Slashdot Mirror
Congress Pays You $3 Billion to Keep Watching TV
Felix the Cat writes "After budgets cuts led to the layoff of engineers and scientists at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a US Senate committee has approved a $3 billion dollar subsidy to assist Americans in their difficult transition to digital television in 2009. The old analog television spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The transition date was chosen to not interfere with college football bowl games or basketball playoffs." From the article: "The draft of a House bill would end analog transmissions on Dec. 31, 2008. It does not mention a subsidy for set-top converter boxes. So, lawmakers will likely have to work out differences between the two bills, though Stevens said he did not anticipate a big fight with the House over the deadline or the subsidy."
I have an idea.
How about CONSUMERS pay for new TVs or converters themselves? They don't get cable free. They don't get a free CD palyer when cassettes go out of style.
And if someone MUST baby the consumer, how about the fucking TELEVISION INDUSTRY do the subsidizing, instead? Why in the fucking hell should tax money go toward it? If we're going to spend billions of tax dollars on televisions, let's spend it subsidizing people to NOT own them?
Seriously, we already fucking subsidize breeders and marriage. Now we want to add television watching to that?!
I so fucking give up. You win. Where do I go for the nearest de-education center so I can join the mind-numbed consumer masses?
Don't kid yourselves that you will get anything. For every dollar of "subsidity" to get you to switch, the price of these set top converters and anything else subsidized will go up by at least a dollar, likely more! The only ones getting this money will be the Chinese and Japaneese making the things. You the tax payer get what you always get.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Since they are eliminating analog TV the analog TV transmitters are going to become available. Time to start my pirate TV station for all those analog TV's that will still be out there. I'll be broadcasting my entire DVD collection.
I know this won't be popular with our crowd, but really it isnt a bad decision. From the article: "The subsidy program would be paid for by money raised from the auction of the analog spectrum the broadcasters are vacating.". So basically, they are making an expected 3 billion for making old TVs not work, so it only seems fair to use the money they took to make old tvs not work to make them work.
I have a hard time believing that they'll really end analog TV in 2008. There are too many people out there who (a) have low incomes, (b) like TV, and (c) vote. It's just that many of those same people don't know about this because they get their information from the TV news. This is supposedly going to happen smack dab in an election year, too.
Find free books.
Will any of this subsidy affect my $1.99 Lost episodes?
There is truth in humor.
Considering that TV is the predominant campaign commmunications vehicle, it's not surprising that they'll throw money at it to make sure it will remain working properly after a digital transition.
While I must say I really enjoy the editorialization in the summary (not), the submitter has no idea wtf he's talking about in regards to the financing of this project.
The digital TV transition is intended to free up the 700-800 Mhz (appx) spectrum to be auctioned by the FCC for advanced services and for use by public safety organizations. McCain made a big deal of the digital transition after Katrina hit due to the problems with interagency communication.
The $3 billion in subsidy comes from the auction of the spectrum. The people who will eventually pay for it are the users of the spectrum or customers of the companies who purchase the spectrum. Let me be clear, this $3 billion isn't coming from some other agency or program, it is coming from the proceeds of the auction.
So, submitter, if you're going to flame bait about your pet project being cut back at least do it with half a clue.
Things like HDTV and multicasting are nice side effects of the transition, but don't be fooled, this is mostly about money. Congress wants that money in its coffers and had planned for analog turn off at the end of this year when the transition first started ten years ago.
A legitimate approach to governance is that you should give people what they want, and nothing else. From that perspective, this is cynical, but appropriate. Give people bread and circuses, and you can say you're doing your job as a politician... but how many politicians hold a valid claim to be doing their job as honorable human beings?
It would be nice if I could just wash my hands of politics, insist that the least governance would be the best, and just vote for those who would leave power in the hands of individuals more and more, in light of the constant incompitence of politicans... but I've also seen the affects of what "small goverment" can do over the past years. I've decided to vote Democrat in the next forseeable elections, because at least they seem to propose to, and have in the past few administrations, use public resources to do more than just celebrate their own personal interests. Perhaps then, at least, the Republicans will learn to compete again in terms of function, not just rhetoric. I'd hate to see this last batch of Republicans rewarded for their actions.
Ryan Fenton
For those interested in a brief history of HDTV, here it is:
Here's how it went:
Broadcast Industry asks for bandwidth for HDTV
FCC says "OK, we'll set aside bandwidth for HDTV"
FCC says "What standards?"
Industry says 'No Standards Please' and come up with EIGHTEEN recommended formats for HDTV. I am not shitting you.
FCC says "Isn't 18 different standards a bit much?"
Industry says "Shut the fuck up FCC, we know what we are doing. The 'market' will handle this!"
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
Industry says "What? We really just want the free bandwidth. You really want us to do HDTV??
Congress says "Fuck you Industry. Broadcast HDTV or we'll legislate your asses back to Sun-day!"
Industry says "We're fucked. 18 formats? Why the hell did we do that? Let's change it."
Consumer Electronics dudes say "You ain't changing shit. We are already building the boxes you said you wanted built."
FCC says "Yah, ya boneheads we told you 18 was too many, now you gotta live with it."
Industry says "Well FCC, will you at least make the cable companies carry the HDTV at no charge?"
Cable companies say "Fuck you! You gotta pay! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
FCC says "Yep, no federal mandated on HDTV must carry, we are letting 'the market' handle that"
Industry says "We are so fucked. We are spending 5-10 million per TV station in hardware alone and have 1000 HDTV viewers per city, even in LA!"
Consumer at home says "Where is my HDTV? Why does it cost so much? Fuck it, I'm sticking with cable/DirecTV."
Consumer electronics dudes, broadcast industry, FCC, and congress all cry. Cable companies laugh and make even bigger profits.
Iraq costs $6 BILLION each month.
--
make install -not war
What measures are in place to ensure the safe environmentally clean disposal of the tens of millions of soon to be useless analog TV's in your country?
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Three billion dollars is only a drop in the bucket to what the campaign contributions will be. Despite anything that can be said about this program, its ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
First, there is the money raised by auctioning RF spectrum licenses.
Second, there is the fact that all will be digital at that time, and someone has to get distribution pork.
Third, MS and others are already lining the politicians pockets to make everything come out on their side.
We (the USA), as a nation (if not a larger audience), have failed miserably to trace where the money will be going. This 'subsidy' of HDTV set top tuners is nothing more than the low hanging fruit on a very large and prolific tree. Currently, the rule of the land is that when this happens, cable companies will not have to share thier pipe to your house with anyone else. This is supposed to foster more competative and wireless services. Fiber, cable, DSL, and broadcast mediums will have to work hard to keep up with new broadband all-IP services. EVERYONE will have to have a new set-top tuner box... This 3 billion is for the people in mobile homes in deepest darkest Arkansas and such places, who will not pay for a new HDTV set to get three local channels and PBS.
What is at stake is a very big pie, and everyone wants one or more of the pieces: Digital movies on demand 24/7, digital music on demand 24/7, IP radio and television, mobile IPTV and radio, VoIP calling with both mobile and fixed, and the list literally goes on for hours.
As soon as there is a huge ubiquitous (I dislike that word) IP network, we can begin offering services like your fridge that keeps the shopping list up to date, emails it to you at the grocery store on your PDA, or automatically enters it to the local grocer and a high school kid shows up with the groceries at your door at 5:15 p.m. That is just one scenario, and there are thousands more.
The real issue is who will be selling you those services? If you have comcast cable, you can bet they will offer them, but so will your wireless carrier, and the WiMax network provider and the WiFi provider, and it will be worse than you can imagine for billing and value for services rendered. Can you imagine a refridgerator that is only compatible with Comcast? or worse, AOL?
What is happening in the news currently is only the tip of the iceburg, and I'm talking about one much larger than sank the Titanic!
I'm sorely hoping that F/OSS has a strong hand of guidance on how such services are offered and how they are compatible. All this DRM @!#$@$% is far more dangerous to your future health than you have yet thought of, because more than music and movies is involved. I am hoping that the F/OSS community has such things in the scope of where their development efforts are going. I know that MS and others already have this on their radar scopes.
--
Every so often in history, it appears that someone from the future has come back to tell us something. Did Linus return to fix the future?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
From the article;
"The subsidy program would be paid for by money raised from the auction of the analog spectrum the broadcasters are vacating."
"The sale of the analog spectrum is expected to raise at least $10 billion. Besides the $3 billion for converter boxes, the Senate bill proposes reserving $1 billion for public safety to buy new radio communications equipment and $250 million for a national alert system. Another $5 billion would be set aside for debt reduction."
Now can we get back to our regular dose of Google/iPod stories?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
I'm a broke SOB that's still using the same TV that I've had for 15 years. It's missing the power button, the remote's battery door is held on with electrical tape, and I doubt I will replace it any time soon. Why? Because I have more important things to spend my measly pittance on. Particularly, food, power, transportation, etc. Ya know, things which relate to not dying.
I'm glad the government is concerned that I won't get my daily fix of White House talking points, commercials for boner pills, and HiDef Every Body Love Raymond reruns. Yet, there are other concerns in my life that could probably benefit from 3 billion dollars. In particular - the local trailer park, I mean high school, could use a little love. Four permanent walls and some sort of roof-ish thing would be nice.
Or, at the very least, I hear we suffered a wee bit of storm damage in the gulf coast, and there's also that whole "war" thing.
But, who knows. Ray Romano in HD. Perhaps the digital signal will allow me to understand why that show is funny.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
This is necessary to hold the country together. Imagine the economic turmoil that would result if millions upon millions of people were to decide that $50 is too much to pay to continue watching TV and dump their boxes instead? All those souls, no longer absorbing advertisements? The reduction in impulse buying could throw us into another depression!
Were the MPAA asleep at the wheel? Or just too coked up to notice that the perfect bill to tag a broadcast flag rider on just slipped past them? I mean, if congress is handing out subsidies, doesn't the MPAA deserve one too?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
ummm...you do realise that the radio is not a free service.
Radio is paid for through advestising.
If a company wishes to charge you for using their service then they have the right to.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
I'm already waaaay ahead of you, my friend. My idea is better...I got rid of my television outright.
Last year, I sold my NTSC television (36" Sony Trinitron) on eBay for $200 with pedestal. I figure I was out about $1000 over the 6 years I owned it.
Guess what I did next?
Wrong. I didn't replace it. My wife and I have no television. No ads. None of the soundbytes. No cable bill. No TiVo bill. No MythTV Mayhem. No equipment to keep thinking about upgrading. No worries about the broadcast flag. Nobody trying to push my buttons over the screen.
All that and more free space in my living room for the couch.
The funny thing is...we don't really miss TV and that gives us time to pursue other things. We'll catch a glimse of a show or a movie on the tube if we're out with friends or whatnot, but that's about it. Even then, most of the time we just turn the thing off.
We have survived our first year without a television in the house (as of 10/10!) and our lives have become much more enriched as a result.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
Welcome to America. You must be new here. EVERYTHING Congress (and the executive branch, as well) does is done as favors to big business. That's what pays for their campaigns and they don't forget it.
(Coming soon, the judicial branch too! Hooray cronyism!)
Yes, in case it's not obvious, I'm with the O.P. on this one.
Yeah, they might even rush out and buy a ton of books. Or hold conversations with their family members around the dinner table.
Sign me up, I'm converted.
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
Amen, brother. When I went to college in 1980 I couldn't afford a TV of my own (I recall them being expensive, $300 in 1980 dollars, and besides since I left a girl back home I had to save all my dough to spend on phone bills). So I just stopped watching it. Haven't since. Not a "statement" or moral choice -- just never found enough time or desire, I suppose.
So that'll be 25 years without watching the tube come September. Only problem is the odd looks when I completely miss TV-culture references. Like Mr. or Dr. Steinfeld and some show about friends ("Friends"?). Means nothing to me. Nor have I seen any "Star Trek" shows since the original, although I do understand that there are about eleventy-two subvarieties of it now, with talking robots and stuff.
I've considered explaining I've just returned from twenty years in the Australian outback, but I can't do the accent.
The article summary says:
This is simply not the case. If you read the FCC's FAQ on the subject of digital television (which is what this is about, incidentally -- the FCC is mandating digital, but not high-def, which is only part of digital), you will see this:
This means that the new digital channels are being assigned to 6 MHz channels within the existing analog TV spectrum. In other words, they are just shuffling things around within the same spectrum. Analog TV is 6 MHz for one channel, and so is digital. (Digital can have subchannels, but that is part of the protocol, not something the FCC worries about after they've assigned the 6 MHz bandwidth to a TV station.)
So, are they actually taking away any of the analog spectrum? Yes, they are taking part of it away -- a very small part. They are taking away channels 52-69. The FCC's FAQ says this:
Translation: they are going to try to eventually move every channel which is in the 52-69 range down into the 2-51 range. They are leaving 2-51 available for television, and they are trying to reclaim 52-69.
So, is this a good thing? Well, how many TV stations do you know of that are in the 52-69 range right now? There are very few. It's a part of the spectrum that isn't used for TV much right now as it is anyway. So in a way, the FCC is basically taking this opportunity to clean out this little-used part of the spectrum.
If you want to go into a little more detail, check out this Adobe PDF spectrum chart. Look at the 300MHz-3GHz line, and look at the "TV BROADCASTING" section after the one that denotes channels 21-36. You'll see that it goes from 614Mhz to 698MHz, and since all TV channels are 6 MHz bandwidth, that means 84/6 = 14 channels. This means it goes with channels 37-50 (the next 14 channels after 21-36). And then look after that on the chart. You'll see that 698MHz through 806MHz is allocated for "BROADCAST" but also for "FIXED" and "MOBILE" purposes. So apparently it's not 100% dedicated to television right now. So the FCC is right to say that range (channels 50 and higher) is not part of the "core" spectrum.
Anyway, even if you don't agree that we should give up the part of 52-69 that is allocated to television (because apparently not all of it is), it's still important to note that the FCC is not auctioning off ALL of the analog TV spectrum. Actually, there are 68 channels total, and it would seem they are only auctioning off 18 of them, and part of those 18 channels aren't even allocated to TV in certain areas right now, so it's less than 18 channels. So, at worst, they are auctioning off 18/68 = 26.5% of the analog TV spectrum, and they are leaving exactly 50 broadcast television channels available.
In other news, statistics are up 360%.
Maybe the important question is: what will the 'net look like in 2009? What if downloading movies from the 'net goes legit? What if the production studios start shipping TV episodes out over the 'net? By four years from now people might be more likely to install a big LCD screen, a fast computer with a giant disk drive, and a broadband connection in their living room than a digital TV. I mean, there are already broad swathes of suburbia at least where I live (Southern California) where TV radio signals go for miles without being intercepted by so much as a single antenna, 'cause it all comes in by coax already.
Frankly, if you think about it, the idea of getting signals from one fixed location (the studio) to another (your home) over the air seems silly. That's a job for a wire. Save the airwaves for situations, like mobile communications, where you can't be dragging a wire around.
Christ, and no one has sold the broadcast rights to it yet? What kind of screw-ups are running this war? Have they even lined up sponsors? Auctioned off the stuffed toy and Happy Meal(TM) tie-in rights? I'm so depressed.
"Yeah, they might even rush out and buy a ton of books. Or hold conversations with their family members around the dinner table. Sign me up, I'm converted."
I hear ya, man. I'd love it if I could make everybody conform to my standard of living.
"Derp de derp."
Considering what's on TV, paying me $3 billion dollars isn't enough to get me to watch more televesion.
If you're reading this, stop it.
You have a choice. Vote. Or run yourself and quit bitching.
I think he was being sarcastic.
But who you should really be criticizing is the government! Their lifestyle is to be paid off by media companies to make sure you see ads and continue to SHOP SHOP SHOP. So they're making sure that you have a boob tube to deliver ads right to your house. The media companies win, and then the politicians get more bribes.
All for forcing their lifestyle on you.
(If they want that so badly, why can't they finance this out of their "contribution" fund? I want my taxes to do something good, not make people dumber. I don't even own a TV to begin with...)
My other car is first.
Chief Wiggum lifts covers of the bed and peers under
Wiggum: Well I'll be damned!
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Analog TV will be phased out in 2006 here in the Netherlands...
Politicians make such decisions here with only a couple of months leadtime.
Some statistics showed that only about 70.000 families are still watching the analog TV network, it costs some 15 million euro per year to keep it running, government needs 15 million euro for some other purpose, so the network will be switched off next year.
(it is still unclear if this will happen all at once on Jan 1st, and if there will be subsidies to buy digital receiving equipment)
I got something to say:
This is some scary shit. Republicans always hid behind the "small government and uninhibitted trade" arguement, but for at least the past 20 years, it's been total bullshit. Now, we've found a way to do something that's effectively the opposite of communism: tax the people in order to pay the businesses. Yea, $3 billion from the government to the people! That money doesn't come out of thin air, the comes out of our taxes. So this redistribution is in such a way that will guarentee that people continue to buy televisions. So, in the ecconomic scheme, where does all that money end up? In the hands of big businesses like Phillips, Sony, Magnavox, etc. [Public -> Government -> Public (specifically to buy item) -> Phillips/Sony/Magnavox]; or to put it in short form: [Public -> Phillips/Sony/Magnavox] through government redistrobution. IE: money taken from lower, middle, and upper classes, and given to the upper classes, most of which will NOT trickle down. Any fool can see that the effect of this is a widening of the income gap and nothing else. The current income gap is the worst it's ever been in US history. We have a deficit that MY grandchildren (I'm 24) will still have even if we were to start paying it off now. BTW: most TV manufacturers are located in Japan, and probably very soon, China. Great, so lets just create more reasons to send all of our money out of our ecconomy, WOO HOO!
I remember hearing in a world history class about a state that started throwing money at people for luxuries like theatrical events, public executions, and other feel-good services, in order to take the common folks' attention away from the people who were dieing in the streets. Oh yeah, that was the Roman Empire just before its total collapse. The similarity is uncanny: Katrina destroys New Orlands, leaving a thousand dead, and hundreds of thousands homeless; public opinion of the government falls; government throws luxury items at the people to keep them quiet, fat and happy so they wont notice that their neighbors down at the local shelter are starving, and their children are coming home in body bags. This is truly history repeating itself.
Bush made this big speech about how we were going to do "what it takes" to stabilize the victims of Katrina. The question was asked, "where do we get that money from?" Since then we've increased military spending, cut funding to programs benefiting the very poor we're trying to help, expect to lower taxes, and have been unable to come up with any way of doing "what it takes", and now they want to put $3 billion into increasing TV reception! Ted Stevens, my [Alaska's] great senator who is the spokesman for this television bill, is the same guy who just yesterday, in a dramatic, teary-eyed sherade, threatened to quit if congress removed funding for two worthless multi-billion dollar bridges in the transportation bill. I'll tell ya, I live in Alaska, those bridges are a JOKE: one connects a 150 person village to an air strip (noble cause, sure, but the village itself didn't even ask for it or even care!), the other bridge lessons the commute time from Anchorage to an UNINHABITED region across the bay--guess whose friends own all the property in that area, expecting future developement? Go to hell, Ted Stevens!
Meanwhile, Don Young, our lone house representative, when explained that a majority of Alaskans were in favor of giving the bridges back, exclaimed, "They [Alaskans] can all kiss my ear!". This guy's been in for 20+ years, nothing will bring him down. If Young asks his voters to suck his cock, they all just get on their knees; I hate my state.Sorry this got off topic, I'm just incredibly jaded by this and all the events that have lead up to this.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Without delving too deeply into the technology of it all, an analog TV transmission takes up a massive width of spectrum--a digitally compressed television signal takes up a comparatively miniscule width, leaving all the left over space between channels free for the government to auction. Addressing the original topic--the air waves are owned by all of us, collectively. If our government wants to sell some of the spectrum previously allotted for our use, It makes sense to me that some of the profits would come back to us. Of course their motives are purely selfish, but the result is fine by me.
You do know that HDTV is just a subset of Digital TV right? Shows can still be broadcast digitally in standard definition while saving a signficant amout of bandwidth over the analog broadcasting of the same shows.
I don't believe that the government should subsidize the switch over to digital TV. I also don't believe that consumers should pay.
I think the quickest way to create a revolution in America is to cut people off from television and alchohol. Given that, I can see why the government is willing to pay to make sure nobody "leaves the matrix" in the process of converting over to digital television. They do not want people to be free from their opiates, their distractions. If they get free from them they might have time to think and then to get upset over what a crappy job the government is doing.
I think advertisers should pay for the switch to digital tv. Our economy is driven by consumerism and consumerism is inspired, mostly, by television commericals with coporations being the beneficiaries. If someone can't afford a digital TV setup than they can't see corporate America's propaganda and they will buy fewer things they do not need. Coproate America loses money.
Corporate American pays for television shows to be created so people will see their commercials and buy their products.
Why should the consumer either through their tax dollars or their net income pay to have someone else's advertisements to be beemed into their heads?
Let the people who make the profits pay the costs
The conversation around the dinner table thing only works until you find out that your son is gay, your daughter a democrat, and your wife cares about black people.
When TV gets turns off, expect a jump in the domestic violence rate.
You know, I remember the day when I could get a clear picture from my tv. No snow, good sound and no worries. Now it's nearly impossible to watch it because of the jagged cubist style picture quality, the picture freezes as the digital signal buffers or whatever the hell it does, the sound doing the same thing. It is impossible to watch and enjoy a concert on TV now with the annoying sound dropping out but since it's digital it drops out clean! Wow, thank you so very much for that. The picture and sound quality sucks big time especially on those channels pronouncing how modern and up to date they are with their digital signals - good commercials for a crappy product. Oh, and if there is something on tv that I even enjoy a little bit I have to wait for the DVD to come out to actually enjoy it. The bottom third of the screen has the pop up advertisements for the next show, the shows coming in the next month or year and the damn ads move and explode and are just as annoying as hell. Yes indeed, I wish the government would have just stayed with the original date for the 'switch over' so the authors of this crap would be closer to the blowback and outrage that will surely come to them.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Why do you blow $50+/month on cable?
While one certainly is stuck with the dollar value/channel, there must be some nugget of a program that is justifying your $50+/month expenditure.
I don't pay $50+/month for shit. You are the biggest loser.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Yeah, they might even rush out and buy a ton of books. Or hold conversations with their family members around the dinner table.
Books and conversations produce independent thought. I think the politicians know exactly what they are doing -- maintaining status quo. People in their alpha wave zone in front of the TV being shown things like the play by play on the "war on terror", or the next plague of the week that kills 800 people in China or a couple of birds, and of course the required car advertisement that is aired at every commercial break between 6 and 11 PM.
If it were me, I would be willing to pay much more than $3 billion of somebody else's money to keep them quiet.
If they want that so badly, why can't they finance this out of their "contribution" fund?
Because corporations will externalize any cost they can. The bill for getting lobbyists to convince Congress to approve a $3,000,000,000 TV subsidy out of the government's (read: the American people's) pockets probably comes out to a lot less than $3,000,000,000.
Umm, actually, it pretty much is. Major empires fall rather reguarly.
Just within the 20th century, we had the English, Germans, and the Soviets, so pretty much every generation got to see a major empire fall. Albiet the English fall was rather anti-climatic.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
The most basic difference for most Kerry voters, I think, was not what would be done but what had been done. It's actually not unreasonable for Kerry to have chosen to stay in Iraq; it's a mess that the US made and which arguable we should try to clean up after ourselves. If we didn't, future deaths resulting from a civil war in Iraq would be blamed on us (not to mention a potential new safe haven for al Qaeda).
But the difference is that Bush HAD gone into a war, under what many prospective Kerry voters considered false pretenses, and for that he deserved to lose his office, even if his policies for the future were exactly identical to Kerry's.
For example, Kerry might have been able to get foreign assistance in Iraq, not because his policies were better than Bush's, but because for many countries the answer would be an automatic "No" to Bush. They'd say Bush had brought it on himself, whereas Kerry would be trying to fix a situation he inherited. That's not a guarantee, but there was no hope of any world support under Bush.
Actually, that's not even the most basic difference. The most basic difference is in the Supreme Court. It was obvious that Bush would appoint at least one new Supreme Court justice, and that he would almost certainly chose an anti-Roe nominee, whereas Kerry would almost certainly chose a pro-Roe nominee. The way it turned out was somewhat more complicated, but at the time both sets of voters may have had abortion (and other things that the Supreme Court weighs in on) at the front of their minds.
There were numerous other policy differences: privatization of social security, concerns over Bush's pro-business style (in particular, the energy policy for which many Democrats feel Bush should be punished), environmental policies.
I'm not trying to debate what should be done in Iraq, or to favor one candidate or the other. I'm just saying that the presence of similarities between the two doesn't mean that there weren't also differences.
But one last bone I'll pick: not all senators are there to sponsor legislation. An awful lot of work goes on in Congress that doesn't get names on bills. The details of the bills are where serious work gets done, not in the overall thrust. A President is as much a negotiator as a policymaker, and being good at those back-room skills getting bills actually passed is at least as important as initiating legislation. John McCain, for example, is more respected for his ability to make the resulting legislation reasonable than for the bills that he himself has sponsored.
Again, I'm not using this to comment on the election itself or take a stand on who you should have voted for. I'm just saying that if you're not seeing any differences, and you're not seeing Kerry's accomplishments, then you need to look more closely.
"I wish fewer people would vote. Imagine what this country would be like if only people who understood the ramifications of their actions voted. I can guarantee that any person with a brain that watched the presidential debates would not have voted for Bush, but he still won. Why? Because people are too fucking stupid to vote."
Those people who voted for Bush knew exactly what they were voting for. Calling them stupid makes you appear stupid for not understanding that these people actually agree with Bush's agenda.
Vote for Pedro