"Barbie, I'm scared. Daddy is hurting mommy again. Now mommy fell asleep on the floor and I can't wake her up."
"Barbie, why does Daddy stick needles in his arm?
"Barbie, how come my Daddy touches me so much?"
First, see what sort of responses you get. Then wait to see if the cops magically show up at your house. Five bucks says there ends up being a big scandal surrounding this 'toy'.
Re:I don't think that term means what you think it
on
Barbie Gets a Brain
·
· Score: 1
Apparently you've never watched a single episode of Pinky and the Brain.
..and make yourself invisible, if possible. Stay away from forums, never use your real information, avoid so-called 'social media'. So far as 'recovery' is concerned: They'll get bored before too long, so long as you don't 'feed the trolls'. Don't respond to them. If you're being threatened in real life or your property is being damaged, then involve the police. Otherwise just ignore it and it'll stop on it's own.
The kid never claimed to have 'invented' anything, or that he'd even built the clock from scratch, he came right out and said that he'd thrown it together in 20 minutes out of junk parts, to take to school with him, to show his teachers what he was capable of; but of course once the media (not to mention the public) got hold of the whole thing, the story started getting distorted very quickly. What we have here is a 14-year-old boy who did something as ill-advised and devoid of forethought for possible consequences as any other 14-year-old boy might have done; he never considered that some dumb adults at his school would freak out because they have no understanding of what they were actually looking at. I'll bet that if he had told his folks he was going to take that to school with him, and showed it to them, they might have told him it wasn't a great idea simply because something like this would happen.
Today's post 9/11 world is a dangerous one, where terrorist evildoers looking to exploit and destroy the free society we have.
Nice way to spread more Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt there, buddy.
I'm ok with a few innocent people being inconvenienced for my safety and my family's safety
I'm OK with you getting modded down to "-1, Troll" for posting such verbal diarrhea. Know what's really ruining 'the free society we have'? It's not suicide bombers and gunmen screaming 'allahu akbar!', it's people like you who keep spouting bullshit like this. In an ideal United States, there is, of course, going to be potential for abuse, and that unfortunately includes some whack-jobs with guns and bombs. The solution to that problem is NOT 'throw the baby out with the bathwater', however; turning the United States into a Police State is exactly what the extremists want!
Uh... I think you responded to my comment when you thought you were responding to someone else, because I can't make heads or tails out of what you said in the context of what I said; I'm saying that it's irrelevant whether they're telling you they're going to collect and sell data about their users, they shouldn't be doing it at all, and if they need money then they should just start charging for their software instead. Don't know about whoever it was you intended to respond to, but I don't cry when something I was getting for 'free' isn't free anymore, beyond a literal 5 seconds of thinking 'aw, that sucks!', after which I move on. To reinterate my position on their choice of action: I think it's inappropriate for them to be even collecting data on their users, let alone selling that data, as an antivirus/antimalware company. It's like a pharmacy selling cigarettes (sorry, best analogy I can come up with at 6:35am on a Sunday morning; {insert better analogy here}).
Also, know what I was doing at 14 years old? Taking the original COSMAC Elf microcomputer trainer from the 1976 Popular Electronics article, designing and building a RAM expansion, adding an integer BASIC-in-ROM to it, designing and building a serial interface and RS232-to-20ma current-loop interface, and repairing a Teletype model 33ASR I got for free from one of the local highschools that was throwing it out, and writing software on the whole monstrosity. In this day and age a 14 year old freshman in highschool can spend $20 for an Arduino, add some 7-segment displays to it, and write alarm clock software to run on it -- assuming they aren't a little bit ahead of the curve, and are designing alarm clocks in FPGAs or some other programmable logic. Taking apart an existing alarm clock without destroying it isn't bad, but it's a little behind the curve. Kid's got potential, though, many of his contemporaries wouldn't even get that far without wrecking the thing, so hopefully this sad incident won't deter him from his interests in electronics.
On the contrary, I think extremely fast transport is a great idea, as my comment suggested, but resurrecting decades old technology in an era where fuel efficiency and a need to protect the environment is extremely important for the future of all mankind is just plain irresponsible, especially when there are better technologies available that would put the Concorde to shame. By all means, redesign the Concorde using current technology, as I said in my comment. I think it would be great. But since you're not actually reading my comment, or more to the point, intentionally ignoring the content of my comment, I'm afraid you're just another shitty, garden-variety troll, trying to stir shit up for no reason other than to stir shit up. My recommendation to you: Bugger off. Just ignoring what people are saying is shit-tier trolling at best; you're just embarassing yourself.
Since you're not doing what I'd consider typical on the Internet (that is to say, insulting me), and instead you're providing information, I thought I'd let you know that your comment has not gone unnoticed by myself, I just need a chunk of free time to sit down and read through the material before I'll have anything intelligent to say about it.
The Concorde, while amazing in it's day, is literally and antique now, and while making one into a museum is an OK idea, putting one back into regular service is irresponsible at best, criminal at worst. Terribly fuel-inefficient, highly polluting. If they want to re-design and retrofit it with cutting-edge technology, then that's different, but I'd suspect that by the time you did all that, you may as well just design an entire aircraft from scratch and have it produced. Get Elon Musk (or someone similar) involved with it.
You're right; my first reaction to reading this was "Hmm, I don't use AVG right now, but I'm sure as hell not going to use it in the future, or recommend it to anyone for any reason". What they're doing is, in my opinion, not appropriate for an antivirus/antimalware producer to be doing, since they're operating like malware. What they should be doing, is to start charging for their software, if they're short of money. Let the market decide whether or not their product is good enough to pay for. If it's not then they'll just have to improve it. If they can't then they die off, simple as that. If it's a matter of marketing, then get someone with better marketing game to get a better market share for their product. But otherwise, 'epic fail'? Hell yes it is!
Friend, I've been in one too many 'discussions' (read as: violent, pointless, online arguments) on this subject to ever want to get in one with someone ever again. You do what you feel works best for you, and please allow my opinion to stand as-is, with the understanding that it in no way, shape, or form, is intended to demean, degrade, or invalidate you or your own life-experiences. We good?
Ironically, from the looks of the photo, he didn't even really 'build' it, he pulled it out of whatever casing it originally was in, and mounted it in that briefcase. Not trying to be mean to the kid (because the school staff and police were wrong and were big jerks) but I would have been more impressed if he'd actually built a digital clock from scratch.
I don't think all of which you refer to is 'pseudo scientific asshattery' (although some of it is, and a fair chunk of that is just garden-variety Internet trolls being trolls), I think that many are either young enough to not know anything other than what HMO doctors and the media have told them is 'true', and the ones that aren't young are either uninformed/misinformed, or they actually think that all doctors are near-omniscient beings (i.e., what they say is Word Of God). Honestly, if I'd've always believed and done every last thing that came out of some doctors' mouth, I'd be in rather poor shape right now, I think; there are 'doctors', then there are 'Doctors', if you get my drift. Let the patient beware!;-)
..OK, I agree in part with what you're saying. However much I believe that these conditions (depression, ADD/ADHD) are real, I also believe that two factors have contributed greatly towards the proliferation of medications to 'treat' them: One, it makes the pharma-industrial complex loads of profit. Two, the bean counters that de-facto run the healthcare industry love the stuff, because it's far cheaper than cognitive therapy to teach people to fix their own problems.
By the way, ADD/ADHD are not just 'boy' conditions, I've known at least one female who had them as well, and in her case, she wasn't able to cope with day-to-day life anywhere near as well before Adderall. Myself I was diagnosed with ADHD as an adult -- but by that time I'd developed so many coping mechanisms that medication really didn't need to be used; it did, however, answer lots and lots of questions about how an why thigns happened for me over the course of my life -- knowledge which I applied to my already-existing coping mechanisms to further refine them. Once you understand ADD/ADHD, you realize that you can leverage it into an advantage in your life instead of something that holds you back.
Anyway.. used to suffer from depression also (in part a side effect of dealing with ADHD). Learning to address the actual problems instead of 'putting a band-aid' on them with medication proved to be far more effective, but much more work initially; regardless I'm an advocate of cognitive therapy in one form or another far more than I am of medication, which in my opinion should be used only on a short-term basis while you're learning to deal with what's bothering you.
No doubt, I'll get lots and lots of heat for daring to voice my experience and opinions on this subject. I don't care. There are better long-term ways to deal with these problems than being on medication the rest of your life, and I feel people need to know this. There are rare exceptions, of course, where medication is the only way to keep someone from destroying themselves, and I acknowledge that here, too. But anyone that says medication is the only way to deal with these problems has been brainwashed into believing that.
They've put a financial gun to your head because they want to find out where you'll give that money to. Do try to keep up
That's circular logic. Are you not a U.S. citizen? We are not given any real choice, now: it's either pay for health insurance (whether you want it, need it, or not) or pay a penalty on your annual income taxes. Being forced is not the same as having a real choice!
I admit I'm still confused about what you think the business community will have the power to do.
Again, it seems like you aren't a citizen of the U.S.. Corporate America has much lobbying power, and lots of money to throw around to get things done they want done. If every adult in the U.S. started receiving $24,000 tax-free from the federal government annually, corporate America would lobby like the damned to have minimum wage laws repealed across the board (if that wasn't already part of the deal anyway). In my opinion they'd cut wages to the point where (to borrow a Blackjack term) it would be a 'push'; people would have the same amount of money they had before they started getting 'free money'. Meanwhile corporate profits would soar because of smaller overhead from reduced salaries.
I'm sorry, but so far, in numerous threads of conversation on this topic I'm involved in, nobody has come up with any explanation of how this would work that makes a lick of sense to me; I still think it would end in a gigantic disaster, possibly wrecking the U.S. economy in the process. And, again, for the 1,000th time today: If there is so much 'free money' floating around the government, then why are we, as a nation, trillions of dollars in debt to foreign countries? Common sense dictates that the debt should be paid down if there's a surplus somewhere. What sort of fool goes around buying luxury items and wasting their cash on foolishness when their credit cards are maxed out? You pay your debts first, then play when you're in the black. Simple.
Not liking what I have to say doesn't make me a 'troll', you retarded primates, and you're NOT going to prevent me from speaking my mind, EVER, so GIVE IT UP!
because these people would be freer to quit if they didn't get a raise
Let me be more specific about what I think the business community would do: They'd lower wages down to the point where it would be a 'push': Everyone would be exactly where they are before the 'free money' was implemented, so the poor would still be poor, but the bottom line for corporate America would be higher, so the rich would get richer. It would change nothing, that's what I think would happen.
You pay for health insurance because the government wants to find out where you'll give that money to
No. I pay it because they've put a financial GUN to my head and are forcing me to pay, whether I want to or not! I pay a couple hundred dollars a month for shit health insurance that I never even use that doesn't even pay for the one or two things that I need it to, and that's money I could be spending on the REAL things that keep me healthy; doctors and pills don't keep me healthy, being active and buying healthy food is what keeps me healthy, and the government made it more difficult for me to do that! So don't act like I was given a choice in that.
Higher taxes might need to be levied on corporations, stocks, capital gains, etc. but if you're not part of the 1% who cares, and if you are, then who cares. More people with money means more people consuming products. This is why "trickle down" has never worked as an economic theory.
See? Right there: It's not 'free money'. You're going to tax someone more because they make more money, so you can give that money to someone else? That's not 'free money', that sounds more like welfare to me. Guess what else? Since I make more than the poverty level (~$50000 a year is what I make right now) they'd probably tax ME higher regardless of not being part of 'the 1%'.
Basically everything you said in your comment is either blue-sky/rose-colored-glasses thinking, or just confirms everything I already thought about something like this: It's nonsense, there is no 'free money'. Also unlike car insurance, some of us don't need health insurance so much; I'm not obese, I don't eat garbage food, I don't sit on my ass and get weak and diseased, and rarely if ever go to the doctor for anything; I'm middle-aged, genuinely an athlete (if amateur -- I work a day job) and yet I'm forced to pay for health insurance that I don't even use. Not the same thing at all. Oh and for sure businesses would lower wages since people get 'free money', and everything would self-regulate back down to exactly where things stand right now: poor people would still be poor, rich people would still be rich, corporate America would still do whatever it takes to raise their bottom line, mainly by cutting wages since people get so-called 'free money'. My advice to you is to not quit your day job, friend, because there won't being any $2000 checks from the government in your mailbox anytime soon, or ever. It's just an incredibly unrealistic idea, and I haven't read anything from anyone yet that convinces me it's even remotely feasible. Also as I've said repeatedly now, if there is all this money floating around then pay the National Debt with it!
I shoudn't have even mentioned 'socialism', now nobody is taking me seriously..
Want to know what I think will happen if they did this? Business would lower wages so the whole thing self-regulates back down to exactly where we are right now, the status-quo. It would do NOTHING useful. If there is all this 'free money' floating around then use it to pay the national debt first, then worry about trying to create a utopia where nobody has to work if they don't want to. But I just don't see it happening without it being 'bread a circuses', which is what this smells like to me.
If you assume $24000 per year per adult, that's what this would cost. Are there government services and other income sources paying citizens that would be eliminted? Someone please provide an estimate of those to subtract from the $6.2T..
I, for one, would love to prevent desperation, crime, and abuse by paying losers to sit at home playing xbox and smoking weed staying out of my way and off of the streets..
Sure. Who wouldn't? But here's the thing: The only way it works is if everybody, without exception, gets the same amount of money. WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I just don't see it happening, and as I've said in anothe comment, I'd sooner that things like the National Debt be paid off first. If you're out buying toys and luxuries with your paycheck when your credit cards are maxed out, then you're really not being very smart!
For starters, I'd prefer that if there is indeed 'free money' floating around the government (a concept which I have a hard time believing) that they spend it on paying down the National Debt instead of giving it away to people for no reason; otherwise it just feels like 'bread and circuses' if you know what I mean. Secondly, if such a thing were possible and actually done? My first reaction to that is to think employers would start paying people less and/or never give anyone a raise ever again "because you're getting $24000 a year for free from the government". Also, if there's all this 'free money' floating around then why am I paying income tax? Why am I paying a single red cent for health insurance that the government holds a financial gun to my head and forces me to buy, now? If the government is so magically flush with money then these things should be free, it would make no sense whatsoever to pay people cash when you could let them keep their income tax-free and pay for their basic healthcare costs instead. Someone in a comment above was waving a finger at me for 'not reading the article' but I don't see how any verbage in any article is going to explain something that clearly doesn't make any sense to me, as outlined above.
Slashdot Mirror
"Barbie, I'm scared. Daddy is hurting mommy again. Now mommy fell asleep on the floor and I can't wake her up."
"Barbie, why does Daddy stick needles in his arm?
"Barbie, how come my Daddy touches me so much?"
First, see what sort of responses you get. Then wait to see if the cops magically show up at your house.
Five bucks says there ends up being a big scandal surrounding this 'toy'.
Apparently you've never watched a single episode of Pinky and the Brain.
..and make yourself invisible, if possible. Stay away from forums, never use your real information, avoid so-called 'social media'. So far as 'recovery' is concerned: They'll get bored before too long, so long as you don't 'feed the trolls'. Don't respond to them. If you're being threatened in real life or your property is being damaged, then involve the police. Otherwise just ignore it and it'll stop on it's own.
Friend.. read the original news story: http://www.dallasnews.com/news...
The kid never claimed to have 'invented' anything, or that he'd even built the clock from scratch, he came right out and said that he'd thrown it together in 20 minutes out of junk parts, to take to school with him, to show his teachers what he was capable of; but of course once the media (not to mention the public) got hold of the whole thing, the story started getting distorted very quickly. What we have here is a 14-year-old boy who did something as ill-advised and devoid of forethought for possible consequences as any other 14-year-old boy might have done; he never considered that some dumb adults at his school would freak out because they have no understanding of what they were actually looking at. I'll bet that if he had told his folks he was going to take that to school with him, and showed it to them, they might have told him it wasn't a great idea simply because something like this would happen.
Today's post 9/11 world is a dangerous one, where terrorist evildoers looking to exploit and destroy the free society we have.
Nice way to spread more Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt there, buddy.
I'm ok with a few innocent people being inconvenienced for my safety and my family's safety
I'm OK with you getting modded down to "-1, Troll" for posting such verbal diarrhea. Know what's really ruining 'the free society we have'? It's not suicide bombers and gunmen screaming 'allahu akbar!', it's people like you who keep spouting bullshit like this. In an ideal United States, there is, of course, going to be potential for abuse, and that unfortunately includes some whack-jobs with guns and bombs. The solution to that problem is NOT 'throw the baby out with the bathwater', however; turning the United States into a Police State is exactly what the extremists want!
Uh... I think you responded to my comment when you thought you were responding to someone else, because I can't make heads or tails out of what you said in the context of what I said; I'm saying that it's irrelevant whether they're telling you they're going to collect and sell data about their users, they shouldn't be doing it at all, and if they need money then they should just start charging for their software instead. Don't know about whoever it was you intended to respond to, but I don't cry when something I was getting for 'free' isn't free anymore, beyond a literal 5 seconds of thinking 'aw, that sucks!', after which I move on. To reinterate my position on their choice of action: I think it's inappropriate for them to be even collecting data on their users, let alone selling that data, as an antivirus/antimalware company. It's like a pharmacy selling cigarettes (sorry, best analogy I can come up with at 6:35am on a Sunday morning; {insert better analogy here}).
I would have been more impressed..
{emphasis mine}
..not 'I am unimpressed.
Also, know what I was doing at 14 years old? Taking the original COSMAC Elf microcomputer trainer from the 1976 Popular Electronics article, designing and building a RAM expansion, adding an integer BASIC-in-ROM to it, designing and building a serial interface and RS232-to-20ma current-loop interface, and repairing a Teletype model 33ASR I got for free from one of the local highschools that was throwing it out, and writing software on the whole monstrosity. In this day and age a 14 year old freshman in highschool can spend $20 for an Arduino, add some 7-segment displays to it, and write alarm clock software to run on it -- assuming they aren't a little bit ahead of the curve, and are designing alarm clocks in FPGAs or some other programmable logic. Taking apart an existing alarm clock without destroying it isn't bad, but it's a little behind the curve. Kid's got potential, though, many of his contemporaries wouldn't even get that far without wrecking the thing, so hopefully this sad incident won't deter him from his interests in electronics.
On the contrary, I think extremely fast transport is a great idea, as my comment suggested, but resurrecting decades old technology in an era where fuel efficiency and a need to protect the environment is extremely important for the future of all mankind is just plain irresponsible, especially when there are better technologies available that would put the Concorde to shame. By all means, redesign the Concorde using current technology, as I said in my comment. I think it would be great. But since you're not actually reading my comment, or more to the point, intentionally ignoring the content of my comment, I'm afraid you're just another shitty, garden-variety troll, trying to stir shit up for no reason other than to stir shit up. My recommendation to you: Bugger off. Just ignoring what people are saying is shit-tier trolling at best; you're just embarassing yourself.
Since you're not doing what I'd consider typical on the Internet (that is to say, insulting me), and instead you're providing information, I thought I'd let you know that your comment has not gone unnoticed by myself, I just need a chunk of free time to sit down and read through the material before I'll have anything intelligent to say about it.
The Concorde, while amazing in it's day, is literally and antique now, and while making one into a museum is an OK idea, putting one back into regular service is irresponsible at best, criminal at worst. Terribly fuel-inefficient, highly polluting. If they want to re-design and retrofit it with cutting-edge technology, then that's different, but I'd suspect that by the time you did all that, you may as well just design an entire aircraft from scratch and have it produced. Get Elon Musk (or someone similar) involved with it.
You're right; my first reaction to reading this was "Hmm, I don't use AVG right now, but I'm sure as hell not going to use it in the future, or recommend it to anyone for any reason". What they're doing is, in my opinion, not appropriate for an antivirus/antimalware producer to be doing, since they're operating like malware. What they should be doing, is to start charging for their software, if they're short of money. Let the market decide whether or not their product is good enough to pay for. If it's not then they'll just have to improve it. If they can't then they die off, simple as that. If it's a matter of marketing, then get someone with better marketing game to get a better market share for their product. But otherwise, 'epic fail'? Hell yes it is!
Friend, I've been in one too many 'discussions' (read as: violent, pointless, online arguments) on this subject to ever want to get in one with someone ever again. You do what you feel works best for you, and please allow my opinion to stand as-is, with the understanding that it in no way, shape, or form, is intended to demean, degrade, or invalidate you or your own life-experiences. We good?
Ironically, from the looks of the photo, he didn't even really 'build' it, he pulled it out of whatever casing it originally was in, and mounted it in that briefcase. Not trying to be mean to the kid (because the school staff and police were wrong and were big jerks) but I would have been more impressed if he'd actually built a digital clock from scratch.
I don't think all of which you refer to is 'pseudo scientific asshattery' (although some of it is, and a fair chunk of that is just garden-variety Internet trolls being trolls), I think that many are either young enough to not know anything other than what HMO doctors and the media have told them is 'true', and the ones that aren't young are either uninformed/misinformed, or they actually think that all doctors are near-omniscient beings (i.e., what they say is Word Of God). Honestly, if I'd've always believed and done every last thing that came out of some doctors' mouth, I'd be in rather poor shape right now, I think; there are 'doctors', then there are 'Doctors', if you get my drift. Let the patient beware! ;-)
..OK, I agree in part with what you're saying. However much I believe that these conditions (depression, ADD/ADHD) are real, I also believe that two factors have contributed greatly towards the proliferation of medications to 'treat' them: One, it makes the pharma-industrial complex loads of profit. Two, the bean counters that de-facto run the healthcare industry love the stuff, because it's far cheaper than cognitive therapy to teach people to fix their own problems.
By the way, ADD/ADHD are not just 'boy' conditions, I've known at least one female who had them as well, and in her case, she wasn't able to cope with day-to-day life anywhere near as well before Adderall. Myself I was diagnosed with ADHD as an adult -- but by that time I'd developed so many coping mechanisms that medication really didn't need to be used; it did, however, answer lots and lots of questions about how an why thigns happened for me over the course of my life -- knowledge which I applied to my already-existing coping mechanisms to further refine them. Once you understand ADD/ADHD, you realize that you can leverage it into an advantage in your life instead of something that holds you back.
Anyway.. used to suffer from depression also (in part a side effect of dealing with ADHD). Learning to address the actual problems instead of 'putting a band-aid' on them with medication proved to be far more effective, but much more work initially; regardless I'm an advocate of cognitive therapy in one form or another far more than I am of medication, which in my opinion should be used only on a short-term basis while you're learning to deal with what's bothering you.
No doubt, I'll get lots and lots of heat for daring to voice my experience and opinions on this subject. I don't care. There are better long-term ways to deal with these problems than being on medication the rest of your life, and I feel people need to know this. There are rare exceptions, of course, where medication is the only way to keep someone from destroying themselves, and I acknowledge that here, too. But anyone that says medication is the only way to deal with these problems has been brainwashed into believing that.
[[[Bracing for the incoming hate]]]
They've put a financial gun to your head because they want to find out where you'll give that money to. Do try to keep up
That's circular logic. Are you not a U.S. citizen? We are not given any real choice, now: it's either pay for health insurance (whether you want it, need it, or not) or pay a penalty on your annual income taxes. Being forced is not the same as having a real choice!
I admit I'm still confused about what you think the business community will have the power to do.
Again, it seems like you aren't a citizen of the U.S.. Corporate America has much lobbying power, and lots of money to throw around to get things done they want done. If every adult in the U.S. started receiving $24,000 tax-free from the federal government annually, corporate America would lobby like the damned to have minimum wage laws repealed across the board (if that wasn't already part of the deal anyway). In my opinion they'd cut wages to the point where (to borrow a Blackjack term) it would be a 'push'; people would have the same amount of money they had before they started getting 'free money'. Meanwhile corporate profits would soar because of smaller overhead from reduced salaries.
I'm sorry, but so far, in numerous threads of conversation on this topic I'm involved in, nobody has come up with any explanation of how this would work that makes a lick of sense to me; I still think it would end in a gigantic disaster, possibly wrecking the U.S. economy in the process. And, again, for the 1,000th time today: If there is so much 'free money' floating around the government, then why are we, as a nation, trillions of dollars in debt to foreign countries? Common sense dictates that the debt should be paid down if there's a surplus somewhere. What sort of fool goes around buying luxury items and wasting their cash on foolishness when their credit cards are maxed out? You pay your debts first, then play when you're in the black. Simple.
Modded down to '-1, Troll'
Not liking what I have to say doesn't make me a 'troll', you retarded primates, and you're NOT going to prevent me from speaking my mind, EVER, so GIVE IT UP!
because these people would be freer to quit if they didn't get a raise
Let me be more specific about what I think the business community would do: They'd lower wages down to the point where it would be a 'push': Everyone would be exactly where they are before the 'free money' was implemented, so the poor would still be poor, but the bottom line for corporate America would be higher, so the rich would get richer. It would change nothing, that's what I think would happen.
You pay for health insurance because the government wants to find out where you'll give that money to
No. I pay it because they've put a financial GUN to my head and are forcing me to pay, whether I want to or not! I pay a couple hundred dollars a month for shit health insurance that I never even use that doesn't even pay for the one or two things that I need it to, and that's money I could be spending on the REAL things that keep me healthy; doctors and pills don't keep me healthy, being active and buying healthy food is what keeps me healthy, and the government made it more difficult for me to do that! So don't act like I was given a choice in that.
Higher taxes might need to be levied on corporations, stocks, capital gains, etc. but if you're not part of the 1% who cares, and if you are, then who cares. More people with money means more people consuming products. This is why "trickle down" has never worked as an economic theory.
See? Right there: It's not 'free money'. You're going to tax someone more because they make more money, so you can give that money to someone else? That's not 'free money', that sounds more like welfare to me. Guess what else? Since I make more than the poverty level (~$50000 a year is what I make right now) they'd probably tax ME higher regardless of not being part of 'the 1%'.
Basically everything you said in your comment is either blue-sky/rose-colored-glasses thinking, or just confirms everything I already thought about something like this: It's nonsense, there is no 'free money'. Also unlike car insurance, some of us don't need health insurance so much; I'm not obese, I don't eat garbage food, I don't sit on my ass and get weak and diseased, and rarely if ever go to the doctor for anything; I'm middle-aged, genuinely an athlete (if amateur -- I work a day job) and yet I'm forced to pay for health insurance that I don't even use. Not the same thing at all. Oh and for sure businesses would lower wages since people get 'free money', and everything would self-regulate back down to exactly where things stand right now: poor people would still be poor, rich people would still be rich, corporate America would still do whatever it takes to raise their bottom line, mainly by cutting wages since people get so-called 'free money'. My advice to you is to not quit your day job, friend, because there won't being any $2000 checks from the government in your mailbox anytime soon, or ever. It's just an incredibly unrealistic idea, and I haven't read anything from anyone yet that convinces me it's even remotely feasible. Also as I've said repeatedly now, if there is all this money floating around then pay the National Debt with it!
I shoudn't have even mentioned 'socialism', now nobody is taking me seriously..
Want to know what I think will happen if they did this? Business would lower wages so the whole thing self-regulates back down to exactly where we are right now, the status-quo. It would do NOTHING useful. If there is all this 'free money' floating around then use it to pay the national debt first, then worry about trying to create a utopia where nobody has to work if they don't want to. But I just don't see it happening without it being 'bread a circuses', which is what this smells like to me.
If you assume $24000 per year per adult, that's what this would cost. Are there government services and other income sources paying citizens that would be eliminted? Someone please provide an estimate of those to subtract from the $6.2T..
I, for one, would love to prevent desperation, crime, and abuse by paying losers to sit at home playing xbox and smoking weed staying out of my way and off of the streets..
Sure. Who wouldn't? But here's the thing: The only way it works is if everybody, without exception, gets the same amount of money. WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I just don't see it happening, and as I've said in anothe comment, I'd sooner that things like the National Debt be paid off first. If you're out buying toys and luxuries with your paycheck when your credit cards are maxed out, then you're really not being very smart!
For starters, I'd prefer that if there is indeed 'free money' floating around the government (a concept which I have a hard time believing) that they spend it on paying down the National Debt instead of giving it away to people for no reason; otherwise it just feels like 'bread and circuses' if you know what I mean. Secondly, if such a thing were possible and actually done? My first reaction to that is to think employers would start paying people less and/or never give anyone a raise ever again "because you're getting $24000 a year for free from the government". Also, if there's all this 'free money' floating around then why am I paying income tax? Why am I paying a single red cent for health insurance that the government holds a financial gun to my head and forces me to buy, now? If the government is so magically flush with money then these things should be free, it would make no sense whatsoever to pay people cash when you could let them keep their income tax-free and pay for their basic healthcare costs instead. Someone in a comment above was waving a finger at me for 'not reading the article' but I don't see how any verbage in any article is going to explain something that clearly doesn't make any sense to me, as outlined above.
Does this money just magically appear?
This, this, this, THIS, THIS, THIS! Times infinity!
Money does not grow on trees! Just like the ACA, the money has to come from somewhere! This is socialism at it's absolute worst!
Apparently you're not a 'car person'. Nothing Porsche created was ever 'just a car'.