) power, due to the chevron deference doctrine being struck down.

the court is saying "now go back to the legislators and do what you need to do - under the guise of legitimate law making power".

And I hope they do. I like net neutrality.

Net Neutrality, in all likelihood, is not going anywwhere, because they are going to follow the Constitution and make a law in the legitimate manner - using passed legislation by elected legislators, not by a rule that changes on the whim of each administration.

The court case was just about the fact that it was done via a rule. It's very, very important to get to the meat of what the question in each case was and what is the outcome - not just the practical effects that, temporarily and for the moment, net neutrality was struck down

 

[Thales750]

I noticed that but remember, remember, remember, please ....... it's not really net neutrality that was struck down at is core, meaning on its merit as a useful policy - the more accurate way to understand it is merely that the court found the agency had surpassed its rule making (i.e. illegitimate law-making) power, due to the chevron deference doctrine being struck down.

the court is saying "now go back to the legislators and do what you need to do - under the guise of legitimate law making power".

And I hope they do. I like net neutrality.

Net Neutrality, in all likelihood, is not going anywwhere, because they are going to follow the Constitution and make a law in the legitimate manner - using passed legislation by elected legislators, not by a rule that changes on the whim of each administration.

The court case was just about the fact that it was done via a rule. It's very, very important to get to the meat of what the question in each case was and what is the outcome - not just the practical effects that, temporarily and for the moment, net neutrality was struck down

Well that is certainly optimistic.

My post was exactly about the bigger picture you are referring to. With Congress completely owned by the very entities that are affected by most of these regulations, how are we going to get laws this granular passed? The can't even get a budget done, much less regulation at this level.

We will see a continuous erosion of protections for the people. This entire process that started with Chevron, it is going to take people's life saving, destroy their businesses, and kill a lot of folks.

We have allowed the fox in the hen house, and Republicans on the street somehow believe its in their interest. Giving power to regulatory agencies started during a Republican Administration to break up the monopolies.

This new government, and our new conservative court mandate, is going to undo over a hundred years of protections. I wonder if the young people coming up will even be educated about the loss of their protections in the 20s.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Let's also explore the constant lobbying of congress.The free gifts by foreign adversaries, the junkets to China, Russia and who knows where. It's all corruption.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Net Nutrality is yet another one of those "feel good" laws with hidden poison pills. Any act proposed by Democrats that includes the word "justice" in the title is almost certainly implementing the exact opposite.

It isn't the talking point of making internet access "equal" that is the problem. It is the power the law gives to the FAA. I haven't read the bill since it was proposed years ago so I will need to refresh my memory regarding just what the unreported issues are. They are obviously not in the summary which is the "feel good" part. It seems to have been overturned due to the Chevron decision. That makes perfect sense.

If Congress wants to make internet providers common carriers, I am in favor but it has to be a law passed by Congress, NOT the FAA making rules which have no weight in law and can be capriciously changed tomorrow. The Constitution reserves the right to make laws for Congress, NOT unelected bureaucrats.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

it is going to take people's life saving, destroy their businesses, and kill a lot of folks.

Now you are being an alarmist. The effect of overturning Chevron Deference will be to allow the overturning of rules that were created illegally by executive fiat. It will have the effect of providing a path towards REMOVING oppressive regulations, and the lawsuit regarding net neutrality was just an early example. It is a step towards getting government OUT of your life. Removing rules made (illegally) may SAVE some businesses who were struggling.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Especially when all this is about enriching the rich.

You are hell-bent on this theme. Did it EVER occur to you that it is the rich enriching themselves by being better at accumulating wealth than pther folks are? And the system you bemoan is actually just a set of rules and practices that don't get in the way of self-enrichment? Not actively enriching folks, but just not getting in the way of those who CAN enrich themselves? It's called capitalism. You should learn about it some time.

 

[Pat Hartman]

@Thales750 Sit down, take a deep breath, put on your thinking cap. Ask yourself - Do lobbyists work for free? Of course they don't. Do poor people have the money to pay lobbyists to make bills to benefit them? Of course they don't. That means it is the rich who pay lobbyists. Do you suppose the rich are paying lobbyists to write bills (let us not fool ourselves into thinking that members of Congress actually write bills with their own hands) that benefit the poor? Of course they don't. The rich pay lobbyists and make political contributions so that Congress passes laws that benefit - wait for it - the rich

Why do you think your credit card interest is so obscenely high? Most states have usuary laws that protect citizens from outrageous interest. But not South Dakota and Delaware. That is why the CC companies are headquartered in those states?

In the 1978 case, Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp., the Court unanimously held that nationally chartered banks may charge the highest rate allowed in the bank's home state. This is why many banks are in states like Delaware and South Dakota, which have very liberal or nonexistent usury laws. So, even if you live in a state with a very low usury limit, it typically has no bearing on the interest you pay on your credit card.

 

[Thales750]

Now you are being an alarmist. The effect of overturning Chevron Deference will be to allow the overturning of rules that were created illegally by executive fiat. It will have the effect of providing a path towards REMOVING oppressive regulations, and the lawsuit regarding net neutrality was just an early example. It is a step towards getting government OUT of your life. Removing rules made (illegally) may SAVE some businesses who were struggling.

This thread is about predictions.

I'm saying that the people of the United States are going to pay a price, and once again Government will be aiding in the transfer of wealth to the top. Just like it did the previous several thousand years of Crown Rule.

And you're saying that we should adhere to the Constitution that was written in a pre-industrial agrarian society, and it should be followed to the letter; in spite of the damage it will do to the people, the economy, the environment, or the health of the populous.

All in the name of survival of the fittest? Does that about cover it? The richest need to get even richer.

Earlier, you stated that you would not apply this to environmental regulations. There is not going to be any considerations allowed. This is the historical moment when the Robber Barons raised up out of the sewer infested graves to reestablish their dominion over the common folks. and people like you are helping them achieve it.

Did any of your white share cropper ancestors fight for the confederacy? Because that's exactly what this is. People supporting catastrophic events that will damage their families for generations. And showing pride about the their blind support. Or maybe, your folks were plantation owners.

Ok' then, that was verbose.

How do you see your prediction as helping the nation, or providing you, or your family, with new found freedom?

 

[Thales750]

You are hell-bent on this theme. Did it EVER occur to you that it is the rich enriching themselves by being better at accumulating wealth than pther folks are? And the system you bemoan is actually just a set of rules and practices that don't get in the way of self-enrichment? Not actively enriching folks, but just not getting in the way of those who CAN enrich themselves? It's called capitalism. You should learn about it some time.

I have no problem with the rich getting richer, but the entirety of the Federal Government should not exist to facilitate that. You should try to understand that.

Once again your insults are unearned.

 

[Thales750]

Net Nutrality is yet another one of those "feel good" laws with hidden poison pills. Any act proposed by Democrats that includes the word "justice" in the title is almost certainly implementing the exact opposite.

It isn't the talking point of making internet access "equal" that is the problem. It is the power the law gives to the FAA. I haven't read the bill since it was proposed years ago so I will need to refresh my memory regarding just what the unreported issues are. They are obviously not in the summary which is the "feel good" part. It seems to have been overturned due to the Chevron decision. That makes perfect sense.

If Congress wants to make internet providers common carriers, I am in favor but it has to be a law passed by Congress, NOT the FAA making rules which have no weight in law and can be capriciously changed tomorrow. The Constitution reserves the right to make laws for Congress, NOT unelected bureaucrats.

Brain washed partisan answer. First it was Chevron, now it's Net Neutrality , soon it will be environmental, next Food and Drugs, and investments in publicly traded instruments.

During the early 80s the NRA called any infringement into unfettered ownership of firearms a slippery slope. They were right about one thing, the laws are based on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment over any consideration of logic or morals. Societies evolve, technologies evolve, government of the people need to also.

And you wonder why so many nonconservatives recognize the fascism in the conservative message.

What is your predication of the effect these new court rulings are going to have?

 

[Pat Hartman]

I have no problem with the rich getting richer, but the entirety of the Federal Government should not exist to facilitate that. You should try to understand that.

And yet it does. Duh! And you continually tell me how stupid I am for pointing it out. The heart of the corruption is Congress. They make the laws and they hold the power of the purse. They pass laws and exempt themselves - Obamacare is a more egregeous example. They exempt themselves from insider trading laws. How do you think they all become multi-millionaires? Duh! They trade ahead of the market on their knowledge. There is a fund that follows Pelosi's husband's trades. It does very well. Congress has the power to write laws that actually protect the "people". Instead, they write laws that protect big business or simply give them more control over business activities. Look at how much interest CC companies are allowed to charge despite most states having usury laws to protect "the people". Look at the laws that protect big pharma from being sued when they don't properly test their drugs and release them too soon.

What is your predication of the effect these new court rulings are going to have?

Arbitrary rules created by unelected bureaucrats will be removed forcing Congress to step up and DO SOMETHING intelligent to solve problems. two thousand page omnibus bills that are filled with pork and poison pills are not the answer. WHY do you think they always drop the day before the vote? Let me help you. They can't sustain the light of day lest their corruption and favoritism be exposed.

An amazing number of bureaucrats somehow end up with cushy jobs in Corporate America working for the very companies they regulated before they retired with their full pensions at a remarkably early age due to bad (from the country's perspective) labor contracts with the civil service unions.

 

[Isaac]

Well that is certainly optimistic.

My post was exactly about the bigger picture you are referring to. With Congress completely owned by the very entities that are affected by most of these regulations, how are we going to get laws this granular passed? The can't even get a budget done, much less regulation at this level.

We will see a continuous erosion of protections for the people. This entire process that started with Chevron, it is going to take people's life saving, destroy their businesses, and kill a lot of folks.

We have allowed the fox in the hen house, and Republicans on the street somehow believe its in their interest. Giving power to regulatory agencies started during a Republican Administration to break up the monopolies.

This new government, and our new conservative court mandate, is going to undo over a hundred years of protections. I wonder if the young people coming up will even be educated about the loss of their protections in the 20s.

I wish that we could simplify campaign finance to an extreme degree. Go ahead and provide a set amount of money (even from the government, I'd be OK with that as the problem it solves would be so huge) and assign it to a candidate for spending. Only assign it to those 2 who won the primary. They can't spend a penny outside of that.

I agree with you, too many legislators are bought and paid for. the USA is no less corrupt than Mexico, only with a veneer of white collar on it.
We must solve this. I think most Americans could easily agree on this.

 

[Isaac]

This entire process that started with Chevron, it is going to take people's life saving, destroy their businesses, and kill a lot of folks.

The overreach of agencies who created laws with criminal sanctions that existed no where except "published" on a memo from one agency employee to another has taken a whole lot of people's life savings, destroyed their businesses, and maybe killed them (not sure on the last one).

You should read Neil Gorsuch's new book.

 

[Thales750]

The overreach of agencies who created laws with criminal sanctions that existed no where except "published" on a memo from one agency employee to another has taken a whole lot of people's life savings, destroyed their businesses, and maybe killed them (not sure on the last one).

You should read Neil Gorsuch's new book.

We are actually having a conversation that would benefit from study and discussion. So, now that you have brought up a worthy discussion, I wonder if I have the conviction and time to give it proper attention. My little robot project is demanding more and more time.

Maybe this whole thing has been a relief from some of my pent up frustration at having no one local that I could vent at. I guess we will see.

 

[Thales750]

I wish that we could simplify campaign finance to an extreme degree. Go ahead and provide a set amount of money (even from the government, I'd be OK with that as the problem it solves would be so huge) and assign it to a candidate for spending. Only assign it to those 2 who won the primary. They can't spend a penny outside of that.

I agree with you, too many legislators are bought and paid for. the USA is no less corrupt than Mexico, only with a veneer of white collar on it.
We must solve this. I think most Americans could easily agree on this.

I've been saying something similar for 25 years. We should have a people's fund that pays for all of the campaigns equally.

I thought about a web site that would provide all candidates an opportunity to post their positions and campaign videos, interviews, pictures of their families, whatever. That would require a team of folks committed to not having a political agenda.

 

[Isaac]

We are actually having a conversation that would benefit from study and discussion. So, now that you have brought up a worthy discussion, I wonder if I have the conviction and time to give it proper attention. My little robot project is demanding more and more time.

Maybe this whole thing has been a relief from some of my pent up frustration at having no one local that I could vent at. I guess we will see.

It is truly an awesome book I don't think you'll regret reading it

 

[Pat Hartman]

That would require a team of folks committed to not having a political agenda.

So that lets out FB and Google.

But, you see the problem don't you? Congress is the body that passes laws. They will never pass a law that disadvantages incumbents. This is the kind of thing that would have to be done with an amendment. So far all Constitutional amendments have originated with Congress. So, we need to get behind the other method mentioned in Article V which is a Convention of States. There is a movement pushing for one and it is gradually working its way through state legislatures. 2/3 of the states need to agree to call for the convention and progress is pretty slow. Probably due to the total lack of understanding of how the Convention will work. All you hear is misinformation warning people that there is nothing to stop it from "running away" and making an entirely new Constitution. Clearly a lie but the average reader has no clue that it is a lie so it rises in states whenever the vote for the Convention is due to come up.

The part that the people spewing the misinformation gloss over is that every amendment proposed by the Convention of States then has to go back to all 50 states for ratification. And 3/4 of all states must ratify the amendment to make it happen. Sometimes deadlines are attached to proposed amendments. Sometimes they simply hang on for years and years and years. I think the Equal Rights amendment is still looking for ratification. I sure hope this never happens. Apparently the women who have voted for it never read it. It's like the "gays for Palestine" folks. Pay attention only to the talking points. Don't read the contents or think about the ramifications.