We shall see. Most people don't know really why they're not trusting of innovation in content technology. The advantages of open content though are immediately obvious and so when the content owners open up the content it starts flying out the door.
I truck heavily in the home theater market, and I can categorically state that about 80%-90% of consumers don't even know what BD+ is, much less let it affect their buying decision. They are interested only in the following factors (usually in this order):
1. Price of the player. 2. Availability of titles. 3. Price of titles. 4. Quality versus DVD.
That's it. Rarely if ever will you find anyone who cares at all about anything not on this list.
The average buyer -- which is not, despite popular/. opinion, anything like your average slashdotter -- doesn't give two damns about DRM in the slightest. If they did, would iTunes be the huge consumer-based cash cow that it is? Of course not.
Me? I own a PS3 and use it about 80% of the time for watching Blu-ray movies. I've never once been inconvenienced in the slightest by the DRM. The only thing I might want to do that I can't is format shift. While that's mildly annoying, it's really moot given the huge size of HD content. I could resample at a lower bitrate, resolution, or both, but that would defeat the purpose of having HD in the first place. If I was going to go that route, I'd just DeCSS a DVD and have done with it. But I don't, and it honestly hasn't bothered me at all. Nor has it bothered most of the people I know who have Blu-ray players. They watch their movies at home. They swap them with friends. Some play them on laptops. Nobody that I know of has any idea the DRM is preventing them from doing anything at all...and that's because they're just watching their movies and enjoying them.
Really, I think this whole reaction to DRM is a bit overblown. Yes, I'd much prefer it if it wasn't there, but people make far too much noise about how it's supposed to be preventing them from doing something that they want to do with the disc. As far as I can tell, the DRM is only adversely affecting one group of innocent people, and that's users of open-source operating systems like Linux. You could make a corner case argument that format shifting is also impeded, but I'll again bring up the difficulties of storing hundreds of Blu-ray titles unless you resample, thus devaluing the HD you're trying so hard to get to. But I think the real reason folks are up in arms about DRM is that it prevents them from pirating content. I just wish folks would be honest enough to admit it.
If copying has been made so difficult that the amount of copying is trivial, then why are 1TB SATA drives, 4TB NAS devices and such like moving so fast they don't even shelve them off the skids? Are people making more backups of their photos and email than ever before? Really?
Don't be absurd. For one thing, copying DVD's has been and continues to be incredibly trivial for anyone to do. With your average flick taking up about 8GB-9GB for a dual-layer DVD, you can fill up a 1TB drive pretty fast. And let's not forget Windows and its voracious appetite for gigabytes.
But there's a far less nefarious reason why large drives are selling fast: they are cheap. People usually spend somewhere between $100-$200 on storage. Right now, that will buy you a lot of space if you're not all that concerned about speed. Thus, people buy big drives because it's not noticeably cheaper to buy small drives.
Last, you mention 4TB NAS devices as if every home on the block has one. I can assure you they do not. Such items are hugely popular in businesses but they are next to impossible to find in the common household. You and I may not be common (I have about 8TB online at my home), so citing your own situation hardly validates your point.
The point is, the 'legitimate' (w/ DRM I use that term loosely) doesn't brute the key, and the legitimate software can be watched in action. That means that reverse engineered Free software can be created to do the same thing.
What you say is technically correct but grossly underestimates the complexity and effort involved. BD+ obfuscates itself under layers upon layers of encryption, misdirection, and self-checking for tampering and observation. Admittedly, it is all for naught if you have the time, tools, and knowledge to peel back all that obfuscation and find the real code, real keys, and so forth in operation. But the effort to get to the point where we can bypass BD+ has taken the concerted effort of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of hackers and perhaps 300-500 man-years of time to break. And it's still open to Sony coming back and breaking it dependent upon how desperate Sony wants to be.
Please, try to appreciate a little more the incredible milestone that's just been achieved. It was not even remotely easy to get this far, and we can't even say for sure the journey is finished.
So all you need to do is examine the update and pull the new key out of it.
If you'd think about it for a moment, you'd realize that if it were that easy, BD+ would've been cracked long ago. It wasn't, so clearly it is not "all you need to do."
While Sony is demonstrably stupid in believing DRM cannot be bypassed for at least ten years, they are not stupid enough to send out an update where the new keys can be easily snagged. I'm sure you can get the technical details of why what you propose is folly if you head over to the Doom9 forums. You probably need to read up on the basics of encryption and keys first, though, since your knowledge in this area seems a bit lacking.
Regardless of Moore's bias, those events did happen. ie: They are facts. And as such, prove what i've been saying.
Prove what? That such behavior is systemic and thus everyone, everywhere suffers from it on a regular basis? I'm sure that's what you'd like to believe because it suits your bias. The truth, however, is not in you. Such events are aberrations, not norms -- and that's if this event happened at all. If a person was refused life-saving medical care due to a known condition, the hospital was in the wrong. You know that, I know that. I have a funny feeling some important details -- details that would exonerate the decision maker if not the decision itself -- are being left out. That's par for the course for Michael Moore, although you are apparently willing to swallow anything he says as the Gospel without checking on a damned thing yourself. Typical. Pathetic, but typical.
You've steadfastly refused to disclose any names or other evidence that would allow me to fact check your (or Michael Moore's) assertions about this girl that died. If you can provide me enough information to dig on this, I'll be happy to either (a) say I was wrong, if I find exculpatory information or (b) debunk your claim if I don't. I've Googled incessantly on "Michael Moore", "Sicko", and "child died" and found no names at all.
You do realize that the USA just spent > 10 trillion over in Iraq and Afghanistan right?
Since the entire U.S. military budget hasn't equaled 10 trillion dollars during the entire war, I can only assume you either (a) are as deficient in math skills as you are in discerning reality or (b) you're counting in Yen, not dollars, or (c) you're too stupid to know the difference. I'm betting on C, thus it's rather pointless for me to rebut your similarly-stupid claims further down. It would waste my time and make you look more of a fool than you already do.
If you wish to get educated, correct your figures, and join the rest of us in reality, post a correction saying you were wrong. Then and only then will we continue this conversation. I doubt you will, though. Liberals like yourself are too used to being able to play fast and loose with the truth and get away with it. It completely befuddles you when someone throws little things like documented facts and figures back in your face.
Ah I see, so what you propose is that poor people just die when they get sick, yeah who cares, fuck 'em, they don't deserve what the same rights as us richies!
Truly you have a dizzying intellect. Do you think with that brain, too?
Yes the taxpayer pays. But you know what? It's worth it. It's worth knowing that should I ever be in a bad situation financially and I get sick, I can return to the UK and get free healthcare. Plus, on average, it balances out in the long run. So yes, you may pay for someone breaking their arm one week, but it could be you with cancer the next week, and someone else is paying for you..
Here, let me make a few corrections to your comment. It should read like this:
Yes the high-achieving taxpayer pays far more into the system than they ever take out. But you know what? It's worth it to everyone else who doesn't have to pay anything. It's worth knowing that should I ever be in a bad situation financially and I get sick, I can return to the UK and get my bills paid for by someone else. Plus, on average, it balances out such that a well-to-do person pays for the care of ten people while the low-end taxpayer pays nothing. So yes, the well-to-do will constantly pay for someone breaking their arm one week, but it could be my girlfriend with cancer the next week, and someone else will pay for that instead of me, which is nice since I really want a new iPod instead..
It's quite to read up on many examples of people being denied healthcare based on insurance/ inability to pay. Oh and I live in America, so i'm not coming in on this from no experience at all.
Really? Then I'm sure you've have no difficulty posting your sources of this wondrous information that's somehow eluded me. Please, educate me in the ways of my wrongness! Show me your sources of info so I may be cleansed!
If you want examples of people who are not being treated, who should be, watch sicko, the movie.
Ah! The movies! Ever a source of reliable, unbiased information!
You are aware, I hope, that the director of said movie essentially made a propaganda film aimed specifically at smearing America's medical system, right? This same director thought nothing of selectively editing material, misrepresenting statements, and falsely presenting all manner of things in his 9/11 "documentary." Yes, truly an unbiased, unblemished, unquestionable source of information you chose to be the bastion of your argument.
Bzzt! Try again, preferably with an objective source who doesn't have an axe to grind.
There is a fact that many people with diseases, illnesses, disabilities cannot afford medication and care in this country. This is a FACT. No country in the western world should have this problem, yet the USA, the "richest" country in the world, has people with eminently curable illnesses who are not being treated.
Please cite an example of someone who has an eminently curable, debilitating condition who is being denied basic healthcare in America. Because once you find that person, I want to call them and have them get a lawyer, because that's illegal. You see, anyone, even non-citizens, can go into any hospital in America and receive treatment for any serious ailment, all paid for by the taxpayer. If someone is being denied that, they have a case.
Of course, what's far more likely is you're either making this up, you're ill-informed (or selectively informed by your own bias in choosing sources), or you're just plain mistaken. But please, prove me wrong. You seem to know it all. Show me how wrong I am. Feel free to take pleasure in it. Personally, I don't fear your ability to produce anything of substance at all.
The problem with every free market capitalist solution is the same, the race to the bottom. Every business is compelled to maximize profits, pay as little for labor as they can get away with (screw the employees), charge as much for their product or service as they can get away with (screw the customer), and competition only enforces these two basic rules.
How little you understand what you're talking about. Let's hit your points one by one, shall we?
Every business is compelled to maximize profits
Obviously, as a business that isn't profitable will cease to be a business and start to be a source for unemployment.
pay as little for labor as they can get away with (screw the employees)
Careful, your class warfare rhetoric is showing. Screw the employees? People are free to work wherever they can find work, and they are free to demand whatever wage they think they can get. There is no such thing as "screw the employee." There are employees that allow themselves to be screwed by making poor choices. Then there are those who merely believe they're being screwed because they're too lazy or inept to actually earn what they really want to be paid.
Don't like your job? Get another one. Can't? Learn a more valuable skill. The only limits are those you impose upon yourself. Well, that and whatever limits the All Powerful Government wants to throw in your way due to taxes, regulation, and whatnot.
charge as much for their product or service as they can get away with (screw the customer)
(sigh) This tripe again? There is no such thing as "screw the customer." Customers are free to buy or not buy any goods or services. Don't like the prices? Buy another brand. No other brands with lower prices? Find an alternative to the item in question. No alternatives available? Aha! A business opportunity! Start a business providing the goods or services at a lower cost and people will flock to you. Then you can become one of those horrible, hateful, evil, despicable, nasty, worthless, disgusting Rich People Who Provide Things That People Need. No good deed goes unpunished!
and competition only enforces these two basic rules.
Competition, my dear comrade, enforces one and only one rule: the better option wins. When it ceases to be better, something else steps in to take its place. Competition is what keeps monopolies from charging whatever they want. Competition is what drives two companies to make goods and services better, cheaper, and faster than the other guy or find themselves out of business. Competition is what made an Intel 80486 processor of fifteen years ago be 5,000x slower yet twice as expensive as the Core2 Quad you can buy today. And you want to call that a bad thing, do you?
I'm sure you'd rather live in a country where prices, competition, and access were all rigidly controlled. Sadly, you don't have too many of those left anymore. The Soviets went kaput. The Cuban economy sucks. Venezuela would be bankrupt but for oil flowing to (you guessed it) Capitalist countries able to afford it. France has an epidemic of unemployment. Germany has crushing debt, a stagnant economy, and high unemployment. In fact, about the only place left to go to is North Korea. I hear they are having wonderful bouts of famine and disease due to their planned economy's inability to supply basic needs. The State runs all, and it tolerates none of that evil, filthy, horrid Competition. There are no rich, there are no poor. Everyone is equally happy...or equally miserable, depending upon how you want to look at it. Sounds like your kind of paradise, doesn't it? Comrade?
Also, in England, you will never be denied an operation or access to a hospital depending on your insurance company. It's unthinkable! And quite frankly, also barbaric.
I'm sorry, you wandered off into fantasy land again. You were dreaming of a world where people are somehow denied access to a hospital depending upon their insurance. You see, in the Real World Of America, anyone can wander into any hospital and receive basic or emergency care, with the tab being picked up by taxpayers if you're unable to pay.
Now, I don't expect intellectual honesty out of someone like you who has to fabricate a strawman in order to give weight to an otherwise-weightless argument, but you should at least confine your rantings to that which isn't so easily disproven. Your reputation as one who is able to make a cogent argument is suffering already. Don't make it worse.
In the UK, everyone has equal access to excellent healthcare. If they want private healthcare, they can get that too.
The glaring flaw in your argument is while people all have equal access, they are not paying equally. Those who make more money aren't paying (via taxes) just for their own healthcare, they're paying for someone else's as well. If they make a lot of money, they may be paying for the healthcare of 10, 20, or 100 other people. You liberals are big on fairness. How is it fair that someone else that you don't know and has no relation to you at all is obligated to pay for your healthcare simply because they make more money than you?
Would you consider it fair if I came and took 40% of your paycheck and spent it on a car for myself? Hey, I needed that car more than you needed the money, therefore it should be my "basic right" to have it. You will undoubtedly make the argument that I don't need a care but people need healthcare, but that is immaterial to the argument at hand. That argument is, quite simply, you are taking from one citizen and giving to another citizen without the first citizen's consent. If you tried to do this personally, you'd be arrested and jailed for robbery. But you don't have to do it because you've got the government to do it for you. And you're proud of this arrangement? No wonder the Pilgrims left.
Look at the history of the economy under presidents who believed in "trickle down economics." Inflation adjusted GDPs and jobs grew at a slower amount, and the federal debt increased more quickly.
You're under the misapprehension that the full effects of presidential policies are somehow confined to their terms in office. If you examine the economic effects of Reagan's policies, you'll see they caused huge expansion of the economy. Deficit spending was increased as well, but it was more than offset later by higher tax revenues due to the expanded economy. Of course, when Clinton raised taxes in the 90's, the economy contracted, but only later in his term and extending somewhat into Bush's first term. Likewise, Bush inherited an economy in recession. His tax policies arguably helped, although I'm no fan of his exorbitant spending.
And you don't need to be an economist to know that starting a business -- or an economy -- requires going into debt. Deficits are not bad in and of themselves if used to promote a larger economy.
This didn't even used to be a a Red vs. Blue argument, as Democrat messiah JFK himself was hugely in favor of lower tax cuts. Historical evidence shows that with every tax cut enacted in history, overall tax revenues have grown due to an expanded economy. This question was put to Obama during a debate some months ago. He was asked to justify his tax policy when history showed it would slow the economy and lower tax revenues. His response is that it's only "fair" to do it despite the fact that it will not raise revenues and will not stimulate the economy. In short, his tax policies are not about helping anyone, they're about punishing the haves in order to placate (and get votes from) the have-nots. I can't make it any plainer than that.
Money slowly trickles down from the top, while money flows from the bottom.
No, it does not. Rich people do two things with their money: they invest it or they spend it. If they invest it, it drives growth in businesses. More jobs are created. Wages go up. More people become more affluent. If they spend it, it still drives business growth, jobs growth, and wage growth. What do you think rich folks do with their money? Put in bags in their living room, stare at it, and cackle evilly about how to keep their fellow man downtrodden and poor? Don't delude yourself. Go try and get a job from a lower- or middle-class person. You won't be able to.
The wealth gap in the US and around the world is widening at an alarming rate.
To which I respond: do you make more than anyone else in your neighborhood? My God, it's a wealth inequality! We must fix it! Please go and write a check for half of your income to whoever makes the least in your neighborhood. There! Don't you feel better about yourself? You've just solved the "wealth gap"!
Sarcasm aside, where is it written that it is bad for there to be a wealth gap? Some people will always work harder, do better, and succeed more than others. Those people should be rewarded for it, for that kind of spirit, drive, and innovation is what betters humanity. Would you prefer those people were rewarded the same as those who are slack? Who don't work? Who try as little as possible? Who do the absolute minimum required by their job to avoid being fired? Would you want that kind of person working for you? Would you want your house built by they person? Your car? Would you want that kind of person giving you healthcare? I rest my case.
Exactly how rich do we need our rich and how poor do we need our poor, until everything magically falls together into some sort of wonderful economy?
I've about had it with the poor, poor, pitiful poor comments. "Poor" in America means nothing anymore. Poor Americans have cell phones, cars, color TV's, cable, air conditioning, t
My girlfriend broke her arm some months ago (she has insurance) but some days ago got a bill for 1000 dollars for expenses not covered by her insurance. Price in the UK = Paid for by British Taxpayers.
There, I fixed that for you. You see, you made a simple error of assuming a service can be provided for zero cost. You made that assumption because your girlfriend's medical costs would've been paid for by someone else via taxes. So while it appears to be zero cost to you, it certainly doesn't to someone else.
But hey! Who cares? It's not your money she's spending, so why should you care? After all, you don't know the person that is paying for her broken arm. They don't have anything they'd like to do with the money they earn, so why shouldn't it be spent on your girlfriend's arm? Just think! With the money she saved by not having to pay for her own medical care, she can now go out and buy something that those who paid for her healthcare cannot afford to buy because of taxes. Economic justice! Don't you just love it!
It's always easier to spend other people's money. You should be on the other end of the deal sometime, though. It's not nearly as fun, and it fucking sure isn't free.
Yeah, I remember the horror of the 1980's and 1990's, when US price controls led to a shortage of food.
What price controls are you speaking of? Or are you just making stuff up?
Or perhaps you're referring to subsidies the government hands out to artificially inflate the price of a commodity, such as corn. This didn't cause food shortages, it caused food oversupply, where farmers were paid to not farm, and harvested corn crops were cheaper to let rot than to transport to market. Yeah, that's fantastic government effectiveness in action.
Of course, this doesn't apply to health care, where my Hopkins educated doctor has to work in a hospital where they can afford the multimillion dollar machines to diagnose/treat me.
Which, if there were no demand for such multi-million dollar machines, would not exist. Therefore, demand does exist. Therefore, the price is set at what demand will bear. Fix the price and demand will exceed supply. Normally this would result in hospital equipment vendors ramping up production to meet increased demand, but your price fixing would put a stop to that. Vendors would not build what hospitals could not buy. Thus, demand will be satisfied by...drum roll please...rationing. Need an MRI? Wait six to twelve months and you'll be seen. Got a problem that can't wait that long? Too bad, comrade. Get in line like all the other proles.
I think I'd rather have the government limit me than an unaccountable company.
Of course you would because you've abdicated all semblance of personal responsibility. YOU have the power to choose which health plan you want. Want one that lets you see any doctor you want? No problem, just pay the price for such flexibility and you're right as rain. Can't pay the price? Then get what you can afford. Don't like what you can afford? Make a sacrifice elsewhere in your finances to afford better healthcare. You can't possibly argue that any person in this country with a job can't afford better-than-subsistence-level healthcare if they make that a spending priority. The truth is we Americans spend more on cell phones, beer, satellite TV, fancy cars, lottery tickets, "bling," and Burger King (gotta have it MY WAY!) than we do on healthcare premiums. If we don't have the healthcare we want, we have only ourselves and our spending habits to blame.
But rather than man up and make your own choices, you want the All Powerful Hand Of Government to step in and nanny you. Yep, Barack's your main alright. Or maybe Nader.
And I don't know of any Western society where the socialized plan is not augmented by private consumption.
A nifty but vacuous idea. If socialized medicine is the norm, the amount of money being spent in the medical community will fall drastically. Private care -- which, by the way, would be hugely better than socialized medicine, thus exacerbating the "haves vs. have nots" argument -- would be hugely expensive. Only the super rich would be able to afford private consumption, thus creating a class of super-elites even worse than the "rich" people you currently despise and seek to benefit from.
Of course, Government will not allow this to stand! How could it be just for The Rich to enjoy one level of care while The Great Masses only get the dregs that socialized medicine can provide? Thus we either (a) tax those rich bastards until they're poor like everybody else or (b) we abolish their ability to seek private care. Think it can't happen? Don't delude yourself. Politicians live off class envy like you live off oxygen.
I'll vote for any candidate who can bring America up to the level of the rest of the developed world.
What a pity that the "rest of the developed world" keeps coming here to get its healthcare, then. Because what you propose would inevitably weaken our healthcare system (to say nothing of individual responsibility) to the point that it would be no better than those "developed" nations people are fleeing.
Go ahead. Kill the Golden Goose. In the end, you get the government you deserve. The pity is I have to put up with your folly until it is unequivocally revealed to be such.
I agree. But what if the heart condition is hereditary and you can't afford to pay? Then you have a serious problem.
Yes, you do. Now please explain to me how that obligates me in any way to pay for your healthcare.
Now it may be that I'd happily give to a charity to support healthcare for hereditary heart problems. Hell, I might give more than what the government already takes from me. But if I did, it would be my choice do to so. And I'd give to whomever or whatever I chose, not what the government deems. Because inevitably, the government decides to give it to those who are most likely to vote the politicians back into office.
Do you now use the fire department? The police department? Drive on roads? Send your kids to schools?
Fire, police, and things like roads are one of those things that fall under the "government is a necessary evil" clause. Government still handles such functions inefficiently, sometimes ineffectively, and often inattentively, but they are "collective" services that would be difficult to get going consensus on for pure free-market implementations. Note I said difficult. I did not say impossible.
With respect to schools, I put my kids in private school. This costs me about $1,000/month, and that's on top of what I pay in property taxes so someone else's kids can go to public school. Please explain to me how that is fair? And before you lump me in as some rich fat cat who sends his kids to some elite institution, we are not of that ilk. Instead, we sacrificed other things (newer cars, nicer vacations, eating out, etc.) so we could send our kids to a better school. In a fair world the government wouldn't take money from us and then tell us where to send our kids to school, we'd decide on our own. Of course, the teacher's unions will have none of that. After all, if you pull the kids out of failing schools and put them into better ones, where would all the failing teachers go? Gotta look after those failing teachers before the kids, you know. They vote, the kids don't.
t's also ONLY the government that has enough power to take care of the health care/insurance lobbiest problems
And this gets to the nub of your desire: you feel government should because you believe only government can. You feel it is futile to try anything else because the government can do all. You underestimate yourself! You underestimate what "the people" can do! You sell the concepts of liberty, responsibility, and innovation short! What's so depressing is you've been conditioned -- less than most, but somewhat to be sure -- that government is the only place to turn when a thorny problem looms. The settlers of this country would be horrified to know what their descendants have descended to.
the overpriced good problems
Unless you're talking about government regulation and price controls, there is no such thing as an "overpriced good." Goods and services are priced according to what the market will bear. If something is too expensive, less of it is sold, creating an oversupply, leading to lower prices. If something is too cheap, demand exceeds supply, creating a shortage, which raises prices. Is healthcare too expensive? It may seem so, but it cannot be, otherwise demand would fall. People would make do with generic drugs instead of name-brands. They'd make do with fewer tests, fewer procedures. But that's not what is happening. People are insulated from true costs by insurance, the lion's share of which is picked up by your employer by paying you less.
Healthcare costs continue to rise because there is demand for ever-more-exotic treatments for an ever-growing-older population. As hideous as it sounds, at some point this has to stop because people will be unable to afford such procedures and drugs. When that happens, research into new procedures and drugs will slow, and a balance will be restored. All without the hindrance of government. Indeed, I could make the argument that government already imbalances the situation by litigation, regulation, and other forms of nannying, but that would make this post even longer.
nd the last of being able to shop around for cheaper drugs problems.
How are you prevented from shopping around? And let's not forget why Canadian drugs are cheaper: less litigation, for one. Another good reason is domestic drugs are sold at a higher price in order to subsidize sales in Canada at lower prices. Go look i
What about those people who didn't, and either begged, engaged in crime, or starved on the streets?
Please tell me what entitles any citizen to take from one and give to another without consent. If you did it on your own, it would be called "robbery." But when the government does it, you call it "justice." When you can justify it with a Constitutionally-enshrined law, I'll be more than happy to side with you. Until then, you're using the power of government to steal. You wouldn't want it done to you, you shouldn't want it done to others.
I am going to class at the University of New Mexico to get my masters in CS. I have my bachelors in CS from Texas Tech. I have been working in the defense industry for about 7 years now. I have great, well paying job. With my current pay rate, I would see a huge tax reduction in Obama's plan compared to McCain's.
And here's where the fallacy comes to light: that Obama's tax cut will help you somehow. Obama's not cutting taxes, he's shifting them from one class of voters to another. He's also proposing billions in new spending which will require tax increases, deficit spending, or both, but that's a story for another time.
Now exactly who is Obama shifting these taxes to? To hear him tell it, only 5% of Americans will be affected. The problem is, those 5% are those who invest in businesses. Those 5% are responsible for creating a disproportionate share of the jobs. Taxing investors reduces investments, which reduces capital to businesses, which slows business growth, which reduces job growth and slows wage growth...and lo and behold that trickles down to you, Mr. I-don't-see-anything-wrong-with-Obama's-tax-increase-on-people-who-have-more-than me. And if you doubt who creates the jobs in this economy, just go out and try to get a job working for a poor- or middle-class person. Just try it. You'll starve, because that's not where jobs get created.
The economy is a closed-loop cycle. What affects one part of it will affect the other parts. You can feel all smug about soaking the rich now, but in the end it will come back to hurt you, perhaps more than those "rich" people you loathe so much. What's more, the more successful you are (hey, your Master's could earn you a raise -- and a higher tax bracket!) the more you are punished. Yeah, that's a wonderful system for encouraging people to strive upwards, isn't it?
The next time you're feeling good about heavily taxing someone that makes more from you, consider this: do you want to make the same salary for the rest of your life? Don't you want to make more one day? Perhaps own your own business where you don't have a boss you don't like? If you do well, you'll eventually run afoul of those who want to take what you've earned and give it to someone else, without you having any say-so in the matter. Maybe you still would've given the money to a charity, or to a family member or friend to help them out, but now you can't. The Government has it, and they -- not you -- will decide how best to spend it to buy more votes...ahem, excuse me, I mean "for economic justice."
Hey, under Obama's plan I'd pay less taxes right now as well. I'm still against it, and for two very good reasons. First, I aspire to one day make enough to be punished by Obama's income redistribution plan. Second, I don't want to get a handout from the government when it's been taken forcibly from someone else. I wouldn't want it done to me, thus no one else should have to do it for me. That's fair.
We aren't bankrupting the wealthy by taking this approach
By whose measure? Yours? Mine? Obama's? Who are you to judge who has "too much" and who has "not enough"? Do you define forcibly taking from one person and giving to another perfectly alright so long as the first party has "more" than the second party? There's a homeless guy down the street who has nothing but the clothes on his back. I think I'll take 10% of your paycheck and give it to him. And there's an elderly couple in my neighborhood that wants better medical care. I think I'll take 10% more of your paycheck and give it to them. No, please, don't bother complaining. You've got "more" than they do, thus you need to give it up.
You justify your income redistribution program by claiming we're not "bankrupting" anyone. That's the same as saying "we'll take from you whatever we want, you didn't need it because we think you've got more than you need." The problem with this fantasy is that I can make the argument that you have too much of something and that I should have some of it. You probably wouldn't agree with that assessment, would you? But too bad for you since I (being the "needy" one) make the determination of what is "too much" and "too little."
You just go right on believing in robbing the rich to give to the poor. If such policies come to fruition, sooner or later you'll either be a deadbeat living off the government teat or you'll be a "rich person" funding the deadbeats. The former would do nothing but drag down the country and the economy. The latter would be a reviled, ever-shrinking minority until it goes extinct, thus depriving the deadbeats of their source of welfare. Then the whole thing collapses upon the weight of the fallacy that robbing one segment of the population to support another is somehow sustainable. It is not. There are ample historical precedents of this if you bother to study history at all. Marx is dead and so are his theories.
Your argument, on the other hand, is there is no other possible solution to the situation other than taking money away from someone who has it and giving it to someone who doesn't.
At the same time, I don't think the Constitution says one damned thing about protecting people from "bad luck." Shit happens. When it does, it's bad. It does not make it my responsibility to fix it when it happens to you, nor does it make it your responsibility to fix it when happens to me. I don't want government handouts that are taken from someone else. Neither should you. Donations? Yes. I give quite a bit to charity every year because I want to. Enforced collections for the purpose of "spreading the wealth"? The very concept is insulting to people to take pride in their achievements.
Slashdot Mirror
We shall see. Most people don't know really why they're not trusting of innovation in content technology. The advantages of open content though are immediately obvious and so when the content owners open up the content it starts flying out the door.
I truck heavily in the home theater market, and I can categorically state that about 80%-90% of consumers don't even know what BD+ is, much less let it affect their buying decision. They are interested only in the following factors (usually in this order):
1. Price of the player.
2. Availability of titles.
3. Price of titles.
4. Quality versus DVD.
That's it. Rarely if ever will you find anyone who cares at all about anything not on this list.
The average buyer -- which is not, despite popular /. opinion, anything like your average slashdotter -- doesn't give two damns about DRM in the slightest. If they did, would iTunes be the huge consumer-based cash cow that it is? Of course not.
Me? I own a PS3 and use it about 80% of the time for watching Blu-ray movies. I've never once been inconvenienced in the slightest by the DRM. The only thing I might want to do that I can't is format shift. While that's mildly annoying, it's really moot given the huge size of HD content. I could resample at a lower bitrate, resolution, or both, but that would defeat the purpose of having HD in the first place. If I was going to go that route, I'd just DeCSS a DVD and have done with it. But I don't, and it honestly hasn't bothered me at all. Nor has it bothered most of the people I know who have Blu-ray players. They watch their movies at home. They swap them with friends. Some play them on laptops. Nobody that I know of has any idea the DRM is preventing them from doing anything at all...and that's because they're just watching their movies and enjoying them.
Really, I think this whole reaction to DRM is a bit overblown. Yes, I'd much prefer it if it wasn't there, but people make far too much noise about how it's supposed to be preventing them from doing something that they want to do with the disc. As far as I can tell, the DRM is only adversely affecting one group of innocent people, and that's users of open-source operating systems like Linux. You could make a corner case argument that format shifting is also impeded, but I'll again bring up the difficulties of storing hundreds of Blu-ray titles unless you resample, thus devaluing the HD you're trying so hard to get to. But I think the real reason folks are up in arms about DRM is that it prevents them from pirating content. I just wish folks would be honest enough to admit it.
If copying has been made so difficult that the amount of copying is trivial, then why are 1TB SATA drives, 4TB NAS devices and such like moving so fast they don't even shelve them off the skids? Are people making more backups of their photos and email than ever before? Really?
Don't be absurd. For one thing, copying DVD's has been and continues to be incredibly trivial for anyone to do. With your average flick taking up about 8GB-9GB for a dual-layer DVD, you can fill up a 1TB drive pretty fast. And let's not forget Windows and its voracious appetite for gigabytes.
But there's a far less nefarious reason why large drives are selling fast: they are cheap. People usually spend somewhere between $100-$200 on storage. Right now, that will buy you a lot of space if you're not all that concerned about speed. Thus, people buy big drives because it's not noticeably cheaper to buy small drives.
Last, you mention 4TB NAS devices as if every home on the block has one. I can assure you they do not. Such items are hugely popular in businesses but they are next to impossible to find in the common household. You and I may not be common (I have about 8TB online at my home), so citing your own situation hardly validates your point.
The point is, the 'legitimate' (w/ DRM I use that term loosely) doesn't brute the key, and the legitimate software can be watched in action. That means that reverse engineered Free software can be created to do the same thing.
What you say is technically correct but grossly underestimates the complexity and effort involved. BD+ obfuscates itself under layers upon layers of encryption, misdirection, and self-checking for tampering and observation. Admittedly, it is all for naught if you have the time, tools, and knowledge to peel back all that obfuscation and find the real code, real keys, and so forth in operation. But the effort to get to the point where we can bypass BD+ has taken the concerted effort of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of hackers and perhaps 300-500 man-years of time to break. And it's still open to Sony coming back and breaking it dependent upon how desperate Sony wants to be.
Please, try to appreciate a little more the incredible milestone that's just been achieved. It was not even remotely easy to get this far, and we can't even say for sure the journey is finished.
So all you need to do is examine the update and pull the new key out of it.
If you'd think about it for a moment, you'd realize that if it were that easy, BD+ would've been cracked long ago. It wasn't, so clearly it is not "all you need to do."
While Sony is demonstrably stupid in believing DRM cannot be bypassed for at least ten years, they are not stupid enough to send out an update where the new keys can be easily snagged. I'm sure you can get the technical details of why what you propose is folly if you head over to the Doom9 forums. You probably need to read up on the basics of encryption and keys first, though, since your knowledge in this area seems a bit lacking.
Regardless of Moore's bias, those events did happen. ie: They are facts. And as such, prove what i've been saying.
Prove what? That such behavior is systemic and thus everyone, everywhere suffers from it on a regular basis? I'm sure that's what you'd like to believe because it suits your bias. The truth, however, is not in you. Such events are aberrations, not norms -- and that's if this event happened at all. If a person was refused life-saving medical care due to a known condition, the hospital was in the wrong. You know that, I know that. I have a funny feeling some important details -- details that would exonerate the decision maker if not the decision itself -- are being left out. That's par for the course for Michael Moore, although you are apparently willing to swallow anything he says as the Gospel without checking on a damned thing yourself. Typical. Pathetic, but typical.
You've steadfastly refused to disclose any names or other evidence that would allow me to fact check your (or Michael Moore's) assertions about this girl that died. If you can provide me enough information to dig on this, I'll be happy to either (a) say I was wrong, if I find exculpatory information or (b) debunk your claim if I don't. I've Googled incessantly on "Michael Moore", "Sicko", and "child died" and found no names at all.
You do realize that the USA just spent > 10 trillion over in Iraq and Afghanistan right?
Since the entire U.S. military budget hasn't equaled 10 trillion dollars during the entire war, I can only assume you either (a) are as deficient in math skills as you are in discerning reality or (b) you're counting in Yen, not dollars, or (c) you're too stupid to know the difference. I'm betting on C, thus it's rather pointless for me to rebut your similarly-stupid claims further down. It would waste my time and make you look more of a fool than you already do.
If you wish to get educated, correct your figures, and join the rest of us in reality, post a correction saying you were wrong. Then and only then will we continue this conversation. I doubt you will, though. Liberals like yourself are too used to being able to play fast and loose with the truth and get away with it. It completely befuddles you when someone throws little things like documented facts and figures back in your face.
Ah I see, so what you propose is that poor people just die when they get sick, yeah who cares, fuck 'em, they don't deserve what the same rights as us richies!
Truly you have a dizzying intellect. Do you think with that brain, too?
Yes the taxpayer pays. But you know what? It's worth it. It's worth knowing that should I ever be in a bad situation financially and I get sick, I can return to the UK and get free healthcare. Plus, on average, it balances out in the long run. So yes, you may pay for someone breaking their arm one week, but it could be you with cancer the next week, and someone else is paying for you..
Here, let me make a few corrections to your comment. It should read like this:
Yes the high-achieving taxpayer pays far more into the system than they ever take out. But you know what? It's worth it to everyone else who doesn't have to pay anything. It's worth knowing that should I ever be in a bad situation financially and I get sick, I can return to the UK and get my bills paid for by someone else. Plus, on average, it balances out such that a well-to-do person pays for the care of ten people while the low-end taxpayer pays nothing. So yes, the well-to-do will constantly pay for someone breaking their arm one week, but it could be my girlfriend with cancer the next week, and someone else will pay for that instead of me, which is nice since I really want a new iPod instead..
It's quite to read up on many examples of people being denied healthcare based on insurance/ inability to pay. Oh and I live in America, so i'm not coming in on this from no experience at all.
Really? Then I'm sure you've have no difficulty posting your sources of this wondrous information that's somehow eluded me. Please, educate me in the ways of my wrongness! Show me your sources of info so I may be cleansed!
If you want examples of people who are not being treated, who should be, watch sicko, the movie.
Ah! The movies! Ever a source of reliable, unbiased information!
You are aware, I hope, that the director of said movie essentially made a propaganda film aimed specifically at smearing America's medical system, right? This same director thought nothing of selectively editing material, misrepresenting statements, and falsely presenting all manner of things in his 9/11 "documentary." Yes, truly an unbiased, unblemished, unquestionable source of information you chose to be the bastion of your argument.
Bzzt! Try again, preferably with an objective source who doesn't have an axe to grind.
There is a fact that many people with diseases, illnesses, disabilities cannot afford medication and care in this country. This is a FACT. No country in the western world should have this problem, yet the USA, the "richest" country in the world, has people with eminently curable illnesses who are not being treated.
Please cite an example of someone who has an eminently curable, debilitating condition who is being denied basic healthcare in America. Because once you find that person, I want to call them and have them get a lawyer, because that's illegal. You see, anyone, even non-citizens, can go into any hospital in America and receive treatment for any serious ailment, all paid for by the taxpayer. If someone is being denied that, they have a case.
Of course, what's far more likely is you're either making this up, you're ill-informed (or selectively informed by your own bias in choosing sources), or you're just plain mistaken. But please, prove me wrong. You seem to know it all. Show me how wrong I am. Feel free to take pleasure in it. Personally, I don't fear your ability to produce anything of substance at all.
The problem with every free market capitalist solution is the same, the race to the bottom. Every business is compelled to maximize profits, pay as little for labor as they can get away with (screw the employees), charge as much for their product or service as they can get away with (screw the customer), and competition only enforces these two basic rules.
How little you understand what you're talking about. Let's hit your points one by one, shall we?
Every business is compelled to maximize profits
Obviously, as a business that isn't profitable will cease to be a business and start to be a source for unemployment.
pay as little for labor as they can get away with (screw the employees)
Careful, your class warfare rhetoric is showing. Screw the employees? People are free to work wherever they can find work, and they are free to demand whatever wage they think they can get. There is no such thing as "screw the employee." There are employees that allow themselves to be screwed by making poor choices. Then there are those who merely believe they're being screwed because they're too lazy or inept to actually earn what they really want to be paid.
Don't like your job? Get another one. Can't? Learn a more valuable skill. The only limits are those you impose upon yourself. Well, that and whatever limits the All Powerful Government wants to throw in your way due to taxes, regulation, and whatnot.
charge as much for their product or service as they can get away with (screw the customer)
(sigh) This tripe again? There is no such thing as "screw the customer." Customers are free to buy or not buy any goods or services. Don't like the prices? Buy another brand. No other brands with lower prices? Find an alternative to the item in question. No alternatives available? Aha! A business opportunity! Start a business providing the goods or services at a lower cost and people will flock to you. Then you can become one of those horrible, hateful, evil, despicable, nasty, worthless, disgusting Rich People Who Provide Things That People Need. No good deed goes unpunished!
and competition only enforces these two basic rules.
Competition, my dear comrade, enforces one and only one rule: the better option wins. When it ceases to be better, something else steps in to take its place. Competition is what keeps monopolies from charging whatever they want. Competition is what drives two companies to make goods and services better, cheaper, and faster than the other guy or find themselves out of business. Competition is what made an Intel 80486 processor of fifteen years ago be 5,000x slower yet twice as expensive as the Core2 Quad you can buy today. And you want to call that a bad thing, do you?
I'm sure you'd rather live in a country where prices, competition, and access were all rigidly controlled. Sadly, you don't have too many of those left anymore. The Soviets went kaput. The Cuban economy sucks. Venezuela would be bankrupt but for oil flowing to (you guessed it) Capitalist countries able to afford it. France has an epidemic of unemployment. Germany has crushing debt, a stagnant economy, and high unemployment. In fact, about the only place left to go to is North Korea. I hear they are having wonderful bouts of famine and disease due to their planned economy's inability to supply basic needs. The State runs all, and it tolerates none of that evil, filthy, horrid Competition. There are no rich, there are no poor. Everyone is equally happy...or equally miserable, depending upon how you want to look at it. Sounds like your kind of paradise, doesn't it? Comrade?
Also, in England, you will never be denied an operation or access to a hospital depending on your insurance company. It's unthinkable! And quite frankly, also barbaric.
I'm sorry, you wandered off into fantasy land again. You were dreaming of a world where people are somehow denied access to a hospital depending upon their insurance. You see, in the Real World Of America, anyone can wander into any hospital and receive basic or emergency care, with the tab being picked up by taxpayers if you're unable to pay.
Now, I don't expect intellectual honesty out of someone like you who has to fabricate a strawman in order to give weight to an otherwise-weightless argument, but you should at least confine your rantings to that which isn't so easily disproven. Your reputation as one who is able to make a cogent argument is suffering already. Don't make it worse.
In the UK, everyone has equal access to excellent healthcare. If they want private healthcare, they can get that too.
The glaring flaw in your argument is while people all have equal access, they are not paying equally. Those who make more money aren't paying (via taxes) just for their own healthcare, they're paying for someone else's as well. If they make a lot of money, they may be paying for the healthcare of 10, 20, or 100 other people. You liberals are big on fairness. How is it fair that someone else that you don't know and has no relation to you at all is obligated to pay for your healthcare simply because they make more money than you?
Would you consider it fair if I came and took 40% of your paycheck and spent it on a car for myself? Hey, I needed that car more than you needed the money, therefore it should be my "basic right" to have it. You will undoubtedly make the argument that I don't need a care but people need healthcare, but that is immaterial to the argument at hand. That argument is, quite simply, you are taking from one citizen and giving to another citizen without the first citizen's consent. If you tried to do this personally, you'd be arrested and jailed for robbery. But you don't have to do it because you've got the government to do it for you. And you're proud of this arrangement? No wonder the Pilgrims left.
Look at the history of the economy under presidents who believed in "trickle down economics." Inflation adjusted GDPs and jobs grew at a slower amount, and the federal debt increased more quickly.
You're under the misapprehension that the full effects of presidential policies are somehow confined to their terms in office. If you examine the economic effects of Reagan's policies, you'll see they caused huge expansion of the economy. Deficit spending was increased as well, but it was more than offset later by higher tax revenues due to the expanded economy. Of course, when Clinton raised taxes in the 90's, the economy contracted, but only later in his term and extending somewhat into Bush's first term. Likewise, Bush inherited an economy in recession. His tax policies arguably helped, although I'm no fan of his exorbitant spending.
And you don't need to be an economist to know that starting a business -- or an economy -- requires going into debt. Deficits are not bad in and of themselves if used to promote a larger economy.
This didn't even used to be a a Red vs. Blue argument, as Democrat messiah JFK himself was hugely in favor of lower tax cuts. Historical evidence shows that with every tax cut enacted in history, overall tax revenues have grown due to an expanded economy. This question was put to Obama during a debate some months ago. He was asked to justify his tax policy when history showed it would slow the economy and lower tax revenues. His response is that it's only "fair" to do it despite the fact that it will not raise revenues and will not stimulate the economy. In short, his tax policies are not about helping anyone, they're about punishing the haves in order to placate (and get votes from) the have-nots. I can't make it any plainer than that.
Money slowly trickles down from the top, while money flows from the bottom.
No, it does not. Rich people do two things with their money: they invest it or they spend it. If they invest it, it drives growth in businesses. More jobs are created. Wages go up. More people become more affluent. If they spend it, it still drives business growth, jobs growth, and wage growth. What do you think rich folks do with their money? Put in bags in their living room, stare at it, and cackle evilly about how to keep their fellow man downtrodden and poor? Don't delude yourself. Go try and get a job from a lower- or middle-class person. You won't be able to.
The wealth gap in the US and around the world is widening at an alarming rate.
To which I respond: do you make more than anyone else in your neighborhood? My God, it's a wealth inequality! We must fix it! Please go and write a check for half of your income to whoever makes the least in your neighborhood. There! Don't you feel better about yourself? You've just solved the "wealth gap"!
Sarcasm aside, where is it written that it is bad for there to be a wealth gap? Some people will always work harder, do better, and succeed more than others. Those people should be rewarded for it, for that kind of spirit, drive, and innovation is what betters humanity. Would you prefer those people were rewarded the same as those who are slack? Who don't work? Who try as little as possible? Who do the absolute minimum required by their job to avoid being fired? Would you want that kind of person working for you? Would you want your house built by they person? Your car? Would you want that kind of person giving you healthcare? I rest my case.
Exactly how rich do we need our rich and how poor do we need our poor, until everything magically falls together into some sort of wonderful economy?
I've about had it with the poor, poor, pitiful poor comments. "Poor" in America means nothing anymore. Poor Americans have cell phones, cars, color TV's, cable, air conditioning, t
My girlfriend broke her arm some months ago (she has insurance) but some days ago got a bill for 1000 dollars for expenses not covered by her insurance. Price in the UK = Paid for by British Taxpayers.
There, I fixed that for you. You see, you made a simple error of assuming a service can be provided for zero cost. You made that assumption because your girlfriend's medical costs would've been paid for by someone else via taxes. So while it appears to be zero cost to you, it certainly doesn't to someone else.
But hey! Who cares? It's not your money she's spending, so why should you care? After all, you don't know the person that is paying for her broken arm. They don't have anything they'd like to do with the money they earn, so why shouldn't it be spent on your girlfriend's arm? Just think! With the money she saved by not having to pay for her own medical care, she can now go out and buy something that those who paid for her healthcare cannot afford to buy because of taxes. Economic justice! Don't you just love it!
It's always easier to spend other people's money. You should be on the other end of the deal sometime, though. It's not nearly as fun, and it fucking sure isn't free.
Yeah, I remember the horror of the 1980's and 1990's, when US price controls led to a shortage of food.
What price controls are you speaking of? Or are you just making stuff up?
Or perhaps you're referring to subsidies the government hands out to artificially inflate the price of a commodity, such as corn. This didn't cause food shortages, it caused food oversupply, where farmers were paid to not farm, and harvested corn crops were cheaper to let rot than to transport to market. Yeah, that's fantastic government effectiveness in action.
Of course, this doesn't apply to health care, where my Hopkins educated doctor has to work in a hospital where they can afford the multimillion dollar machines to diagnose/treat me.
Which, if there were no demand for such multi-million dollar machines, would not exist. Therefore, demand does exist. Therefore, the price is set at what demand will bear. Fix the price and demand will exceed supply. Normally this would result in hospital equipment vendors ramping up production to meet increased demand, but your price fixing would put a stop to that. Vendors would not build what hospitals could not buy. Thus, demand will be satisfied by...drum roll please...rationing. Need an MRI? Wait six to twelve months and you'll be seen. Got a problem that can't wait that long? Too bad, comrade. Get in line like all the other proles.
I think I'd rather have the government limit me than an unaccountable company.
Of course you would because you've abdicated all semblance of personal responsibility. YOU have the power to choose which health plan you want. Want one that lets you see any doctor you want? No problem, just pay the price for such flexibility and you're right as rain. Can't pay the price? Then get what you can afford. Don't like what you can afford? Make a sacrifice elsewhere in your finances to afford better healthcare. You can't possibly argue that any person in this country with a job can't afford better-than-subsistence-level healthcare if they make that a spending priority. The truth is we Americans spend more on cell phones, beer, satellite TV, fancy cars, lottery tickets, "bling," and Burger King (gotta have it MY WAY!) than we do on healthcare premiums. If we don't have the healthcare we want, we have only ourselves and our spending habits to blame.
But rather than man up and make your own choices, you want the All Powerful Hand Of Government to step in and nanny you. Yep, Barack's your main alright. Or maybe Nader.
And I don't know of any Western society where the socialized plan is not augmented by private consumption.
A nifty but vacuous idea. If socialized medicine is the norm, the amount of money being spent in the medical community will fall drastically. Private care -- which, by the way, would be hugely better than socialized medicine, thus exacerbating the "haves vs. have nots" argument -- would be hugely expensive. Only the super rich would be able to afford private consumption, thus creating a class of super-elites even worse than the "rich" people you currently despise and seek to benefit from.
Of course, Government will not allow this to stand! How could it be just for The Rich to enjoy one level of care while The Great Masses only get the dregs that socialized medicine can provide? Thus we either (a) tax those rich bastards until they're poor like everybody else or (b) we abolish their ability to seek private care. Think it can't happen? Don't delude yourself. Politicians live off class envy like you live off oxygen.
I'll vote for any candidate who can bring America up to the level of the rest of the developed world.
What a pity that the "rest of the developed world" keeps coming here to get its healthcare, then. Because what you propose would inevitably weaken our healthcare system (to say nothing of individual responsibility) to the point that it would be no better than those "developed" nations people are fleeing.
Go ahead. Kill the Golden Goose. In the end, you get the government you deserve. The pity is I have to put up with your folly until it is unequivocally revealed to be such.
I agree. But what if the heart condition is hereditary and you can't afford to pay? Then you have a serious problem.
Yes, you do. Now please explain to me how that obligates me in any way to pay for your healthcare.
Now it may be that I'd happily give to a charity to support healthcare for hereditary heart problems. Hell, I might give more than what the government already takes from me. But if I did, it would be my choice do to so. And I'd give to whomever or whatever I chose, not what the government deems. Because inevitably, the government decides to give it to those who are most likely to vote the politicians back into office.
Do you now use the fire department? The police department? Drive on roads? Send your kids to schools?
Fire, police, and things like roads are one of those things that fall under the "government is a necessary evil" clause. Government still handles such functions inefficiently, sometimes ineffectively, and often inattentively, but they are "collective" services that would be difficult to get going consensus on for pure free-market implementations. Note I said difficult. I did not say impossible.
With respect to schools, I put my kids in private school. This costs me about $1,000/month, and that's on top of what I pay in property taxes so someone else's kids can go to public school. Please explain to me how that is fair? And before you lump me in as some rich fat cat who sends his kids to some elite institution, we are not of that ilk. Instead, we sacrificed other things (newer cars, nicer vacations, eating out, etc.) so we could send our kids to a better school. In a fair world the government wouldn't take money from us and then tell us where to send our kids to school, we'd decide on our own. Of course, the teacher's unions will have none of that. After all, if you pull the kids out of failing schools and put them into better ones, where would all the failing teachers go? Gotta look after those failing teachers before the kids, you know. They vote, the kids don't.
t's also ONLY the government that has enough power to take care of the health care/insurance lobbiest problems
And this gets to the nub of your desire: you feel government should because you believe only government can. You feel it is futile to try anything else because the government can do all. You underestimate yourself! You underestimate what "the people" can do! You sell the concepts of liberty, responsibility, and innovation short! What's so depressing is you've been conditioned -- less than most, but somewhat to be sure -- that government is the only place to turn when a thorny problem looms. The settlers of this country would be horrified to know what their descendants have descended to.
the overpriced good problems
Unless you're talking about government regulation and price controls, there is no such thing as an "overpriced good." Goods and services are priced according to what the market will bear. If something is too expensive, less of it is sold, creating an oversupply, leading to lower prices. If something is too cheap, demand exceeds supply, creating a shortage, which raises prices. Is healthcare too expensive? It may seem so, but it cannot be, otherwise demand would fall. People would make do with generic drugs instead of name-brands. They'd make do with fewer tests, fewer procedures. But that's not what is happening. People are insulated from true costs by insurance, the lion's share of which is picked up by your employer by paying you less.
Healthcare costs continue to rise because there is demand for ever-more-exotic treatments for an ever-growing-older population. As hideous as it sounds, at some point this has to stop because people will be unable to afford such procedures and drugs. When that happens, research into new procedures and drugs will slow, and a balance will be restored. All without the hindrance of government. Indeed, I could make the argument that government already imbalances the situation by litigation, regulation, and other forms of nannying, but that would make this post even longer.
nd the last of being able to shop around for cheaper drugs problems.
How are you prevented from shopping around? And let's not forget why Canadian drugs are cheaper: less litigation, for one. Another good reason is domestic drugs are sold at a higher price in order to subsidize sales in Canada at lower prices. Go look i
What about those people who didn't, and either begged, engaged in crime, or starved on the streets?
Please tell me what entitles any citizen to take from one and give to another without consent. If you did it on your own, it would be called "robbery." But when the government does it, you call it "justice." When you can justify it with a Constitutionally-enshrined law, I'll be more than happy to side with you. Until then, you're using the power of government to steal. You wouldn't want it done to you, you shouldn't want it done to others.
I am going to class at the University of New Mexico to get my masters in CS. I have my bachelors in CS from Texas Tech. I have been working in the defense industry for about 7 years now. I have great, well paying job. With my current pay rate, I would see a huge tax reduction in Obama's plan compared to McCain's.
And here's where the fallacy comes to light: that Obama's tax cut will help you somehow. Obama's not cutting taxes, he's shifting them from one class of voters to another. He's also proposing billions in new spending which will require tax increases, deficit spending, or both, but that's a story for another time.
Now exactly who is Obama shifting these taxes to? To hear him tell it, only 5% of Americans will be affected. The problem is, those 5% are those who invest in businesses. Those 5% are responsible for creating a disproportionate share of the jobs. Taxing investors reduces investments, which reduces capital to businesses, which slows business growth, which reduces job growth and slows wage growth...and lo and behold that trickles down to you, Mr. I-don't-see-anything-wrong-with-Obama's-tax-increase-on-people-who-have-more-than me. And if you doubt who creates the jobs in this economy, just go out and try to get a job working for a poor- or middle-class person. Just try it. You'll starve, because that's not where jobs get created.
The economy is a closed-loop cycle. What affects one part of it will affect the other parts. You can feel all smug about soaking the rich now, but in the end it will come back to hurt you, perhaps more than those "rich" people you loathe so much. What's more, the more successful you are (hey, your Master's could earn you a raise -- and a higher tax bracket!) the more you are punished. Yeah, that's a wonderful system for encouraging people to strive upwards, isn't it?
The next time you're feeling good about heavily taxing someone that makes more from you, consider this: do you want to make the same salary for the rest of your life? Don't you want to make more one day? Perhaps own your own business where you don't have a boss you don't like? If you do well, you'll eventually run afoul of those who want to take what you've earned and give it to someone else, without you having any say-so in the matter. Maybe you still would've given the money to a charity, or to a family member or friend to help them out, but now you can't. The Government has it, and they -- not you -- will decide how best to spend it to buy more votes...ahem, excuse me, I mean "for economic justice."
Hey, under Obama's plan I'd pay less taxes right now as well. I'm still against it, and for two very good reasons. First, I aspire to one day make enough to be punished by Obama's income redistribution plan. Second, I don't want to get a handout from the government when it's been taken forcibly from someone else. I wouldn't want it done to me, thus no one else should have to do it for me. That's fair.
We aren't bankrupting the wealthy by taking this approach
By whose measure? Yours? Mine? Obama's? Who are you to judge who has "too much" and who has "not enough"? Do you define forcibly taking from one person and giving to another perfectly alright so long as the first party has "more" than the second party? There's a homeless guy down the street who has nothing but the clothes on his back. I think I'll take 10% of your paycheck and give it to him. And there's an elderly couple in my neighborhood that wants better medical care. I think I'll take 10% more of your paycheck and give it to them. No, please, don't bother complaining. You've got "more" than they do, thus you need to give it up.
You justify your income redistribution program by claiming we're not "bankrupting" anyone. That's the same as saying "we'll take from you whatever we want, you didn't need it because we think you've got more than you need." The problem with this fantasy is that I can make the argument that you have too much of something and that I should have some of it. You probably wouldn't agree with that assessment, would you? But too bad for you since I (being the "needy" one) make the determination of what is "too much" and "too little."
You just go right on believing in robbing the rich to give to the poor. If such policies come to fruition, sooner or later you'll either be a deadbeat living off the government teat or you'll be a "rich person" funding the deadbeats. The former would do nothing but drag down the country and the economy. The latter would be a reviled, ever-shrinking minority until it goes extinct, thus depriving the deadbeats of their source of welfare. Then the whole thing collapses upon the weight of the fallacy that robbing one segment of the population to support another is somehow sustainable. It is not. There are ample historical precedents of this if you bother to study history at all. Marx is dead and so are his theories.
Your argument, on the other hand, is there is no other possible solution to the situation other than taking money away from someone who has it and giving it to someone who doesn't.
At the same time, I don't think the Constitution says one damned thing about protecting people from "bad luck." Shit happens. When it does, it's bad. It does not make it my responsibility to fix it when it happens to you, nor does it make it your responsibility to fix it when happens to me. I don't want government handouts that are taken from someone else. Neither should you. Donations? Yes. I give quite a bit to charity every year because I want to. Enforced collections for the purpose of "spreading the wealth"? The very concept is insulting to people to take pride in their achievements.
Now now...there you go making sense again. Can't have that in a Slashdot discussion, you know.