| 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 |
 |
Microsoft on its own in court | |
|
||
| Time: 14:12 EST/19:12 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
The Bush administration won't help Microsoft in its courtroom struggles to avoid more stringent antitrust-related punishments sought by West Virginia and Massachusetts. In a May 21 letter, the Justice Department said it will stay out of further proceedings, including a November hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:37:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/27/2003 6:15:38 PM |
|
Either:
a.) Bill Gates donated to one of the Democratic Presidential nominee's campaign b.) Oracle or Sun donated more to Bush's campaign then Gates did c.) Gates didn't donate this year to anyone You'd think Gates would've learned his lesson after Clinton hung him out to dry for not contributing the promised amount to his '91 campaign. |
| #2 By 8589 (65.66.106.204) at 5/27/2003 11:59:25 PM |
|
Talking about slanted news. This should have read, "West Virginia and Massachusetts are on their own against Microsoft." It is the states that brought the Justice Department into this litigation against Microsoft to start with. Now they don't have their backing. Stupid left wing morons. All they know how to do is sue, kill unborn babies, and promote alternate lifestyles.
As Maude said, "There is a God, and He is capable of getting you." |
| #3 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/28/2003 12:54:15 AM |
|
#2: I thought it was the DOJ that first filed a motion in Federal court about MS' violation of some 1994 decree the DOJ put out about how MS should license Windows.
After that, the states all piled in. That was during the States' whole "Wow, we can sue large companies and get billions of dollars in revenue of which to spend on all sorts of pork and frivolous things" Now, all the tobacco money (of which hardly a small percentage was spent on anything remotely related to anti-tobacco ads or prevention, or helping those with cancer related to tobacco, etc) has run out and all the stupid state government (yes, Democrats _AND_ Republicans) who didn't plan for the bad times during the good (Rule #1 to making a budget) are whining about how they have massive deficits and they want the Federal Government to bail them out. It's sad, really, our state of government. When a tax cut is practically lynched in the public spotlight as dangerous, but an increase of $1.8 Trillion to $2.3 Trillion in federal spending is somehow O.K. and where nationalizing 1/7th of the U.S. Economy in "unified health care" is preferable to putting money back in the pockets of Americans who spend and invest. It's like the 1970's all over again. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/28/2003 3:18:22 PM |
|
Wow, talk about idiocy.
(I'm referring to daz and EWWHWW, not this article) |
| #5 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/28/2003 5:12:52 PM |
|
#4: Good ol' sodablue, appeal to emotion and leave the facts at the door.
I'm not sure who started the MS trial first, the DOJ or the States, but other than that: - A majority of the states have spent less than a few percent of their tobacco settlement on anything remotely related to healthcare for people with tobacco-related sickness, or prevention - State governments have really hosed up their budgets by spending wildly during surpluss periods rather than saving or maintaining a consistent rate of growth or status quo spending. - Many of the states in the DOJ trial were also involved in the Tobacco settlement - The liberals have successfully managed to switch the discussion about how large of a tax cut we should have to whether or not we need a tax cut - The liberals have successfully managed to completely divert all attention in the media away from the fact that spending is out of control in congress. Federal Spending FY02: $1.8 Trillion Federal Spending FY03: $2.3 Trillion (+ $500 billion) That's $125 Billion more than the tax cut Also, every time a tax cut has significantly lowered the marginal rate ('63 with Kennedy and '81 with Reagan), it has resulted in huge tax income increases to the federal government and the economy growing by record numbers. In '81, Reagan lowered the marginal tax rate from 70% to 32%. Tax revenues DOUBLED in the next 3 years. DOUBLED. Yes, that's right, DOUBLED. The economy experienced growth between 81 and 85 that has not been seen since. GDP growth in that period was a whopping 3.2%. Between 85 and 88, it was around 2.8%. It dropped during Bush 41, and then came back up, but not completely during the Clinton years to about 2.6%. Before Reagan, the growth was like 1.8% or less under Carter. It's likely to repeat itself with this tax cut, although Congress immasculated it by dropping it from $750 billion to only a measly $350 billion which won't have near the effect as it should've had. I think Bush wanted the marginal rate to drop from the Clinton era's 26.4% to something like 20-22%, making it the 2nd largest tax cut in US history (#1 Reagan: 70-32%, #2 Kennedy: 90%-70%) If you want to blame deficits in the 80's on Reagan, then you're not clued into history because, despite doubling tax revenue, Reagan was thwarted by the Democrat-controlled Congress in the 80's. They spend $1.80 for every $1.00 Regan brought in. They don't call them Tax-and-spend Democrats for no reason, you know. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/28/2003 10:39:27 PM |
|
Fascinating daz
"State governments have really hosed up their budgets by spending wildly during surpluss periods rather than saving or maintaining a consistent rate of growth or status quo spending. " Actually in most cases State governments are facing the problems they have now, not due to wild spending but do to massive tax cuts implemented in the late 1990's. At least that is the case here in Minnesota. "Reagan lowered the marginal tax rate from 70% to 32%. Tax revenues DOUBLED in the next 3 years." Did you include in your analysis the 20% increase in tax rates all Americans saw under Reagan as a result of increases to OASDI and HI rates? So now when you look at the figures, where is it that we saw the massive tax receipt growth? http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/overview/source.cfm "The economy experienced growth between 81 and 85 that has not been seen since." Well other than the 1990's that is, after Clinton increased the tax rates to balance the budget. "It's likely to repeat itself with this tax cut, although Congress immasculated it by dropping it from $750 billion to only a measly $350 billion which won't have near the effect as it should've had." The 2001 tax cut resulted in the first time since the depression were tax receipts actually declined substantially. So it would not surprise me in the least for it to grow beyond that. I don't see how it could get any worse. We've already long established that the tax rate cannot be 0%. You agreed with that. So the argument comes in as to what's the reasonable rate. So why don't you tell us what is reasonable? You're argument is that we should cut rates and borrow the money to fund government programs. I will state again, that fiscal policy is not sustainable. It will result in the economy going bankrupt. "If you want to blame deficits in the 80's on Reagan, then you're not clued into history because, despite doubling tax revenue, Reagan was thwarted by the Democrat-controlled Congress in the 80's." The Congress was not controlled by the Democrats in the 1980's. You should go back and check your history books there, as it was a split congress with the GOP controlling Senate and DFL controlling House. Hint: Look up Bob Dole in your history book. Furthermore every budget submitted to Congress by President Reagan was substantially larger than the budget actually passed by Congress. So if anything the Congress thwarted Reagan's attempts at increasing the deficit. "They don't call them Tax-and-spend Democrats for no reason, you know. " And they don't call them Borrow-and-spend Republicans for no reason, you know. I think it's great that you have a political opinion daz, but I think it's unfortunate that your opinions have very little if any basis in facts. Every time we've had these discussions I've ripped you to shreds. Why do you keep coming back for more? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:37:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
