I'm sorry if I insulted you. I don't mean to question your integrity or any such thing.
The problem is that words like theft and copyright infringement have specific meanings in specific situations. I can understand the moral equivalency you are making, but I think that it is misleading because it confuses the meanings of the terms in different situations (legal and moral). Legally, the term "copyright infringement" is correct; it is illegal, so obviously the law thinks that it's bad. There is also a different legal definition for the term "theft", so someone saw differences between the two and decided on differing punishments, etc. The legal system already views copyright infringement as a wrong, so it isn't really necessary to create another term for it. The problem with the "theft vs. copyright infringement" argument is that it conflates many meanings of those terms; I may have fallen into this trap as well.
Copyright infringement as viewed by the legal system is wrong and punishable; thus I don't believe that the term represents an acceptance or acquiescence to illegal use of someone else's work. Perhaps this is not what others think - I don't know. Theft implies perhaps that the punishment for CI should be higher than it is, and that can be argued as well. It would be better to make these arguments explicitly (CI should be punished more strongly because of the potential of significantly affecting a copyright holder's right to make money from his invention, for example) then to make them implicitly and confuse terms that already have (in some sense) unambiguous meanings. The crimes are punished differently because of the legal sense of their consequences. If the legal definition and the moral definition are at odds, then it would be better for arguments to address this difference explicitly rather than implicitly.
I don't believe that file trading of copyrighted material should be legal. I don't copy stuff (I don't have a home box so I couldn't if I wanted to). I just would like the language in the arguments to be explicit. It happens in other fields ("dietary supplements", for example) and it bothers me there as well.
Why is it "pedantic" to expect people to use language correctly? Language and words have actual meaning, and legal writings have particular and codified meanings. Abusing the words in order to change the underlying reality which they represent has become a standard and execrable tactic in public debate. If you can't use words correctly, then leave them to others who can.
Just because "file sharing" is copyright infringement, not theft, does not make it right; it merely makes it a different kind of wrong. Copyright infringement is a different kind of wrong from theft because the law (whose terms you are using) says so. If you want copyright infringement to be theft, then you'll have to change the copyright law that specifies it, just like if people want file-sharing to be legal, then they'll have change the law rather than copying music without permission and hoping the law changes.
Sorry to be harsh, but there is a reason why "theft" and "copyright infringement" are different terms - because the underlying realities are different. Calling one by a different name does not change the nature of the transgression or the law covering it - it does however mark the user as dishonest because they are intentionally misrepresenting a reality (and there is a reality to be represented here in US law) that they know to be otherwise.
1) Copyright and property are different concepts. Intellectual property can be taken from its possessor without the possessor losing the ability to use, unlike physical property; taking physical property deprives its owner of the ability to use it. IP does not. Thus copyright violation (illegal use of copyrighted material) and theft are different (see post #6586864).
2) Copyright is a right, but one given by law rather than the Constitution (its terms are defined by legislation rather than the Constitution). It exists because it's a good idea to let inventors profit from their ideas while allowing others to use their inventions. If the bargain of copyright is not fulfilled (if the public can't ever use inventions without paying due to DRM, for example), then the terms of copyright can be changed by law to reflect this. If enough people believe that copyright should be altered (and vote to reflect their views) then copyright law will be changed. Copying does not alter copyright law, but copyright is a very different right than those such as free speech that are specifically guarded in the Constitution, and it can be altered if the people decide it should be..
3) Another post earlier (I don't know which one) already brought up the last two points in some form. Copyright infringement has a monetary cost, though it's not entirely clear what it is. It costs the holders of copyright money that they should rightfully earn, and should be punished. The problems are:
a) the business model (hyping bad artists at the beginning of their career when the contracts are amenable to the labels, dropping them like a stone when they can determine their own contract terms, putting one good song on a record with 14 crappy ones) is doomed to fail. Another poster brought up the point that, before p2p, this didn't occur. Unfortunately, the illegal acts of some were necessary for any alternative models to be generated (the record labels didn't change until p2p forced them to).
b) the response by the RIAA and the court system (DMCA and copyright prosecution) is disproportionate to the violations.
c) the means the labels and software companies want to use to enforce copyright (DRM) negates copyright law; since DRM never expires, payment ust always be received for copyrighted material, contrary to the intent of copyright law. There are other potential problems (libraries, data archiving, access to information by the poor) that DRM and computer security techniques make, but most of all the concept of companies directly writing copyright law through DRM rather than indirectly through purchase xxxxxxx campaign donations to legislators is disturbing.
DRM (particularly Palladium) is like having to give your neighbor a copy of your house key to borrow his tools, and giving him the right to take anything he thinks you might have taken from him previously. Government is "burdened" by the concept that legislation should encode the least intrusive method to achieve an end. The RIAA and others have chosen perhaps the most intrusive means to an end.
The fact that the RIAA's model is flawed doesn't make copyright infringement right, but neither does it make it theft.
It is likely not a lack of thought that led to BM's decision not to allow for loss of computer or retirement. DRM is designed to make you pay for every and any potential use of someone else's content (or disallow it entirely); after all, DRM is present for the benefit and protection of content providers not content users. BM probably couldn't have gotten the music any other way. Apple has more muscle and may have had more leverage in dealing with content providers. I see no reason to pay for a crippled copy of music. Given a choice between having crippled music forced down my throat (via DRM) or having no new music, I'll take the latter, thank you.
I don't have a good defense for music copying/piracy/appropriation/sharing. Its effect on music sales is unclear; perhaps in the long run it will help to increase the efficiency of music sales by changing their methods, but that's not due to the copying of any one person nor as an intention of the whole.
The problems I have with DRM/Palladium/RIAA all involve methods not ends. Even if it may do me good in the long run, I should have the right to prevent people from copying my works without permission. That is the bargain copyright law seems to make; society gets works it could not make in return for limitations on their use over a period of time. Copying provides benefits to individuals, but its benefits to society are at best unclear. The problem with current law is mainly (IMHO) enforcement. The DMCA allows companies to act as government with very little oversight (in getting subpoenas, for example). DRM and its big brother Palladium unilaterally restrict the use of works among other things, giving media and software companies significant control over copyright law and the flow of information. While stopping copying to avoid purchase is understandable, the method chosen is one of the most onerous to achieve this benefit; based on the rhetoric of the RIAA, the scope of this method seems to be intentional. Since the effects of DRM and the RIAA's advocacy of it are potentially sweeping and remove benefits to society (such as fair use, library access?), they need to at least be questioned.
Government is theoretically supposed to choose the least intrusive way to enact public policy as law. I'm liberal (in the newer sense) and advocate lots of gov't action that people may not like. If there is a less intrusive way to achieve certain policy goals, I would think that I would take it over a more intrusive one if both work.(this is closer to the original definition of liberal, although that definition related to scope of action as well.) The RIAA and MPAA seem to advocate using the most intrusive means to achieve policy ends, and without much objection from either political party.
Ultimately, I can't justify copying as public policy. I don't think its benefits to society are clear. If it has benefits to artists and labels, we don't have a right to force it on them even if it's for their own good; reasonable people have the right to make their own choices about their interests. My objection to DRM schemes in general (other than they cost users money and give them nothing in return) and related actions is that the means are overly and intentionally onerous and that the implications are large and unquestioned.
Disclaimer: I don't trade content, as I have don't have a home box to do so and probably wouldn't if I could.
Content can always be copied, since it must at some point in its passage from artist to user be unencrypted. Professional copyright violators will be likely to circumvent this; others may as well. While keeping most people from copying is a good idea, the people that current attempts at DRM address are those who are least likely to violate it if it were there. While piracy is a big problem, current DRM is circumventable, often by people we would least like to see making money from others' content (CD copiers in the Ukraine, for example, as per an issue of Wired in 2002).
What worries me is serious restrictions on my ability to use content. I am likely to be charged (implicitly or explicitly) for content to at least three sources; a CD player, computer, and MP3/digital music player. Currently, I can shift content between devices and lend (not to copy) the disc to friends without penalty; this will probably not happen with DRM. I am probably going to have to pay for each of the files for use in different devices. Thus, I get what I get now for more money with less flexibility.
When everything digital has DRM, it is more likely that limited-time ownership (the main thing I find potentially execrable about DRM) will become the law of the land. Another poster had indicated (in a reply in a previous story) that book companies would love to crack down on libraries since they significantly decrease sales (the figure quoted was that each book is read about 4 times). Time-encoded (or single-user) DRM would address this issue easily (at least for content companies). While I don't think they could pull this off, the potential of this happening due to people who want it badly (the push for the DiVX standard in DVD) is worrisome. Newspapers or other content with time-linked DRM would prevent libraries from keeping old papers and magazines, forcing people to pay for archives. I don't know if I am being ridiculous, but I worry about the availability of information. Our society has depended on the availability of information and the populace's ability to use it. While I don't believe information is free (I spend all day compiling it), the access and ability to spend the time doing so and to use said knowledge is the basis of our technological advantage as a nation. DRM has the potential to erode this.
Finally, copyright is a balance of the needs of those who create content and sell it and the needs of society as a whole. If people can't make money from content, they won't provide it or will make inferior content. A variety of provisions in law allow for the use of content in ways which don't benefit those who sell it but the community at large. DRM allows copyright holders to determine this balance to their sole advantage. Considering the RIAA and Congress' willingness to acquiesce to them (particularly to allow or facilitate invasive methods of enforcing copyright), I don't have much faith that Congress will act to protect the rights of the community as a whole. and so I can easily see a DRM-protected content system as removing many of the privileges currently granted under copyright law. Some of the responses by the DoJ anti-piracy lawyers indicate that the RIAA has already had a significant influence on the interpretation of copyright law (see the use of "theft" by same lawyers).
Many of those who would protect copyrighted content have espoused Draconian means to enforce them. While I understand the need for DRM, I worry that it will be misused by people who have seen no limits on their ability (or at least desire) to control their work and its use. The effects on society of strict DRM could be significant and may be negative.
I appreciate that your father was a US auto worker, but I bought a Honda for one main reason : reliability. When Chevy, Ford, or Dodge can make reliable, low-end cars, people will buy them. I see no reason to buy a Chevy Crapolier (rated "don't buy this" in CR Used Cars 2000 from 1992-1999). Ford wants to charge Volkswagen/Honda/Toyota prices for the Focus, a car which has had >12 recalls in 18 months. It has nice design, but I see no reason to pay $2000 more for a Ford Focus than a Hyundai if I lose both warranty advantages and reliability. Dodge has both fake warranties and rebates (the rebates are allowances so if you bargain too hard, there goes your rebate; Dodge has finally gone to a real powertrain warranty but even that is worse than cheaper cars). I can think of quite a few better charities to give $2000 to than the UAW and the Big Three car companies.
I don't know who's at fault for the lack of reliability in low-end cars by the Big Three (their high-end cars have become reliable in the past five years) - incompetent management, expensive labor, materials costs, or what. If you can't make good low-end cars, then customers will go where they can. I'm in a business (information) that could be shipped elsewhere. Part of what we can do to avoid that is to give people good information that they don't mind paying for. People will buy American cars if they are reliable and decent, even if they have to pay more (say $1000-$1500) to do so; they are not willing to pay this premium to buy crap.
1) I didn't understand how the budget baseline was set - thank you for the correction. However, the key step that Reagan would have needed to take to lower deficits was to change their procedures, rather than to simply get his budgets approved.
2) I don't have an exact figure for the revenue increases; as above, the revenue increases come from www.fedstats.gov... since I couldn't find conversions for the effects of inflation on government income, I used Table 7.11 at www.bea.gov - "Chain-Type Quantity and Pridce Indexes for Government Expenditures and Gross Investment by Type"
Carter 241b (1977) to 439b (1981) (in 1996 $)
Reagan 438.7b (1981) to 954b (1989)
Bush Sr. 954b (1989) to 1185b (1993)
so Reagan did more than double revenues over 8 years but Carter nearly doubled revenue in 4 years (and President Bush only increased revenue by about 20-30% ) but I could be wrong (if I'm using the wrong figures for chained inflation or misusing them)
While I disagree with President Bush, I wouldn't call him a fascist, because that isn't fair. However, the core of what the United States is not orderly power transfer (a concept which is somewhat denigrated by the circumstances of its creation and which is more characteristic of either Europe or Singapore than the US) but a government accountable for its actions to its people as opposed to governments ruling by their inherent power. Part of the mechanism for doing so is political criticism, letting the government know how you feel, either directly or indirectly. In this environment, diagreement with the policies of President Bush has been viewed as unpatriotic. While I believe that calling the President a fascist is unproductive, the suppression of contrary opinions (by people with their own political axes to grind) is a bad idea and a greater violation of this country's principle than unhelpful poltical commentary.
Note also that during the Clinton administration, President Clinton was accused by various groups of being 1) a Chinese agent and 2) a Russian agent. Many other criticisms of him were leveled without proof or substance, yet the people that complain of unpatriotic criticism were silent then. If you (not the poster, but people in general) want reasoned orderly debate, you need to support it no matter who the president is.
Second note: some of the important policies of President Bush were either decided in closed meetings (energy policy) or justified publicly with reasoning based in part on flawed, selective intelligence (the war on Iraq). If the information for substantive decisions is hidden, then we are not able to make the substantive criticisms or support necessary to fulfill our role in government. If you want policy support other than mindless support or dissent, then the information (what we can see) to understand those decisons has to be present. If not, then why else (other than political motivation) would anyone make political commentary?
1) the numbers you cite don't support the contention that Congress, not President Reagan, created the deficits of the 1980's. Here are the deficits for those years (via fedstats.org, National Income and Product Amounts tables, 1981-1989)
In no single year (except maybe 1981) does the difference between Reagaan's budgets and Congress's budgets equal the deficits run by the federal government. In addition President Reagan had both veto power and popular support - if he had wanted to veto the budget he might have been able to better bend Congress to his will. He didn't, and deserves some blame for not doing so.
2) a previous contention was that Pres. reagan double government receipts during his term. Using the same source, the numbers given by BEA do not concur:
Carter 1977-1981 receipts increased from 405b to 659,3b (+70% approx.)
Reagan 1981-1989 receipts went from 659.3b to 1140.3b (+80-85% approx.)
Bush Sr. 1989-1993 receipts went from 1140b to 1471b (+30-40% approx.)
The rate of increase of receipts was greater during Carter's term than during either Reagan's terms or Bush's term (Carter was in office only 4 years while Reagan was in office for 8 years). This seems (assuming my analysis is reasonable) that President Reagan did not stimulate receipts as much as others, while helping to generate larger deficits.
While I disagree with most of what he did, I believe that President Reagan was important enough to deserve a ship, particularly if doing so is consistent with previous policy (naming carriers after presidents). Note that the first Seawolf sub is named after Pres. Carter, also living.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry if I insulted you. I don't mean to question your integrity or any such thing. The problem is that words like theft and copyright infringement have specific meanings in specific situations. I can understand the moral equivalency you are making, but I think that it is misleading because it confuses the meanings of the terms in different situations (legal and moral). Legally, the term "copyright infringement" is correct; it is illegal, so obviously the law thinks that it's bad. There is also a different legal definition for the term "theft", so someone saw differences between the two and decided on differing punishments, etc. The legal system already views copyright infringement as a wrong, so it isn't really necessary to create another term for it. The problem with the "theft vs. copyright infringement" argument is that it conflates many meanings of those terms; I may have fallen into this trap as well. Copyright infringement as viewed by the legal system is wrong and punishable; thus I don't believe that the term represents an acceptance or acquiescence to illegal use of someone else's work. Perhaps this is not what others think - I don't know. Theft implies perhaps that the punishment for CI should be higher than it is, and that can be argued as well. It would be better to make these arguments explicitly (CI should be punished more strongly because of the potential of significantly affecting a copyright holder's right to make money from his invention, for example) then to make them implicitly and confuse terms that already have (in some sense) unambiguous meanings. The crimes are punished differently because of the legal sense of their consequences. If the legal definition and the moral definition are at odds, then it would be better for arguments to address this difference explicitly rather than implicitly. I don't believe that file trading of copyrighted material should be legal. I don't copy stuff (I don't have a home box so I couldn't if I wanted to). I just would like the language in the arguments to be explicit. It happens in other fields ("dietary supplements", for example) and it bothers me there as well.
Why is it "pedantic" to expect people to use language correctly? Language and words have actual meaning, and legal writings have particular and codified meanings. Abusing the words in order to change the underlying reality which they represent has become a standard and execrable tactic in public debate. If you can't use words correctly, then leave them to others who can. Just because "file sharing" is copyright infringement, not theft, does not make it right; it merely makes it a different kind of wrong. Copyright infringement is a different kind of wrong from theft because the law (whose terms you are using) says so. If you want copyright infringement to be theft, then you'll have to change the copyright law that specifies it, just like if people want file-sharing to be legal, then they'll have change the law rather than copying music without permission and hoping the law changes. Sorry to be harsh, but there is a reason why "theft" and "copyright infringement" are different terms - because the underlying realities are different. Calling one by a different name does not change the nature of the transgression or the law covering it - it does however mark the user as dishonest because they are intentionally misrepresenting a reality (and there is a reality to be represented here in US law) that they know to be otherwise.
I'll bite.
1) Copyright and property are different concepts. Intellectual property can be taken from its possessor without the possessor losing the ability to use, unlike physical property; taking physical property deprives its owner of the ability to use it. IP does not. Thus copyright violation (illegal use of copyrighted material) and theft are different (see post #6586864).
2) Copyright is a right, but one given by law rather than the Constitution (its terms are defined by legislation rather than the Constitution). It exists because it's a good idea to let inventors profit from their ideas while allowing others to use their inventions. If the bargain of copyright is not fulfilled (if the public can't ever use inventions without paying due to DRM, for example), then the terms of copyright can be changed by law to reflect this. If enough people believe that copyright should be altered (and vote to reflect their views) then copyright law will be changed. Copying does not alter copyright law, but copyright is a very different right than those such as free speech that are specifically guarded in the Constitution, and it can be altered if the people decide it should be..
3) Another post earlier (I don't know which one) already brought up the last two points in some form. Copyright infringement has a monetary cost, though it's not entirely clear what it is. It costs the holders of copyright money that they should rightfully earn, and should be punished. The problems are:
a) the business model (hyping bad artists at the beginning of their career when the contracts are amenable to the labels, dropping them like a stone when they can determine their own contract terms, putting one good song on a record with 14 crappy ones) is doomed to fail. Another poster brought up the point that, before p2p, this didn't occur. Unfortunately, the illegal acts of some were necessary for any alternative models to be generated (the record labels didn't change until p2p forced them to).
b) the response by the RIAA and the court system (DMCA and copyright prosecution) is disproportionate to the violations.
c) the means the labels and software companies want to use to enforce copyright (DRM) negates copyright law; since DRM never expires, payment ust always be received for copyrighted material, contrary to the intent of copyright law. There are other potential problems (libraries, data archiving, access to information by the poor) that DRM and computer security techniques make, but most of all the concept of companies directly writing copyright law through DRM rather than indirectly through purchase xxxxxxx campaign donations to legislators is disturbing.
DRM (particularly Palladium) is like having to give your neighbor a copy of your house key to borrow his tools, and giving him the right to take anything he thinks you might have taken from him previously. Government is "burdened" by the concept that legislation should encode the least intrusive method to achieve an end. The RIAA and others have chosen perhaps the most intrusive means to an end.
The fact that the RIAA's model is flawed doesn't make copyright infringement right, but neither does it make it theft.
It is likely not a lack of thought that led to BM's decision not to allow for loss of computer or retirement. DRM is designed to make you pay for every and any potential use of someone else's content (or disallow it entirely); after all, DRM is present for the benefit and protection of content providers not content users. BM probably couldn't have gotten the music any other way. Apple has more muscle and may have had more leverage in dealing with content providers. I see no reason to pay for a crippled copy of music. Given a choice between having crippled music forced down my throat (via DRM) or having no new music, I'll take the latter, thank you.
I don't have a good defense for music copying/piracy/appropriation/sharing. Its effect on music sales is unclear; perhaps in the long run it will help to increase the efficiency of music sales by changing their methods, but that's not due to the copying of any one person nor as an intention of the whole.
The problems I have with DRM/Palladium/RIAA all involve methods not ends. Even if it may do me good in the long run, I should have the right to prevent people from copying my works without permission. That is the bargain copyright law seems to make; society gets works it could not make in return for limitations on their use over a period of time. Copying provides benefits to individuals, but its benefits to society are at best unclear. The problem with current law is mainly (IMHO) enforcement. The DMCA allows companies to act as government with very little oversight (in getting subpoenas, for example). DRM and its big brother Palladium unilaterally restrict the use of works among other things, giving media and software companies significant control over copyright law and the flow of information. While stopping copying to avoid purchase is understandable, the method chosen is one of the most onerous to achieve this benefit; based on the rhetoric of the RIAA, the scope of this method seems to be intentional. Since the effects of DRM and the RIAA's advocacy of it are potentially sweeping and remove benefits to society (such as fair use, library access?), they need to at least be questioned.
Government is theoretically supposed to choose the least intrusive way to enact public policy as law. I'm liberal (in the newer sense) and advocate lots of gov't action that people may not like. If there is a less intrusive way to achieve certain policy goals, I would think that I would take it over a more intrusive one if both work.(this is closer to the original definition of liberal, although that definition related to scope of action as well.) The RIAA and MPAA seem to advocate using the most intrusive means to achieve policy ends, and without much objection from either political party.
Ultimately, I can't justify copying as public policy. I don't think its benefits to society are clear. If it has benefits to artists and labels, we don't have a right to force it on them even if it's for their own good; reasonable people have the right to make their own choices about their interests. My objection to DRM schemes in general (other than they cost users money and give them nothing in return) and related actions is that the means are overly and intentionally onerous and that the implications are large and unquestioned.
Disclaimer: I don't trade content, as I have don't have a home box to do so and probably wouldn't if I could.
Content can always be copied, since it must at some point in its passage from artist to user be unencrypted. Professional copyright violators will be likely to circumvent this; others may as well. While keeping most people from copying is a good idea, the people that current attempts at DRM address are those who are least likely to violate it if it were there. While piracy is a big problem, current DRM is circumventable, often by people we would least like to see making money from others' content (CD copiers in the Ukraine, for example, as per an issue of Wired in 2002).
What worries me is serious restrictions on my ability to use content. I am likely to be charged (implicitly or explicitly) for content to at least three sources; a CD player, computer, and MP3/digital music player. Currently, I can shift content between devices and lend (not to copy) the disc to friends without penalty; this will probably not happen with DRM. I am probably going to have to pay for each of the files for use in different devices. Thus, I get what I get now for more money with less flexibility.
When everything digital has DRM, it is more likely that limited-time ownership (the main thing I find potentially execrable about DRM) will become the law of the land. Another poster had indicated (in a reply in a previous story) that book companies would love to crack down on libraries since they significantly decrease sales (the figure quoted was that each book is read about 4 times). Time-encoded (or single-user) DRM would address this issue easily (at least for content companies). While I don't think they could pull this off, the potential of this happening due to people who want it badly (the push for the DiVX standard in DVD) is worrisome. Newspapers or other content with time-linked DRM would prevent libraries from keeping old papers and magazines, forcing people to pay for archives. I don't know if I am being ridiculous, but I worry about the availability of information. Our society has depended on the availability of information and the populace's ability to use it. While I don't believe information is free (I spend all day compiling it), the access and ability to spend the time doing so and to use said knowledge is the basis of our technological advantage as a nation. DRM has the potential to erode this.
Finally, copyright is a balance of the needs of those who create content and sell it and the needs of society as a whole. If people can't make money from content, they won't provide it or will make inferior content. A variety of provisions in law allow for the use of content in ways which don't benefit those who sell it but the community at large. DRM allows copyright holders to determine this balance to their sole advantage. Considering the RIAA and Congress' willingness to acquiesce to them (particularly to allow or facilitate invasive methods of enforcing copyright), I don't have much faith that Congress will act to protect the rights of the community as a whole. and so I can easily see a DRM-protected content system as removing many of the privileges currently granted under copyright law. Some of the responses by the DoJ anti-piracy lawyers indicate that the RIAA has already had a significant influence on the interpretation of copyright law (see the use of "theft" by same lawyers).
Many of those who would protect copyrighted content have espoused Draconian means to enforce them. While I understand the need for DRM, I worry that it will be misused by people who have seen no limits on their ability (or at least desire) to control their work and its use. The effects on society of strict DRM could be significant and may be negative.
I appreciate that your father was a US auto worker, but I bought a Honda for one main reason : reliability. When Chevy, Ford, or Dodge can make reliable, low-end cars, people will buy them. I see no reason to buy a Chevy Crapolier (rated "don't buy this" in CR Used Cars 2000 from 1992-1999). Ford wants to charge Volkswagen/Honda/Toyota prices for the Focus, a car which has had >12 recalls in 18 months. It has nice design, but I see no reason to pay $2000 more for a Ford Focus than a Hyundai if I lose both warranty advantages and reliability. Dodge has both fake warranties and rebates (the rebates are allowances so if you bargain too hard, there goes your rebate; Dodge has finally gone to a real powertrain warranty but even that is worse than cheaper cars). I can think of quite a few better charities to give $2000 to than the UAW and the Big Three car companies.
I don't know who's at fault for the lack of reliability in low-end cars by the Big Three (their high-end cars have become reliable in the past five years) - incompetent management, expensive labor, materials costs, or what. If you can't make good low-end cars, then customers will go where they can. I'm in a business (information) that could be shipped elsewhere. Part of what we can do to avoid that is to give people good information that they don't mind paying for. People will buy American cars if they are reliable and decent, even if they have to pay more (say $1000-$1500) to do so; they are not willing to pay this premium to buy crap.
1) I didn't understand how the budget baseline was set - thank you for the correction. However, the key step that Reagan would have needed to take to lower deficits was to change their procedures, rather than to simply get his budgets approved.
2) I don't have an exact figure for the revenue increases; as above, the revenue increases come from www.fedstats.gov... since I couldn't find conversions for the effects of inflation on government income, I used Table 7.11 at www.bea.gov - "Chain-Type Quantity and Pridce Indexes for Government Expenditures and Gross Investment by Type"
Carter 1977 chain factor 0.67
1981 " " 0.7244
1989 " " 0.9495
1993 " " ? (used 0.99 - 1992 is 0.991)
using these, I get
Carter 241b (1977) to 439b (1981) (in 1996 $)
Reagan 438.7b (1981) to 954b (1989)
Bush Sr. 954b (1989) to 1185b (1993)
so Reagan did more than double revenues over 8 years but Carter nearly doubled revenue in 4 years (and President Bush only increased revenue by about 20-30% )
but I could be wrong (if I'm using the wrong figures for chained inflation or misusing them)
While I disagree with President Bush, I wouldn't call him a fascist, because that isn't fair. However, the core of what the United States is not orderly power transfer (a concept which is somewhat denigrated by the circumstances of its creation and which is more characteristic of either Europe or Singapore than the US) but a government accountable for its actions to its people as opposed to governments ruling by their inherent power. Part of the mechanism for doing so is political criticism, letting the government know how you feel, either directly or indirectly. In this environment, diagreement with the policies of President Bush has been viewed as unpatriotic. While I believe that calling the President a fascist is unproductive, the suppression of contrary opinions (by people with their own political axes to grind) is a bad idea and a greater violation of this country's principle than unhelpful poltical commentary.
Note also that during the Clinton administration, President Clinton was accused by various groups of being 1) a Chinese agent and 2) a Russian agent. Many other criticisms of him were leveled without proof or substance, yet the people that complain of unpatriotic criticism were silent then. If you (not the poster, but people in general) want reasoned orderly debate, you need to support it no matter who the president is.
Second note: some of the important policies of President Bush were either decided in closed meetings (energy policy) or justified publicly with reasoning based in part on flawed, selective intelligence (the war on Iraq). If the information for substantive decisions is hidden, then we are not able to make the substantive criticisms or support necessary to fulfill our role in government. If you want policy support other than mindless support or dissent, then the information (what we can see) to understand those decisons has to be present. If not, then why else (other than political motivation) would anyone make political commentary?
1) the numbers you cite don't support the contention that Congress, not President Reagan, created the deficits of the 1980's. Here are the deficits for those years (via fedstats.org, National Income and Product Amounts tables, 1981-1989)
1981 $53.7 billion (abbreviated as b)
1982 132.6b
1983 173.9b
1984 168.1b
1985 177.1b
1986 192.1b
1987 147.9b
1988 137.4b
1989 130.0b
In no single year (except maybe 1981) does the difference between Reagaan's budgets and Congress's budgets equal the deficits run by the federal government. In addition President Reagan had both veto power and popular support - if he had wanted to veto the budget he might have been able to better bend Congress to his will. He didn't, and deserves some blame for not doing so.
2) a previous contention was that Pres. reagan double government receipts during his term. Using the same source, the numbers given by BEA do not concur:
Carter 1977-1981 receipts increased from 405b to 659,3b (+70% approx.)
Reagan 1981-1989 receipts went from 659.3b to 1140.3b (+80-85% approx.)
Bush Sr. 1989-1993 receipts went from 1140b to 1471b (+30-40% approx.)
The rate of increase of receipts was greater during Carter's term than during either Reagan's terms or Bush's term (Carter was in office only 4 years while Reagan was in office for 8 years). This seems (assuming my analysis is reasonable) that President Reagan did not stimulate receipts as much as others, while helping to generate larger deficits.
While I disagree with most of what he did, I believe that President Reagan was important enough to deserve a ship, particularly if doing so is consistent with previous policy (naming carriers after presidents). Note that the first Seawolf sub is named after Pres. Carter, also living.