Most of those dot-bomb creators are rolling in money....and we call them "thieves."
I don't care how much money a blatant thief is rolling in. Bob Scheer put it quite well regarding the dot-com's larger cousins (WorldCom, Enron, GlobalCrossing): "these guys have done more damage to capitalism than every communist who ever lived."
It is safe to say that, if you are alive, "a Germany company called Bosch" is probably familiar to you (and at least 50 years older than you to boot, since it has been around for over a century), so we should be able to dispense with the preface "a German company called." That's like saying "an American company called General Electric." No shit?
You're out of your fscking mind if you don't think it is paid for by taxes. County USC Medical Center in Los Angeles receives over a $1 Billion in funding just from Medicaid and last I checked Medicaid comes out of your tax bill. In all, nearly a trillion dollars of tax money gets filtered into our medical "system" and virtually no one is eligible for state coverage. Basically, you have to be earning less than 25k and have children or be over 65. Everyone else gets exactly bupkis.
Government buisnesses are not as efficient as private buisnesses, anyone who works for the government can vouch for that.
Really? Compare the amount of services provided by the Canadian health system to ours for the money spent. They get roughly three times the service for one third the cost.
The problem now is that prices are going through the roof. The reason for this is often argued to be because of lawsuits which drive the doctor's insurance premiums through the roof.
Wrong. The reason prices are going through the roof is that the law REQUIRES private hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay. The government will only pay if the recipient falls into a very narrowly defined group of criteria (generally, less than 25k with kids or over 65). THE REST GETS WRITTEN-OFF. God help you if you are a non-profit hospital, because they then REQUIRE that you meet a quota of free service.
The problem with US Healthcare is people who lobby their representatives to prevent anything that resembles universal health care (read: sounds like YOU, bucko). So, we get fits and starts with the result that we end up paying triple what anyone else does for a usable, full service so we can keep the absolute fscking bare minimum in place to avoid catastrophe, and then end up having to make up the budget elsewhere because we're "charged" for this bullshit when for-profit hospitals write-off the difference between what government requires them to provide and what is actually paid for, which when combined with the similar structure of insurance price-lists, causes hospitals to drive the rates into the stratosphere just to keep the fscking lights on.
Yeah, we have "the best" POTENTIAL, but we don't even remotely have "the best" in aggregate reality in terms of what is actually delivered.
I worked in healthcare finance for nearly a decade and can tell you with great confidence that the contradictory laws, insurance carriers and hospital management companies are FAR more to blame than malpractice lawsuites.
You want to talk about the efficiency of private healthcare management? You go do a google on "Jeffrey Barbakow" and get back to me. I think you'll find it quite an enlightening experience on the "benefits" of the US system.
The world owes you exactly 'Jack' and 'Shit'. Well then, I would like to pay this particular corner of the world for my student loans accordingly.
The problem with this "no one owes you anything" attitude is that if you're paying for something, whether in work or dollars, it very distinctly owes you something in return.
But there is a flaw in Stewart's arguement. The news shows are like they are because people watch them. If their ratings suck they will go off the air, but if people watch them they will keep doing what they do.
It's not a flawed argument. Americans aren't naturally ignorant sheeple. They have just been conditioned over the last twenty years by this sort of crap to lose their ability to distinguish between news and editorial. Sure, Americans love scandal and sleaze, but the drug dealer and the pimp share responsibility in the plights of the crack-addicted whores they prey upon. Jon stood up basically said, "I'm one of your viewers. I'm not your crack whore. I want this relationship to stop and could you please stop pimping out the public and selling them crack? You're hurting them. Stop. You've got them hooked and they can't help themselves, so please just stop."
Oh man, if there were more series like The Elegant Universe, which I watched straight through on an otherwise lazy saturday, I wouldn't feel so used when I see the cable bill.
That show was so, well, elegantly produced it was astounding--AND it was utterly accessible to "Joe Public" without resorting to pandering. Anyone who questions why we should fund PBS needs to see that series. Stunning work.
Yeah, total mystery why people think they're talking about a "rotating surface" when they mention that it uses "a screen that rotates." Where oh where do people get such crazy ideas?
...ever stop to think that perhaps 50% of Americans are just frightfully conservative and we get the government we collectively do in fact want and deserve?
I have no high regard for American politics, however, the fault is in the people. Most of what happens politically in the US happens because of local politics and the Congress is just the aggregation of that. It's just easier to say the politicians are corrupt than to be honest and say they were elected by corrupt people.
I mean, do you really think the people of Utah dislike Orrin Hatch or the people of North Carolina disliked Jesse Helms? I think they're both the spawn of Satan, but I would imagine a random poll of their constituents would show they were quite accurately representing their necks of the woods.
Listen to CSPAN. This country is represented by quite a wide variety of people. Some of them are quite scary, but it is hard to watch what REALLY goes on in the House and not see diversity of race, background and opinion.
Your rep is elected by YOU and the nearest 300,000 voters (roughly). If your rep is a right-wing religious fanatic, chances are you have slightly more than 150,000 right-wing religious fanatics living next door. My current rep (in DC, she can't vote--believe me, I understand 'taxation without representation') is a liberal black woman of modest means as was my last. My Senators were Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer--about as lefty-liberal as they come. Prior to that, I had uber-Nazi Chris Cox as a rep--because I was living in an area populated largely by ultraconservative neo-nazi fascists. I moved. Problem solved.
Have you ever bothered to write, call or meet your representative or senator? Have you ever watched CSPAN or read the House record to hear how you are being represented? You can hardly claim to be unrepresented if you don't even bother to communicate with your representative or check their records. I mean if you don't represent yourself to them, how can they represent you to the congress? DUH?
Cool, maybe JetBlue will contract out the management and I can transfer my frequent flyer miles. They're doing just fine starting up, buying a brand-spanking-new fleet and making a profit on $85 coast-to-coast tickets with all the regulation that is driving the other airlines bankrupt. I logged 12,000 miles on JetBlue for like $780--equivalent to circumnavigating the equator for $1560--and they're turning a profit.
Could it be that it isn't government regulation but just bad management that is driving the others bankrupt? Nah, that would be WAY to simple an answer.
Fer Chrissakes, Sudan, a government currently undergoing an organized campaign of genocide against its own citizenry,sits at the head of the UN Human Rights Commission. And what does the General Assembly do about such a travesty? It steadfastly refuses to pass a resolution condemning antisemitism.
Actually, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice is the High Commissioner for Human Rights. She just went to Sudan less than two weeks ago.
http://www.ohchr.org/english/
But it's clearly anti-liberal, and I use that word in its classic Lockeian sense.
By "classic Lockeian" do you mean pro-conquest, pro-feudalism and pro-slavery? In that sense, the UN is very "un-Lockeian" as much as Locke is extraordinarily "un-American," at least as America has existed since 1865.
The ideals that this country was founded on, that individual liberty is the highest goal for which one can struggle, are anathema to the Westphalian notions of national sovereignity that the UN was founded upon
National sovereignty is anathema to the United States? WTF? Are you not aware that the UN was created primarily by the United States as was the League of Nations? Were Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson anathemas?
I suppose Locke would think so, but his ideals are hardly what one thinks of as "American," no matter what side of the aisle you stand on... unless we have one for Tories that I'm not aware of.
Your votes are sent to the federal government -- by your state -- in the form of precisely the same number of people who represent you and your state in the House and Senate, respectively. Since the United States of America are a federal republic, the idea of a direct, national popular vote is actually _less_ straightforward.
We have one popular vote at the federal level, but even that took the 17th amendment to happen. Read this and see if it still sounds like it makes a shred of difference:
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps12426/www.sen at e.gov/learning/min_4l.html
I'm not sure if having the electoral college AND proportional assignment of votes defeats the intention of the Electoral College in the first place
...no. The point of the Electoral College is to enforce the states' rights to determine the means of their elections, including their participation in federal elections. The constitution states that they must have a popular election, but how they organize that election and what they do with the result is their business.
A state could choose to have its electors chosen by drawing straws and their respective votes by throwing darts if they felt like it as there's no law that says the electors have to vote according to the popular vote. If states chose to use your system, the Electoral College would still be the means by which the results were transmitted to the federal government barring a significant abrogation of states' rights through a constitutional amendment.
That would explain why my "cheap color scanner" that was purchased like five minutes ago happily copies any and all currency... quite effectively with no discernable moire problems, I might add.
The problem with anti-counterfeit technology is that there are so many places where money changes hands VERY rapidly and is not checked like a darkened bar on a busy night, a fast-food restaurant with an angry line, a toll-booth in traffic etc. If it is possible remotely resemble the real deal, fake notes will still make it into circulation primarily due to expediency and laziness.
It sounds like you're taking this seriously, so organize accordingly and make it a formal dues-paying club based on a legal partnership or corporation. You have a potentially HUGE liability exposure and you want some kind of legal barrier between you and your partners, members and guests. If it is a legitimate private club, many regulatory issues disappear, but you have to be legitimate, don't just say "we're selling memberships, not entry, at the door."
Find a fixed or regular location (that is one you have an annual lease on yourself or one you agree to rent for one day per month, repeatedly). Light industrial space is cheap as hell, costing less for a month than most rented spaces will cost for a night. Everything becomes cheaper if you operate from a fixed location. Even if you just find a hotel and negotiate for monthly meetings, you'll get a better deal than hunting around every time. Also, people will be more likely to show up repeatedly if they don't need to find you each and every time. If you want predictable results, you have to be predictable.
Negotiate annual or multiple event coverage, not per-day. A fixed location will make this much cheaper as there are fewer variables. $500/day is insane if you're going to be doing this on a regular basis.
Do you know how many states had laws completely banning alcohol, before they supported the Prohibition amendment?
As a matter of fact, I do. 23 out of 48, or 47% of the country. And even then they repealed it 16 years later at which point the federal government left regulation of alcohol to the states.
Voila, thanks for making my point so utterly clear with such an excellent example of precedent.
Your argument fails on the fact that even with a constitutional amendment that passes Congress, it would still have to receive ratification by 38 states to come into force. It thus makes sense to ensure you have the necessary support in the states before poisoning the issue with failure on the national level and delaying progress for another century.
This is invariably a "Speak softly, carry big stick" issue and you'll get essentially the same answer from either candidate, so, basically, don't bother.
...there's a problem with this question. Per the Article II of the U.S. Constitution regarding the electors:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..."
States rights, period, and states will not give up their rights without one hell of a fight. This is a major issue, but this question will not produce an interesting answer from a presidential candidate. The president has NO power to change this situation and even the Congress has extremely limited power to change it -- constitutional amendments are a major states' rights issue (read: ratification) -- so why the hell are we asking the question of a presidential candidate in the first place?
Lobby your state legislature on this. They can change it in a heartbeat, at least for your vote. But, please, don't ask this of someone who can't do a damned thing about it. All you'll get is empty spin and hyperbole.
Once a significant number of states embrace the idea, then we can reasonably talk about making a sweeping constitutional amendment that has a prayer of being passed and quickly ratified.
Re:Joe Sixpack is looking for "useful life"
on
Less Might Be More
·
· Score: 1
uhm, yes, they can and you can itemize anytime your deductions exceed the standard deduction, regardless of how they are distributed or whether or not you have a business or a mortgage. Your final comment is irrelevant because after the sale price at Dell, the write off is still equal to 15-20% of that price off your AGI, meaning, voila, 20% off becomes 36% off. DUH. But hey, if you buy $2k in computers necessary for employment or business and you don't have anything better to do with that $320 credit, by all means, give it to Uncle Sam. I'd rather use the difference to fly to Europe on my vacation, but that's just me. Yeah, there are oodles of details in there and that's for your accountant to tell you, but there certainly are many cases where the write-off is perfectly legit.
Sure, you are _more_likely_ to have itemizations over the standard deduction if you have a mortgage or business, but that's not the only case. Going on how/.'ers report their tax liabilities, roughly 30% make $56k or better and 20% make more than $75k, which is significantly better than the overall 15% of the population that makes it there, thus one can assume more of us are not using 1040EZ than are... not that/. polls are scientific, but looking at the spread compared to the national employment data, it's appears rather as one would expect, given an educated guess.
http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1093&aid= -1
Re:Joe Sixpack is looking for "useful life"
on
Less Might Be More
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Most Slashdotters probably have $50k in student loans, a mortgage (or equivalent rent, which is actually more expensive than a mortgage even in the short run since there are few tax breaks and no equity) in a major metropolitan area, a car payment and on average.75 kids instead of 2.5, since education and income have an inverse relation to birthrate, but they probably have 30% above average incomes and can write-off their computers as "tools," in effect making them roughly 20% cheaper at the end of the year than for those who buy them like Playstations.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of those dot-bomb creators are rolling in money. ...and we call them "thieves."
I don't care how much money a blatant thief is rolling in. Bob Scheer put it quite well regarding the dot-com's larger cousins (WorldCom, Enron, GlobalCrossing): "these guys have done more damage to capitalism than every communist who ever lived."
Look in the mirror.
It is safe to say that, if you are alive, "a Germany company called Bosch" is probably familiar to you (and at least 50 years older than you to boot, since it has been around for over a century), so we should be able to dispense with the preface "a German company called." That's like saying "an American company called General Electric." No shit?
You're out of your fscking mind if you don't think it is paid for by taxes. County USC Medical Center in Los Angeles receives over a $1 Billion in funding just from Medicaid and last I checked Medicaid comes out of your tax bill. In all, nearly a trillion dollars of tax money gets filtered into our medical "system" and virtually no one is eligible for state coverage. Basically, you have to be earning less than 25k and have children or be over 65. Everyone else gets exactly bupkis.
3 /p rg090803.pdf
U J: www.senate.gov/~finance/press/Gpress/2003/prg09080 3.pdf+%22Jeffrey+Barbakow%27&hl=en
Government buisnesses are not as efficient as private buisnesses, anyone who works for the government can vouch for that.
Really? Compare the amount of services provided by the Canadian health system to ours for the money spent. They get roughly three times the service for one third the cost.
The problem now is that prices are going through the roof. The reason for this is often argued to be because of lawsuits which drive the doctor's insurance premiums through the roof.
Wrong. The reason prices are going through the roof is that the law REQUIRES private hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay. The government will only pay if the recipient falls into a very narrowly defined group of criteria (generally, less than 25k with kids or over 65). THE REST GETS WRITTEN-OFF. God help you if you are a non-profit hospital, because they then REQUIRE that you meet a quota of free service.
The problem with US Healthcare is people who lobby their representatives to prevent anything that resembles universal health care (read: sounds like YOU, bucko). So, we get fits and starts with the result that we end up paying triple what anyone else does for a usable, full service so we can keep the absolute fscking bare minimum in place to avoid catastrophe, and then end up having to make up the budget elsewhere because we're "charged" for this bullshit when for-profit hospitals write-off the difference between what government requires them to provide and what is actually paid for, which when combined with the similar structure of insurance price-lists, causes hospitals to drive the rates into the stratosphere just to keep the fscking lights on.
Yeah, we have "the best" POTENTIAL, but we don't even remotely have "the best" in aggregate reality in terms of what is actually delivered.
I worked in healthcare finance for nearly a decade and can tell you with great confidence that the contradictory laws, insurance carriers and hospital management companies are FAR more to blame than malpractice lawsuites.
You want to talk about the efficiency of private healthcare management? You go do a google on "Jeffrey Barbakow" and get back to me. I think you'll find it quite an enlightening experience on the "benefits" of the US system.
Try this one, for instance:
http://www.senate.gov/~finance/press/Gpress/200
or if you hate PDF:
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:5Wbu79SGHf
Now, as you read that little missive, keep in mind that the man in question to this day controls roughly 30% of the US Hospital system.
Have a nice day.
"A German company called Bosch." WTF?
In other news, an automobile manufacturer called "Chrysler."
Damn these new fangled companies popping up everywhere, why in MY day...oh never mind.
Well, I think the whole argument hinges on this little nugget:
"exceeds the public pain threshold."
If that has any corelation to television ("Fear Factor" anyone?), I don't think we will ever, ever get to that threshold.
The world owes you exactly 'Jack' and 'Shit'.
Well then, I would like to pay this particular corner of the world for my student loans accordingly.
The problem with this "no one owes you anything" attitude is that if you're paying for something, whether in work or dollars, it very distinctly owes you something in return.
See, I can bee a FReeper too.
But there is a flaw in Stewart's arguement. The news shows are like they are because people watch them. If their ratings suck they will go off the air, but if people watch them they will keep doing what they do.
It's not a flawed argument. Americans aren't naturally ignorant sheeple. They have just been conditioned over the last twenty years by this sort of crap to lose their ability to distinguish between news and editorial. Sure, Americans love scandal and sleaze, but the drug dealer and the pimp share responsibility in the plights of the crack-addicted whores they prey upon. Jon stood up basically said, "I'm one of your viewers. I'm not your crack whore. I want this relationship to stop and could you please stop pimping out the public and selling them crack? You're hurting them. Stop. You've got them hooked and they can't help themselves, so please just stop."
Bravo.
Oh man, if there were more series like The Elegant Universe, which I watched straight through on an otherwise lazy saturday, I wouldn't feel so used when I see the cable bill.
That show was so, well, elegantly produced it was astounding--AND it was utterly accessible to "Joe Public" without resorting to pandering. Anyone who questions why we should fund PBS needs to see that series. Stunning work.
"a screen that rotates 360 degrees"
"Nothing about any rotating surface."
Yeah, total mystery why people think they're talking about a "rotating surface" when they mention that it uses "a screen that rotates." Where oh where do people get such crazy ideas?
...ever stop to think that perhaps 50% of Americans are just frightfully conservative and we get the government we collectively do in fact want and deserve?
I have no high regard for American politics, however, the fault is in the people. Most of what happens politically in the US happens because of local politics and the Congress is just the aggregation of that. It's just easier to say the politicians are corrupt than to be honest and say they were elected by corrupt people.
I mean, do you really think the people of Utah dislike Orrin Hatch or the people of North Carolina disliked Jesse Helms? I think they're both the spawn of Satan, but I would imagine a random poll of their constituents would show they were quite accurately representing their necks of the woods.
Listen to CSPAN. This country is represented by quite a wide variety of people. Some of them are quite scary, but it is hard to watch what REALLY goes on in the House and not see diversity of race, background and opinion.
Your rep is elected by YOU and the nearest 300,000 voters (roughly). If your rep is a right-wing religious fanatic, chances are you have slightly more than 150,000 right-wing religious fanatics living next door. My current rep (in DC, she can't vote--believe me, I understand 'taxation without representation') is a liberal black woman of modest means as was my last. My Senators were Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer--about as lefty-liberal as they come. Prior to that, I had uber-Nazi Chris Cox as a rep--because I was living in an area populated largely by ultraconservative neo-nazi fascists. I moved. Problem solved.
Have you ever bothered to write, call or meet your representative or senator? Have you ever watched CSPAN or read the House record to hear how you are being represented? You can hardly claim to be unrepresented if you don't even bother to communicate with your representative or check their records. I mean if you don't represent yourself to them, how can they represent you to the congress? DUH?
Well then, you're just 1/140Mth of the problem, aren't you. What part of representative democracy escapes you?
Oh, god forbid we have 'standards.'
If you like anarchy so much, move to Western Sahara and call us in the morning. Otherwise, STFU.
Cool, maybe JetBlue will contract out the management and I can transfer my frequent flyer miles. They're doing just fine starting up, buying a brand-spanking-new fleet and making a profit on $85 coast-to-coast tickets with all the regulation that is driving the other airlines bankrupt. I logged 12,000 miles on JetBlue for like $780--equivalent to circumnavigating the equator for $1560--and they're turning a profit.
Could it be that it isn't government regulation but just bad management that is driving the others bankrupt? Nah, that would be WAY to simple an answer.
Fer Chrissakes, Sudan, a government currently undergoing an organized campaign of genocide against its own citizenry ,sits at the head of the UN Human Rights Commission. And what does the General Assembly do about such a travesty? It steadfastly refuses to pass a resolution condemning antisemitism.
Actually, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice is the High Commissioner for Human Rights. She just went to Sudan less than two weeks ago.
http://www.ohchr.org/english/
But it's clearly anti-liberal, and I use that word in its classic Lockeian sense.
By "classic Lockeian" do you mean pro-conquest, pro-feudalism and pro-slavery? In that sense, the UN is very "un-Lockeian" as much as Locke is extraordinarily "un-American," at least as America has existed since 1865.
The ideals that this country was founded on, that individual liberty is the highest goal for which one can struggle, are anathema to the Westphalian notions of national sovereignity that the UN was founded upon
National sovereignty is anathema to the United States? WTF? Are you not aware that the UN was created primarily by the United States as was the League of Nations? Were Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson anathemas?
I suppose Locke would think so, but his ideals are hardly what one thinks of as "American," no matter what side of the aisle you stand on... unless we have one for Tories that I'm not aware of.
The Electoral College IS fscking simple.
n at e.gov/learning/min_4l.html
Your votes are sent to the federal government -- by your state -- in the form of precisely the same number of people who represent you and your state in the House and Senate, respectively. Since the United States of America are a federal republic, the idea of a direct, national popular vote is actually _less_ straightforward.
We have one popular vote at the federal level, but even that took the 17th amendment to happen. Read this and see if it still sounds like it makes a shred of difference:
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps12426/www.se
A state could choose to have its electors chosen by drawing straws and their respective votes by throwing darts if they felt like it as there's no law that says the electors have to vote according to the popular vote. If states chose to use your system, the Electoral College would still be the means by which the results were transmitted to the federal government barring a significant abrogation of states' rights through a constitutional amendment.
That would explain why my "cheap color scanner" that was purchased like five minutes ago happily copies any and all currency... quite effectively with no discernable moire problems, I might add.
The problem with anti-counterfeit technology is that there are so many places where money changes hands VERY rapidly and is not checked like a darkened bar on a busy night, a fast-food restaurant with an angry line, a toll-booth in traffic etc. If it is possible remotely resemble the real deal, fake notes will still make it into circulation primarily due to expediency and laziness.
It sounds like you're taking this seriously, so organize accordingly and make it a formal dues-paying club based on a legal partnership or corporation. You have a potentially HUGE liability exposure and you want some kind of legal barrier between you and your partners, members and guests. If it is a legitimate private club, many regulatory issues disappear, but you have to be legitimate, don't just say "we're selling memberships, not entry, at the door."
Find a fixed or regular location (that is one you have an annual lease on yourself or one you agree to rent for one day per month, repeatedly). Light industrial space is cheap as hell, costing less for a month than most rented spaces will cost for a night. Everything becomes cheaper if you operate from a fixed location. Even if you just find a hotel and negotiate for monthly meetings, you'll get a better deal than hunting around every time. Also, people will be more likely to show up repeatedly if they don't need to find you each and every time. If you want predictable results, you have to be predictable.
Negotiate annual or multiple event coverage, not per-day. A fixed location will make this much cheaper as there are fewer variables. $500/day is insane if you're going to be doing this on a regular basis.
Do you know how many states had laws completely banning alcohol, before they supported the Prohibition amendment?
As a matter of fact, I do. 23 out of 48, or 47% of the country. And even then they repealed it 16 years later at which point the federal government left regulation of alcohol to the states.
Voila, thanks for making my point so utterly clear with such an excellent example of precedent.
For further reading see: The Civil War.
Your argument fails on the fact that even with a constitutional amendment that passes Congress, it would still have to receive ratification by 38 states to come into force. It thus makes sense to ensure you have the necessary support in the states before poisoning the issue with failure on the national level and delaying progress for another century.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004 /08/18/2003199216
Even Bush backpeddles to "One China" despite making rather hostile off-the-cuff (and asinine, IMHO) statements to the contrary:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/taiwan/Story/0,2763,4786 38,00.html
This is invariably a "Speak softly, carry big stick" issue and you'll get essentially the same answer from either candidate, so, basically, don't bother.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..."
States rights, period, and states will not give up their rights without one hell of a fight. This is a major issue, but this question will not produce an interesting answer from a presidential candidate. The president has NO power to change this situation and even the Congress has extremely limited power to change it -- constitutional amendments are a major states' rights issue (read: ratification) -- so why the hell are we asking the question of a presidential candidate in the first place?
Lobby your state legislature on this. They can change it in a heartbeat, at least for your vote. But, please, don't ask this of someone who can't do a damned thing about it. All you'll get is empty spin and hyperbole.
Once a significant number of states embrace the idea, then we can reasonably talk about making a sweeping constitutional amendment that has a prayer of being passed and quickly ratified.
Sure, you are _more_likely_ to have itemizations over the standard deduction if you have a mortgage or business, but that's not the only case. Going on how /.'ers report their tax liabilities, roughly 30% make $56k or better and 20% make more than $75k, which is significantly better than the overall 15% of the population that makes it there, thus one can assume more of us are not using 1040EZ than are... not that /. polls are scientific, but looking at the spread compared to the national employment data, it's appears rather as one would expect, given an educated guess.
http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1093&aid= -1
Most Slashdotters probably have $50k in student loans, a mortgage (or equivalent rent, which is actually more expensive than a mortgage even in the short run since there are few tax breaks and no equity) in a major metropolitan area, a car payment and on average .75 kids instead of 2.5, since education and income have an inverse relation to birthrate, but they probably have 30% above average incomes and can write-off their computers as "tools," in effect making them roughly 20% cheaper at the end of the year than for those who buy them like Playstations.