| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Strapped MA-WV taxpayers bear burden of continuing Microsoft antitrust suit | |
|
||
| Time: 14:57 EST/19:57 GMT | News Source: World Tech Tribune | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Taking population stats and budget deficit numbers from Massachusetts and West Virginia into account every man, woman and child in both states would have to pay an additional $328 USD in taxes just to pay off their states’ current debts let alone pay for the additional millions needed to begin another lengthy legal battle against Microsoft. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 325 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:47:06 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7711 (68.45.63.108) at 12/6/2002 3:59:19 PM |
|
But that's what Massachusetts (with Ted K) and West Virginia (with Bob Byrd) do best... spend your tax money...
Your money, workin' for you...(as long as you're a tech company in their state...NS, Sun, etc). But to the benefit of the people of those states? I can think of alot better things to do with $1200...me, my wife and two kids. |
| #2 By 6859 (204.71.100.216) at 12/6/2002 4:19:08 PM |
|
Taxes are a burden most on those least prepared to afford them, regardless of reasoning. When MA's and WV's cases fail (as the others did) the burden will be even more woeful.
It is a dilemma: forge on with the cases, knowing that there is a good chance of failure, and absorb the cost; or, forge on with the cases, knowing that there is a good chance of failure, and force the costs onto the tax burdoned (as usual); or, end the case now and move on, cutting losses allowing MS to remain unchallenged in the marketplace. Which is better, to suffer now with certainty, or to potentially suffer worse later? |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/6/2002 4:31:58 PM |
|
jimlat - Yeah... States should probably stop trying to prosecute criminals because it's a waste of tax dollars.
I'm sorry, but whether or not this case has merit in our eyes, does not mean the argument that prosecution costs tax dollars so therefore it shouldn't be done is valid. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/6/2002 5:07:00 PM |
| Well, this is one of the stupider things I've seen today? Why? Many states are facing similar horrible budget deficits--the citizens of those cases aren't being FUDed into saying that pursuing the law even though the tax issues are about the same. And, two, what state is about to attempt to wipe out it's deficit in one year by collecting an enormous tax hike? So where do these two issues really link up? I don't know... but 30 million for a legal fund vs. 3 billion of debt? Have you heard bigger FUD? Of that theoretical $328 raise in taxes to completely erase all debt, that would include $3.28 for the case. |
| #5 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/6/2002 7:41:14 PM |
| sodablue, you better believe that the tax ramifications should come into play here. Its no different than the reasoning behind shortening prison stays because the state can't afford to build a new prison. Sometimes the bad guys (MS is playing the part here) gets away because the pursuit/incarceration is too costly. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/6/2002 8:14:51 PM |
|
baloney, mooresa. For one thing, we have no idea if the 30 million dollar fund is a part of the budgeted allotment for state prosecutions. For all we know, it is adding zero cost to what the gov'ts intend to allocate for state prosecutions. We also do not know what elements of the budget produce the greatest losses and which produce the greatest revenues... Maybe it's paying for milk for kid's breakfasts that should be eliminated, or reading programs for the rednecks deep in those West VA hills--after all, we know they are going to remain ignorant unproductive fools, right? No, not right. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, December 06, 2002 at 20:15. |
| #7 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/6/2002 10:26:51 PM |
|
sodajerk, actually you bring up a good point that we don't know if the money spent was part of the budget for such activity. HOWEVER, I seriously doubt that West Virginia puts $164/citizen for such activity. I think it fairly safe to say that the W.V. Attorney General is outspending his/her budget.
Anyway, these laws aren't on the books in order to produce "revenue" for the state. That is not the purpose at all. Now, please respond. Oh, and don't forget to include some derogatory remark towards me. That way, I'll immediately know that you've lost the argument. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/7/2002 3:12:58 AM |
|
I don't know why WVa is involved in this. Mass I can see to a certain degree. I do think it will be beneficial in the long run to have the case appealed as it will serve to strengthen the voracity of the various rulings thus far.
coolbe_va: I'm afraid I don't see it. Your Linux cost savings. MS software licensing to educational institutions is fairly low priced as it is. WinXP Pro is about $75, OffXP is $60 to academic institutions and can be had even cheaper. The hardware is going to cost the same regardless. So unless you are getting your labor for free, you aren't saving anything. Support costs for Linux will be higher, and you'll have a direct impact to opportunity costs as the educational software just doesn't exist for Linux as it does for WinXP. I'm just not seeing it. If your goal is to get away from MS, choosing Apple would be a better solution than going the Linux route, even if the hardware did cost somewhat more. |
| #9 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/7/2002 6:26:03 AM |
|
This wouldn't be such a big deal if it were a good fight to begin with. Seeing as how almost all of the remaining states are in it because they have major competitors (oh wait, MS doesn't have competitors, RIGHT?!?????) in their states who line the pockets of the politicians.
If this were a major corporation dumping arsenic into the local water supply, that's one thing. But trumped-up witch hunts and competing through the courts with corrupt soft money from MS's competitors is nothing short of horrible not to mention illegal, I'm sure. But the sheeple in these states voted for Ted 'Chappaquiddick' Kennedy and Bob Byrd, so I guess they don't seem to care about honest in government in the first place. Let's blow all their money, let them bankrupt the state, maybe then they'll see what happens when you let liberals run a state for too long. Of course, I'm sure the Democrats will find a way to nail Republicans for it like they do most of the time. They'll run up all these expenses and budgets, then the Repubs will get elected and forced to make all the cuts and the Dems will nail them like they always do. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/7/2002 12:33:13 PM |
|
daz - "Seeing as how almost all of the remaining states are in it because they have major competitors (oh wait, MS doesn't have competitors, RIGHT?!?????) in their states who line the pockets of the politicians. "
It's not quite clear to me which competitors exist in Massachusetts or West Virginia. I thought most of AOL/TW was in Virginia and New York. Sun & Oracle are out in California. Novell was in Utah. Palm is also out in California. It looks to me like you've gone off another one of your moronic political commentaries that has very little basis in reality. We've long established that this Microsoft trial was pretty much bi-partisan in it's idiocy, yet you continue to want to attack liberals and Democrats(BTW, they aren't the same group). "Of course, I'm sure the Democrats will find a way to nail Republicans for it like they do most of the time." Maybe if the Republicans would work a little bit harder and come up with intelligent ideas instead of one-trick ponies this wouldn't happen? Just a thought. "They'll run up all these expenses and budgets, then the Repubs will get elected and forced to make all the cuts and the Dems will nail them like they always do. " Cuts? Since when have Republicans ever talked about cutting budgets in any reasonable way? They usually get in, and start worrying about $20 million things here and there in the federal budget which don't amount to a hill of beans. Then they propose spending $200 billion increases in other areas of the budget, and wonder why they can't balance it. Penny-wise, Pound-foolish would be the Republican mantra. That and "Borrow and Spend", which is their tactic to win elections... The only reason we ever had a balanced budget in the 1990's is because the Clinton team got in there and started cutting back government programs. Smaller government is the reality the Democrats create. |
| #11 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/7/2002 11:01:28 PM |
|
sodablue - "That and "Borrow and Spend", which is their tactic to win elections... "
actually I think this is more accurate... That and "Borrow and Spend", which is their tactic to win WARS - wars that occur because of general neglect by the previous Democratic president and/or congress.... |
| #12 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/8/2002 4:27:29 AM |
|
Soda, the Republicans can't cut the stuff that really needs to be cut because the Democrats have most of the public brainwashed into thinking that the world will end without Social Security or Welfare. Only recently has popular opinion turned towards cutting back on Welfare.
It's very moronic to try to criticize Republicans for budget woes. To Democrats, a cutback in the budget means a reduction in the growth of the department. This is evident at least for the last 20 years. They say the mean Republicans are going to "cut" this or "cut" that when what they mean is that the Republicans want to SLOW THE GROWTH OF a given department to 3% instead of 5%. That's a "cut" to Democrats. Democrats run up huge bills on America and then the Republicans are the bad guys who have to tear them down. Unfortunately, lately, they've learned from Newt Gingrich that really doing Government means you'll get slaughtered in the press by the Democrats. It's a Democrat town and they've got the run of the media and control popular opinion. The Republicans have finally learned this and this is why you see a Republican controlled Presidency and Congress. But the sad part is, they still won't get anything done because the press will immediately label them as "right wing" or "radical" the second they cut anything in the budget. The only reason we had a balanced buget in the 90's was because of the long-term success of Regonomics and the boom in the economy (which Clinton took full credit for, even though it had just started a month or two after he took office). The Clinton team was just as tax and spend as any Red-faced liberal would be. It's just that they had tons of tax revenue to work with, so it looked like they "balanced" the budget when, in fact, they just have enough tax revenue to cover all their deficits from their outrageous spending. |
| #13 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/8/2002 1:32:45 PM |
|
#18 "the Republicans can't cut the stuff that really needs to be cut because the Democrats have most of the public brainwashed into thinking that the world will end without Social Security or Welfare"
They control everything right now Daz... they can basically do anything they want. If they really think it's the right thing to do, they should do it. They're representatives, not automatons. Oh, and last I checked it was Clinton who made the most recent cut in welfare programs, not Bush. Some interesting points: 1.) The biggest bill flipped by Americans is for defense, which is a Republican battle cry. 2.) The second biggest bill flipped by Americans is for the drug war, another Republican battle cry. If we stopped #2, the money saved would triple that which we spend on Welfare and Social Security COMBINED. I'm sorry, who is spending money unwisely? "...lately, they've learned from Newt Gingrich that really doing Government means you'll get slaughtered in the press by the Democrats" What!? Republicans are the KING of PR attacks... did you know they have a set of words they are instructed to use when talking about Democrats versus the set of words they used to talk about Republicans? It's hilarious. Newt was attacked because he was a liar. Bill Clinton was attacked because he got a bl... er... he was a liar. You criticize Democrats for supporting Clinton, yet you ignore your support for anther liar? Seems hypocritical to me. "It's a Democrat town and they've got the run of the media and control popular opinion." Every study ever conducted of media bias shows they do not typically lean left OR right, they lean toward bad news instead of good. If you have a comprehensive study that shows otherwise, please post a link. "Democrats run up huge bills on America and then the Republicans are the bad guys who have to tear them down." Democrats believe (and, to some extent, rightly so) that some things are best done by a government. Republicans, as of late, have been going with the idea that government is always bad, and smaller is always better. (Well, that's what they say... but their lying... they want to keep more of their money, and force their morals on you... anyway.) The problem with these ideologies is that it's not that cut and dry. Sometimes, bigger government IS better. Sometimes it's not. Simply cutting programs for the sake of smaller government is irresponsible. Similarly, creating government programs under the same premise is equally irresponsible. Continued on next post... |
| #14 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/8/2002 1:33:07 PM |
|
Continued...
"The only reason we had a balanced budget in the 90's was because of the long-term success of Reaganomics and the boom in the economy (which Clinton took full credit for, even though it had just started a month or two after he took office)." Prove it. Economy 101 teaches us that monetary policy takes between 6 months and two years to take affect. Reagan began his policies within a year of taking office, so we should have seen their affects, at WORST, be the beginning of his second term. But we didn't. It would be another 12 years (not 8 years and 2 months, as you stated) before we saw any supposed benefit from his policies, skipping his whole second term and all of Bush's presidency... why? Is it just a coincidence that the improvement of the economy occurred right about the time Econ 101 told us it would if it was caused by Clinton's policies? Also, explain how massive deficit spending helps balance a budget? Reagan cut many programs, yes, but he did a LOT more cutting of tax revenue. The result was that we were spending money we didn't have, and running up a huge bill. How does that help balance anything? If anything, it was Bush Sr.'s tax INCREASE that helped Clinton eventually balance the budget. "It's just that they had tons of tax revenue to work with, so it looked like they "balanced" the budget when, in fact, they just have enough tax revenue to cover all their deficits from their outrageous spending." Newsflash: taxes are how you offset government spending. |
| #15 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/8/2002 6:13:43 PM |
|
<so sarcastic that i'm gagging while typing>
Yeah RMD, lets take your ideas and make them happen. No more military. Iraq doesn't have a missile that will reach U.S. soil... so why do we need a military? No reason. No more enforcement of drug law. Hell, lets not help the addicts either. We'll just let them wander the streets... raping, stealing, and murdering as they see fit. How much will that cost us? $0. Oh, what a wonderful safe world we'll live in... </so sarcastic that i'm gagging while typing> |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/8/2002 6:22:11 PM |
|
daz - "The Clinton team was just as tax and spend as any Red-faced liberal would be. It's just that they had tons of tax revenue to work with, so it looked like they "balanced" the budget when, in fact, they just have enough tax revenue to cover all their deficits from their outrageous spending. "
ROTFL! That is the problem the Bush administration is having, isn't it? Please, get your head out of your ass before posting. RMD - Well said! |
| #17 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/8/2002 6:28:56 PM |
|
mooresa56 - "No more military. Iraq doesn't have a missile that will reach U.S. soil... so why do we need a military? No reason. "
Did RMD say no more military? No, but perhaps there are ways we can spend the money more effectively to insure our security. Ever hear of the Marshall Plan? "Hell, lets not help the addicts either." That's what we're doing now, largely thanks to Republican budget cuts in those areas initiated under Reagan. BTW, did you know the drug addiction programs grew during Nixon? That's right, his advisors rightly pointed out to him that a lot of the Veterans coming back from Vietnam were heroin addicts and we better do something about it. Reagan took the point of view that drug addicts were immoral and didn't deserve help. I'm not saying Clinton was much better... his answer was to throw them in jail so we didn't have to deal with the question. You know maybe you should stop using the hyperbole and start taking the problems we face seriously? Just a thought, it would certainly be more helpful than daz's "disengage brain before posting" attitude. |
| #18 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/8/2002 9:06:07 PM |
|
#22 - "No more military. Iraq doesn't have a missile that will reach U.S. soil... so why do we need a military? No reason."
When the HELL did I say we should get rid of our military. I included that in the list to show you that sometimes the government really is the best entity to do something. Obviously, that point was wasted on you. "No more enforcement of drug law. Hell, lets not help the addicts either. We'll just let them wander the streets... raping, stealing, and murdering as they see fit. How much will that cost us? $0." Obviously you know nothing about the drug war, or drugs themselves. Luckily, I have written a short essay on the subject: http://www.rit.edu/~rmd0549/athought_consensualcrimes.html In summary, you couldn't be more wrong, and you have bought completely into the insane drivel spewing forth from our "leaders" on the subject of drugs. How do you explain places like the Netherlands where drugs are either completely legal, or the existing laws aren't enforced? They have FAR LESS CRIME (especially murder) than the United States. The crime that is typically associated with drugs is caused by the fact the drugs are illegal, not because the drugs somehow cause "madness"... (refer madness is one of the funniest movies ever created). Your assumptions are utterly false... I suggest you try thinking for yourself next time instead of seeing a TAX DOLLAR sponsored lie on TV and assuming it's true. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 325 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:47:06 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
