Jon Stewart is educated by Ezra Klein on Government Regulation

[noonereal]

Awe, poor you.

Move out to the country if you want that benefit so bad.

I'd never live with freeloader hillbillies.

 

[Luce]

That's not true.

There is increasing evidence that these satellites due to their metal composition, may be damaging the ozone when they fall back to Earth and we're putting 10's of thousands of them up there.

Also Kessler Syndrome, a far more immediate threat.

 

[Visbek]

Satellite is not that slow anymore, nor does it have very high latency.

Starlink charges $120/mo and tops out at 220 mbps down / 35 up. That's barely sufficient for 20 people.

Verizon FIOS's largest plan is $130/mo for 2 gbps up / 2gbps down.

Go ahead, tell us again how Starlink is super fast!!! and latency doesn't matter. It'll be funny.

Not really, you'd need to create a central database that collates broadband access by zip and address, and you can automate the approval process. No need for a large bureaucracy.

Right. Because it's not like you will need to...
• Maintain a database that holds millions of entries
• Check every entry in the database on a regular basis
• Keep the database up to date
• Keep the database secure
• Verify eligibility for millions of individuals and businesses
• Make sure the payment system is secure
• Constantly check for fraud

It's a snap! All you need is a pair of 19 year olds to run the whole thing, right? Of course, you want to make sure they have a solid resume.

C'mon, man. Get real. You're the guy in the back of the bar, yelling simplistic solutions to complex problems at the TV.

....of the three satellite providers Starlink is the clear choice, with speeds that are twice as fast as the competitors and no monthly data caps.

It's also the most expensive option. Funny how you missed that bit.

 

[Visbek]

I've worked in Government too long to accept that as the excuse.

Suuuuure you have

The problem is that very few Government bureaucrats are in their jobs to "make a difference".

So what? I've worked for years in the private sector, and employees aren't usually there to "increase shareholder value" or anything else in the company's mission statement (if they even bother to write one, let alone ask employees to adhere to it.) Most people are there to do their job well, and get a paycheck.

That said, there are definitely lots of government employees -- especially teachers, and those dealing with poor people -- who are taking low pay because, yeah, they want to help people. I've met a bunch of them, too.

I.e. hard pass on the "anecdotes thoroughly tainted by partisan bias" thing.

Yes, NIMBY will forever kill any construction project, which is why the biggest eyesores always get dumped on the neighborhoods with the least clout.

But in the case of rural broadband they could have avoided it all together but didn't out of political spite.

And again...

• In 2021, Starlink barely existed, and certainly wasn't the top candidate for a no-bid no-competition $42 billion national contract.

• In 2021, Musk wasn't a right winger. He didn't even start contributing to Republicans until AFTER the IIJA was passed.

• Satellite just isn't fast enough for lots of rural customers.

Funny how you completely ignored 2 of these 3 these points earlier.

 

[Visbek]

It's almost as if Government Spending is done to benefit Government, instead of the citizenry......

It's been good to watch Klein and the "Abundance" democrats come to the realization that government is unwieldy, awkward, incompetent, and chokes off growth. I wonder when they will begin to draw the logical follow-on conclusions that "So We Need To Elect People Who Will Fix That By Making Government GOOD Again!" is attempting to change the tiger's stripes.

Well, that's what they're trying to do. They also realize that Republicans are the absolutely wrong party to accomplish that goal. I see no indication that they're even trying to get Republicans on board with the "Abundance Agenda."

You should keep in mind that the idea behind their agenda includes things like:

• Stripping away zoning laws, to allow for higher density construction everywhere, including suburban areas (current homeowners will love that one)
• Ramp up vaccine production
• Spend more government funds on medical R&D and drug trials
• Invest more in sustainable energy tech, with the goal of making clean power abundant
• Make it faster and easier to build infrastructure and public transportation

It's not a bad agenda... for what little it does actually cover. But there's a lot that it doesn't. And I seriously doubt they want the same things you do. After all, their goal is to reduce the regulations which slow down the implementation of progressive agendas. They are certainly not trying to end government involvement in people's lives.

I.e. be careful what you wish for.

 

[Cassandra]

It denotes taking money from the Government and the tax payer and providing nothing in return, which many of these bureaucrats are doing.

Actually, it doesn't, and you derailed your own thread by using inflammatory language.

This could have been a productive "bipartisan" sort of discussion! The take-away for me is this: " Some people can critique the system, and the party with which they are affiliated, without just wanting to burn the house down.

My son is a state level 'planner', (a job title mentioned several times by Kline). He is underpaid and overworked. Also frustrated by an excess of paperwork, bureaucracy and the rigidity of regulation. Do not tell me he is a kleptocrat. He is a cog in bureaucracy's wheel.

 

[Cassandra]

Well, that's what they're trying to do. They also realize that Republicans are the absolutely wrong party to accomplish that goal. I see no indication that they're even trying to get Republicans on board with the "Abundance Agenda."

You should keep in mind that the idea behind their agenda includes things like:

• Stripping away zoning laws, to allow for higher density construction everywhere, including suburban areas (current homeowners will love that one)
• Ramp up vaccine production
• Spend more government funds on medical R&D and drug trials
• Invest more in sustainable energy tech, with the goal of making clean power abundant
• Make it faster and easier to build infrastructure and public transportation

It's not a bad agenda... for what little it does actually cover. But there's a lot that it doesn't. And I seriously doubt they want the same things you do. After all, their goal is to reduce the regulations which slow down the implementation of progressive agendas. They are certainly not trying to end government involvement in people's lives.

I.e. be careful what you wish for.

Great post.
When I hear Kline talk his emphasis has been about reducing impediments to housing construction in places where people need and want to live. I agree w him. The opposition to altering zoning laws is neither a Democratic or Republican issue. Its NIMBY-ism

 

[trumptman]

You are certainly giving your own take and adding a bunch of your own bias on his straightforward idea.

You can "TRUMP" him and worry about tone but as your own very nice link noted, where are the blue cities and state where blue politicians have literally all the power they need and Democrats can show have they have addressed the abundance and affordability issues?

I bring it up REPEATEDLY and Klein had a good line about it too. When you are spending billions and the constituents can't feel the results of that, then they can't understand how government is working for them.

In multiple threads I have said, where are the blue models working out and people can point at them and say, "Don't you want us to do this nationally?"

Experts telling people they are perceiving wrong, or that their expectations are wrong, they are misunderstanding the problem or that there is just success but no one can seem to see and hear it just means people will ignore those experts and ignore the media organizations that promote them.

As was noted at the beginning, people are voting with their feet. The 2030 election might permanently alter power at the national level.

It's not enough to be critical. It's time to shit or get off the pot.

Ezra mentions California quite a bit and notes how many miles of high speed rail have been built in China when California can't build 500 miles. It's a blue state with blue governance with bonds already approved and further supported by their blue constituents. No one is stopping this except their own incompetence or outright theft and corrupt with regard to resources.

This is why so much concern trolling on the left just rings hollow. There's no "THAT" to take away.

"If Trump gets his way your subway fares will go up, and there will be half as many trains along with more theft and crime from fewer officers serving the public."

Well shit that already happens....you can't threaten what will happen when government can't deliver. It already doesn't deliver.

"Mean Dictator Trump is going to take away your rural broadband and EV charging stations."

Sorry, they were never built. Who knows where the money went at this stage.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Lol!! You do realize that any work should be put out for bidding and not just handed to Elon Musk?

Then ****ing do that!!! Not shit away millions (billions?) on planning and proposing that only got bureaucrat assholes paid that do not give a dry fart about rural voters.

Freedom sat, Telesat, Hughes, whoever, just so long as the bidding is aboveboard and subject to yearly reviews and consumer input. Make sure it works, make sure it helps people that need it.

 

[tharock220]

Ezra Klein's made some really good points over the years about how Democrats have gotten in their own way in terms of how the government works. There's a lot to parse out, but the core of it is over regulation that's made large infrastructure projects grind to a halt for the very reasons he's cited in that clip. The same goes for housing and other projects as well, and basically they're so mired in process that everything becomes absurdly expensive and takes forever if it even gets built. This needs to change, and on this point I agree with Republicans who want to remove the over regulation. At some point the party has to take a stand and choose between completing projects and proving the government can do big things effectively, or they continue making the case that government should do less. This requires saying no to some members of the coalition and making them upset, but there's more to lose by maintaining the status quo.

Construction is patient zero for this. When inspections, permits, consulting, etc represent a cost to a project comprable to labor and material, it should be clear there's a problem.

I definitely want to know the houses in my neighborhood aren't fire hazards. But there's a whole continuum between "build whatever" and making things insanely difficult.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You can "TRUMP" him and worry about tone but as your own very nice link noted, where are the blue cities and state where blue politicians have literally all the power they need and Democrats can show have they have addressed the abundance and affordability issues?

I bring it up REPEATEDLY and Klein had a good line about it too. When you are spending billions and the constituents can't feel the results of that, then they can't understand how government is working for them.

In multiple threads I have said, where are the blue models working out and people can point at them and say, "Don't you want us to do this nationally?"

Experts telling people they are perceiving wrong, or that their expectations are wrong, they are misunderstanding the problem or that there is just success but no one can seem to see and hear it just means people will ignore those experts and ignore the media organizations that promote them.

As was noted at the beginning, people are voting with their feet. The 2030 election might permanently alter power at the national level.

It's not enough to be critical. It's time to shit or get off the pot.

Ezra mentions California quite a bit and notes how many miles of high speed rail have been built in China when California can't build 500 miles. It's a blue state with blue governance with bonds already approved and further supported by their blue constituents. No one is stopping this except their own incompetence or outright theft and corrupt with regard to resources.

This is why so much concern trolling on the left just rings hollow. There's no "THAT" to take away.

"If Trump gets his way your subway fares will go up, and there will be half as many trains along with more theft and crime from fewer officers serving the public."

Well shit that already happens....you can't threaten what will happen when government can't deliver. It already doesn't deliver.

"Mean Dictator Trump is going to take away your rural broadband and EV charging stations."

Sorry, they were never built. Who knows where the money went at this stage.

Based on your premise the choice is expensive status quo (Harris) or expensive economic crash (Trump). Society chose crash.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

The whole interview is really good, and I like that Ezra Klein is the one exposing this stuff in his new book, but Jon Stewart's response as Klein walks him through the $42 billion rural broadband process is priceless.

They could have given rural customers money for Starlink and been done with the rollout in 2022, instead by 2024 53 states and territories had dropped out and nothing at all was accomplished except some bureaucrats got paid.

Anyone who doesn't see the importance of government regulations needs their ****ing heads examined.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Construction is patient zero for this. When inspections, permits, consulting, etc represent a cost to a project comprable to labor and material, it should be clear there's a problem.

I definitely want to know the houses in my neighborhood aren't fire hazards. But there's a whole continuum between "build whatever" and making things insanely difficult.

Sure, and that's the work that has to be done because it's been part of the issue in building housing in places like California.

 

[trumptman]

Based on your premise the choice is expensive status quo (Harris) or expensive economic crash (Trump). Society chose crash.

No the choice was expensive failure (Harris) or claims of an inexpensive success, expensive success or burn it down crash.

The point to remember is society choose....

The Democrat failures were so profound that no matter the Trump outcomes, society decided the risk was worth it.

 

[cpwill]

Well, that's what they're trying to do. They also realize that Republicans are the absolutely wrong party to accomplish that goal.

Under current leadership, probably so. Democrats spent years growing government for the sake of growing government, and Republicans have (now) responded by deciding to cut government blindly, and see what breaks.

Neither is wise or focused on efficiency at the core tasks.

I see no indication that they're even trying to get Republicans on board with the "Abundance Agenda."

If so, that's unfortunate - there is probably a lot of overlap and things that could be accomplished at the State level.

You should keep in mind that the idea behind their agenda includes things like:

• Stripping away zoning laws, to allow for higher density construction everywhere, including suburban areas (current homeowners will love that one)

Cool. They should also focus on all the other regulatory layers that make it difficult to build anything except expensive luxury housing.

I think they will run into a buzzsaw of well-heeled Progressive NIMBYism, but, I wish them well.

• Ramp up vaccine production

Cool.

• Spend more government funds on medical R&D and drug trials

Eh. I could see myself supporting this, but they may want to focus on rebuilding trust in our institutions before they ask for more money for them.

• Invest more in sustainable energy tech, with the goal of making clean power abundant

If so, they should invest in ways that are efficient and wise, and which off-load as much of the process as possible away from government entities and processes, and into market ones, with profit motives.

• Make it faster and easier to build infrastructure and public transportation

Good? It's insane that it takes as long as it does and cost as much as it does to fix roads and build bridges.

I seriously doubt they want the same things you do.

No, but there is plenty of overlap, especially on local policies.

I.e. be careful what you wish for.

If we (as a nation) end up getting into an argument over which party is better at efficiently running government, and that becomes a major metric for judging them... well, there are far, far worse incentives to provide politicians.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No the choice was expensive failure (Harris) or claims of an inexpensive success, expensive success or burn it down crash.

The point to remember is society choose....

The Democrat failures were so profound that no matter the Trump outcomes, society decided the risk was worth it.

I’m talk about actual reality where doge is playing around and breaking stuff but not saving any real money.

 

[Cassandra]

Construction is patient zero for this. When inspections, permits, consulting, etc represent a cost to a project comprable to labor and material, it should be clear there's a problem.

I definitely want to know the houses in my neighborhood aren't fire hazards. But there's a whole continuum between "build whatever" and making things insanely difficult.

Do I see a consensus on this topic developing?

 

[trumptman]

I’m talk about actual reality where doge is playing around and breaking stuff but not saving any real money.

If a high speed rail as an example needs several billion dollars a year to build nothing and you stop them from building it by removing the money and breaking them, that is savings. It may not be savings in your book but it is in the eye myself and milions of voters.

Likewise the threat of "DOGE will destroy the future when the planet melts and we don't have our high speed rail" rings hollow We don't have one now and $100 billion dollars hasn't made it happen.

See rural internet, EV charging stations and BBB as additional examples of the threats you can't make to take. They aren't there and they never happened. They're already broken. You can't scare us by promising they will be broken more.

 

[cpwill]

Construction is patient zero for this. When inspections, permits, consulting, etc represent a cost to a project comprable to labor and material, it should be clear there's a problem.

I definitely want to know the houses in my neighborhood aren't fire hazards. But there's a whole continuum between "build whatever" and making things insanely difficult.

Democrats will have to be willing to fight their own Eco Groups and upper-class-neighborhoods to succeed, here :-/

I do wish them luck at it, but I'm not sure "Abundance Democrats" are going to do much better in their party than "Never Trump" Republicans have done in theirs.

 

[Slartibartfast]

If a high speed rail as an example needs several billion dollars a year to build nothing and you stop them from building it by removing the money and breaking them, that is savings. It may not be savings in your book but it is in the eye myself and milions of voters.

Likewise the threat of "DOGE will destroy the future when the planet melts and we don't have our high speed rail" rings hollow We don't have one now and $100 billion dollars hasn't made it happen.

See rural internet, EV charging stations and BBB as additional examples of the threats you can't make to take. They aren't there and they never happened. They're already broken. You can't scare us by promising they will be broken more.

I already explained what is occurring and why. At this point you are not presenting any new info.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Democrats will have to be willing to fight their own Eco Groups and upper-class-neighborhoods to succeed, here :-/

I do wish them luck at it, but I'm not sure "Abundance Democrats" are going to do much better in their party than "Never Trump" Republicans have done in theirs.

I think it's possible because the message that can resonate is actual accomplishment of the promises they make. The NIMBYism aspect of this is probably the harder one to overcome because tied to that are the concerns of real estate values for high end communities allowing affordable housing in.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Under current leadership, probably so. Democrats spent years growing government for the sake of growing government, and Republicans have (now) responded by deciding to cut government blindly, and see what breaks.

Neither is wise or focused on efficiency at the core tasks.

I don't agree with the accuracy of this statement, because I don't think it was solely for the sake of growing government, but in support of the idea government has an expanded role in certain areas.

 

[trumptman]

I already explained what is occurring and why. At this point you are not presenting any new info.

At some point and this is the thread premise, it isn't about explaining, messaging or misinformation. People not having a house, job, food and life being upwardly mobile and affordable and this is worst in blue cities, is a real problem and Democrats aren't the solution. They are the problem.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The whole interview is really good, and I like that Ezra Klein is the one exposing this stuff in his new book, but Jon Stewart's response as Klein walks him through the $42 billion rural broadband process is priceless.

They could have given rural customers money for Starlink and been done with the rollout in 2022, instead by 2024 53 states and territories had dropped out and nothing at all was accomplished except some bureaucrats got paid.

Pssssst: Twitter tweets are not "news". Derp.

 

[jmotivator]

Starlink charges $120/mo and tops out at 220 mbps down / 35 up. That's barely sufficient for 20 people.

Verizon FIOS's largest plan is $130/mo for 2 gbps up / 2gbps down.

Go ahead, tell us again how Starlink is super fast!!! and latency doesn't matter. It'll be funny.

A few thoughts:

1) It wouldn't be for "20 people", it would be for a household.

2) 220 mbps is PLEANTY of bandwidth for 20 people. You don't need 2 gbps, up or down.

3) the Rural Broadband project only requires 20 mbps down and 3 up.



4) Nobody, and I mean nobody is running fiber to rural homes. You'd have to be high to think you can run 30 miles of fiber to serve a few homes and make a profit.... see: The Rural Broadband requirements above.


Seriously, your fiber example is hilarious.

2 gbps down is enough bandwidth to stream 40 movies in 4K concurrently... or 120 movies at 2K...

You HONESTLY thought that these customers are getting fiber?!

Starlink can beat the Rural Broadband contract requirements by a factor of 9 today, and that fiber will get run to rural homes some time around the heat death of the universe.