Jacuzzi with 42'' Plasma TV 272
[RNP]Venom writes "Now this is cool. Jacuzzi has a new "private" collection for people with too much money. Only question is do you prefer this Whirlpool Tub with a 42'' Plasma TV, DVD, and all the trimmings, or a more subtle tub with a 10'' screen, but jets that can do 30 Gallons per minute? Things like floating remote controls and underwater lightning are also included. Now all you'd have to do is mod the tub with a computer and wireless internet, and you'd never have to leave!"
Lightning? (Score:4, Funny)
The rich always have it so good....
Re:Lightning? (Score:1)
~slak
What is a Jacuzzi with a 42" Plasma screeen for? (Score:2)
Wow, no wonder it's expensive (Score:2, Funny)
Underwater lightning? No wonder these things cost so much, the liability insurance must be insane.
2+ hours? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:2+ hours? (Score:1)
Re:2+ hours? (Score:2)
Eeeeww (Score:1)
Ok, maybe you never have to leave, but I do like clean water.
And, the occasional bodily outlets might clutter up those 30-gallon-minute pipes...
However, the whole setup does look gooooood...
-- Tino Didriksen / Project JJ [projectjj.dk]
Calvin & Hobbes (Score:5, Funny)
Think about how wrinkly you'd get after watching a movie in it.
Sound Systems (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sound Systems (Score:1)
Expect to see in a few months:
"/. reader mods home stereo systems, makes Jacuzzi THX certified"
:)
Actually just setting the speakers back a bit and using an external receiver.
Re:Sound Systems (Score:2)
Dave
Re:Sound Systems (Score:2)
Yeah.... (Score:1)
Bah
safety issues? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:safety issues? (Score:1)
Dude, public swimming pools use lighting, and pumps, and so forth.
You see, it is something call INSULATION. Rubber, silicon, whatever.
That and the screen isn't IN the Jacuzzi's water, it is mounted on a pedestal that is at reasonable viewing height.
Yeesh.
Now if you went through the trouble of getting out a high powered saw of some sort, taking the Plasma screen off of its mounting, sanded away the surrounding panels got to the wires, dropped THOSE in the water, turned on the power;
then yah, you MIGHT have a safety issue.
But if you go through all of that trouble either:
A: You should be aware that a toaster would be a bit easier to implement and just about as effective
or
B: Whoever you are trying to kill is going to notice the big ass mess and that their 42inch Plasma TV is split wide open.
Re:safety issues? (Score:1)
Now you can... (Score:4, Funny)
15 min. lightning break (Score:5, Funny)
Now, is it just me, or does the phrase "underwater lightning" send images into your brain of tons of rich people floating dead on the surface of their new hottub?
Re:15 min. lightning break (Score:1)
Maybe your'e all too jealous about it (I know I am), but say something about the pink raisin's, the lighting thing just isn't funny.
Re:15 min. lightning break (Score:1)
Re:15 min. lightning break (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish I posted anonymously.
damn damn damn damn, shame on me.
Re:15 min. lightning break (Score:1)
Re:15 min. lightning break (Score:2)
No, it reminds me of "ball lightning," which naturally occurs at certain private moments but can leave a disgusting film on the side...
I'll take two. (Score:2)
Waterproof phone (Score:2)
Re:Waterproof phone (Score:2)
Re:Waterproof phone (Score:2)
nonononOOOO OUCH!
Hrm. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Hitchhikers Guide (Score:1)
Never have to leave? (Score:3, Funny)
Good thing that the NHP 200NC "case" [g-news.ch] floats (although not completely waterproof)... might destroy the look, though. Now if only I could fit this thing into my parent's basement... oh yeah, and could afford it.
Copy-editing error... (Score:1)
Warning: Don't waste your money (Score:5, Insightful)
Designed exclusively for individuals with the most discerning taste
This is the first line of the description of the product. This can be generally translated as follows:
"Created for, and sold to, people who think 'If it's expensive, it's good and therefore I need it.'"
Anything that suggests you have "discerning taste" when you buy it is just trying to lighten your wallet.
Everyone knows that when you're filthy rich you have everything custom built (and engineered).
;)
Re:Warning: Don't waste your money (Score:2, Funny)
> wallet.
You mean lightnen your wallet.
Re:Warning: Don't waste your money (Score:2)
The Golgafrinchan Captain Should Have One (Score:1)
"...you'd never have to leave," huh? (Score:1)
Money? (Score:2)
Jacuzzi has a new "private" collection for people with too much money.
I always thought that was what Athlon 2100s [slashdot.org] were for.
One reason to be a monopolist (Score:1)
Oh, really? (Score:1)
Don't forget a water filter...
Re:Oh, really? (Score:2)
Or something. If CT really *would* never leave the tub, he's better have something more effective than just a filter. Maybe he'd just change out the water a lot...
Uh.... (Score:2)
Re:Uh.... (Score:1)
In case you wanted to know, I'm using my toilet while writing this post.
Yep, thought you did
Call me ignorant if you like. (Score:1)
It seems like this would detract from the enjoyment of a movie (you would get cold and wet) and of the jacuzzi (you could not concentrate on the experience because of the damn movie).
I know there are a lot of rich geeks out there, but surely they will not be taken in by this, will they ?
Re:Call me ignorant if you like. (Score:2)
Uh, Jacuzzi, heated. This isn't a bathtub with a Plasma screen, it is a Jacuzzi
and of the jacuzzi (you could not concentrate on the experience because of the damn movie).
Being relaxed is being relaxed, and it all depends on the movie. Sure watching a horror / action flic may not be best for this, but a quiet romantic movie would be just perfect for time with your SO.
I know there are a lot of rich geeks out there, but surely they will not be taken in by this, will they ?
Me and my friends are already drooling over it. ^_^
Umm. (Score:2)
Secondly. it's for PORN YOU MORON. Why do you think its seats two?
"and you'd never have to leave" (Score:1)
That would definitely give new meaning to "stinking rich"!
Finally (Score:1)
Junk News (Score:1, Troll)
Is VA so hard up it's resorting to advertorializing for totally worthless junk?
Oh, and if you think the rich actually buy crap like this, do yourself a favor and read The Millionaire Next Door [nytimes.com]. Most millionaires would never say something like this is "cool".
If thier webserv can't stand a /.'ing w/o slowing (Score:1)
I WANT ONE! (Score:1)
met someone selling these the other day (Score:2, Interesting)
Wish i could afford one.
Question... (Score:2, Interesting)
Priceless.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Antique clawfoot tub............$450
CD of the Wiener Philharmoniker playing Mozart's Requiem
A dozen or so candles $.....6
Time soaking in the tub *away* from video screens.... Priceless
Never have to leave ... (Score:2)
Not even when "emergency" occurs ?
OMGx2!
Thats usually first sign of a forming fetish ... =)
'Save the whales? Feed the hungry? Tree-hugger... (Score:2)
Communications applications (Score:2)
Jesus [jesus.com] needs one of these.
Ancient Chinese Proverb. (Score:2)
He who has too many gadgets along with his hot tub deserves to be electrocuted.
I want one of these... (Score:2)
Re:How rich the rich are (Score:1)
People don't understand just how rich the rich are in the U.S. The incomes at the top are in the hundreds of millions of $$ per year. The top 5% own more than 80% of everything in the country. That means that 95% of us are trying to get along with 20% of everything. (If you have a mortgage, you don't "own" your house.)
The Bush tax cuts, which go almost entirely to the top 1% (and were opposed by 70% of the public), cost TRILLIONS of dollars over this decade. It means we don't have medical care, prescription drug coverage, repairs in the nation's schools, repairs of our bridges, and now they are even cancelling student loan programs. AND because of this the government is now using our SOCIAL SECURITY money to cover the money going out to the tax cuts. And this is because a few people at the top are making SO MUCH MONEY that cancelling this small tax cut would pay for all these things!
If people undstood just how much money is now being moved from regular people to the few people at the top they might start talking about doing something about it.
Troll or not, I am all for you.
o---- teh classisist!
(besides, if I hear one more spoiled rich brat bitch about only getting to go to disney land 'once' this year. . .
Apply the power of mathematics to your question! (Score:2)
1) Draw a venn diagram consisting of 2 sets.
2) label them 'the rich' and 'the poor'.
3) Note the lack of overlap.
4) Mark the positions in these sets of "yourself" and ""Bill Gates"
The solution to your problem should become clear to the mathemtically adept (if not , you can have a laugh at the pair of boobies you just drew).
forced alturism (Score:1)
lots of money, that you're entitled to a single
penny of it? If the government didn't take
people's money by force, a whole lot more of us
would have more of it. Then we could afford to pay for our own schools and health insurance. Forced
alturism is just plain theft and you're just a
looter.
Re:forced alturism (Score:1)
It's called society. You pay taxes and the country builds schools, roads, etc.
And in this case all of us working people are sending money to Social Security and Bush is now taking THAT money from OUR paychecks and giving it out to pay for the tax cuts that are going to the very rich, and to pay interest on the Reagan debt, which also goes to the very rich, and to pay defense contractors, which are the very rich...
Re:forced alturism (Score:2)
But when you give tax cuts to the rich, and not to the rest of us, you are saying that they are entitled to MY money.
Why not make tax cuts even, across the board, for all income levels? No no, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... they all worked for the rich.
Re:forced alturism (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton also raised the minimum wage and brought in the Earned Income Tax Credit which actually gave some cash to poor people who are raising kids.
The result was a HUGE economic expansion - high economic growth for the longest time in our country's history. (And not funded by borrowing money like Reagan's economic growth was.) The huge Reagan deficits went away and we started paying off the massive Reagan debt. (Which meant paying less interest which helped pay off even more debt.) (Bush has reversed this.)
Why did this happen? Think about it - we have a consumer economy. More money in the hands of the large numbers of regular people means they're able to buy more stuff. OBVIOUSLY things like increasing the minimum wage, paying off debt, and taxing the rich in order to recirculate the money in the economy are good for the economy. Just look at history, when these policies are in place we have economic growth, and when Republican policies are in place we have low growth. That's not to hard to look up - the highest economic growth has occurred when we have the highest taxes on the rich.
Re:forced alturism (Score:2)
Employers hire as many workers as they need to to meet demand.
They don't hire workers because they have extra cash laying arouynd, and they don't fire workers when customers are pounding on the door.
Companies price their goods at a level competitive with their competitors, and according to what customers will pay. Labor, especially at the minuimum wage level, is SUCH a small part of the pricing... (I ran a company for 15 years.)
More money with less education and health? how? (Score:2)
How would we fight the war on terrorism or even crime?
Society cannot run without taxes, it CANT, THE END. IF you want a taxless society, you'll have a society just as bad as communist russia was, where the upper class always stay upper class and the lower class always stay lower class with no way to ever get out of it through education or public funded programs to help the poor become rich.
Poor people NEED healthcare because they cant afford the drugs, if you want an example look at the deaths happening in third world countries, theres no healthcare in most of these places, do you want US to be like that?
Without schools, expect everyone in the US to be uneducated, look at the trailer park and the ghettos of south central, that will be the majority off the USA without public schools.
So what do you say? Should we get rid of taxes or raise them?
Considering society has more problems, why not raise the taxes to solve these problems? Better schools, War on terrorism, cure for aids, cancer, etc,
Yes it is our responsibility, meaning the poor and the rich, to do whats best for our people.
Yeah thats why we have problems (Score:2)
Look, its people who think like you, "be rich or die" attitude that makes people so willing to be a suicide bomber. Makes them willing to join a gang and rob people like you, makes them sell illegal drugs.
Just like you said, if its winner takes all, Why play by the rules?
Re:Yeah thats why we have problems (Score:2)
People who arent successful should still be given something, no one should be starving to death, dying of sicknesses which are cureable, and living on the streets. Theres absolutely no excuse for this, none, and when you keep allowing people to live in a fucked up way, dont be surprised when these people fuck up the country with crime, terrorism, rioting, etc.
Re:More money with less education and health? how? (Score:2)
First, a tariff is a tax. In your terminology, it's "stealing" stuff from people trying to import goods.
Second, you must be smoking heavy crack if you think that there is any way to eliminate taxes. Every non-primitive society in human history has had some form of taxation. What makes you think that you've figured out some magical way to avoid taxes when nobody else has ever achieved this?
Have you ever really sat down to account for the all of the benefits you personally receive from the gov't via tax-financed means? Have you ever thought about how much more it would cost you in time and money to individually arrange replacements for all of those services? I doubt it. You could hire your own private police force (you'll really need a good one one if the majority of the population gets no education because public schools are abolished), you could negotiate the rights to pass through each person's land instead of using roads, you could hire a private detective to hunt down terrorists who threaten your safety. You could hire private services for the thousands of other things the government now does with better efficiency of scale.
But you probably haven't thought through the implications of any of that. Basically, you're just a selfish, myopic cheapass skinflint whiner who thinks that they can get the benefits of being a citizen of this country without paying anything for them.
Re:More money with less education and health? how? (Score:2)
Lets see, what a free market place would do.
Well, you'd still have the class system, the only diffrence is, you'd have almost class slavery
you'd have no way to ever become rich, Think about it, the rich will get richer, but the poor will have no way to get educated, so unless they are lucky, or a genius, they have no way of ever being rich.
Face it, in a taxless society, people would riot and steal, no ones going to work when theres no longer the american dream, no hope of being successful, hell they cant even be educated!
give as much as you need to to ensure (Score:2)
This means no one should ever starve, even if they dont have a job everyone deserves shelter, and food.
This means no one should ever be denied education no matter how old, if they cannot afford college they should still be given some other chance.
Lastly, welfare SHOULD exsist, but in a diffrent fashion, perhaps instead of welfare, public shelters with paid empoyees who help the poor, and help raise children etc
this way people cant be on welfare and take the money and use it to buy drugs, or something stupid.
Re:More money with less education and health? how? (Score:2)
Me help them? I'm one of them. I dont have shit. I'm not rich, how am I, a poor person supposed to help my poor neighbors? I can barely survive myself.
Look, people have to survive, people dont give a damn if you live or die, when you say its its them or me.
You back people into a corner, yes they will rob you,kill you and do whatever it takes to survive, they wont play by the rules, you cannot expect them to play by the rules when they play a game which losing is not allowed!
If people werent punished so much for losing,perhaps the losers of the game wouldnt punish the winners for losing via terrorism, crime, etc.
Their need does not entitle them
to my effort and the work of my hands. If they
have any dignity left as human beings, they would
not themselves rob me in person. They would plead
their case and ask me for help.
How many years have people in afganastan been asking for help? How many years have africians been asking for help? How many years have minorities in the ghetto be DEMANDING help?
Look, they've been asking, but iff you havent been listening to them for the past hundred years or more, well, whos fault is that. Remember the civil rights movement? That happened right before gang violence in the ghettos EXPLODED onto the scene, that was their cry for help, what happened when they asked for help? They got hosed down, beat up, killed.
Asking for help only works when people are listening, when people dont give you help, you have two options, steal, or become a suicide bomber and die for the cause bringing more attention to the problem.
Re:More money with less education and health? how? (Score:2)
Why do you keep bringing up terrorism? How does the American tax system create terrorists? Enlighten me, please.
More taxes, less crime (Score:2)
You have 2 choices.
You can support the losers, or its winner take all.
if its winner take all, no one can afford to be a loser, losing is worse than death.
Get my point? I whine alot? We'll George Bush whines alot, alot of people whine when 3 thousand people die in twin towers.
Stupid. I whine, afganstan whines, people in the ghettos and trailors whine, we all whine, except you, who has everything.
Look, face it, you are a classist, do you know what that is? someone who believes they are superior due to their class. Because you are successful, you feel you matter more than someone whos poor, keep thinking like that and you'll cause the destruction of the world.
Terrorism, Crime, not a problem for you yet? Well wait until you cant step outside your mansion without worrying about people trying to rob you.
Re:More taxes, less crime (Score:2)
I'm not going to disagree with you that George Bush whines a lot. Now, unlike yourself, I don't think that George Bush is the reason for all the problems that happen in my life.
I whine, afganstan whines, people in the ghettos and trailors whine, we all whine, except you, who has everything.
Making baseless assumptions. Nice. How do you suppose I have everything? How do you know I'm not just another working shmoe down on his luck right now? You're omnipotent, I guess?
As far as the classist remark goes, I'm just going to shake my head and laugh. First off, even if I am, I'm not going to cause the destruction of the world by thinking that way, sorry. (Of course, if the world does end, it'll be everyone's fault but yours, right?)
Terrorism, Crime, not a problem for you yet? Well wait until you cant step outside your mansion without worrying about people trying to rob you.
Well, with the house I live in, the most I have to worry about is Bill Gates running me over in one of his many cars. Yeah, that's it...
Re:More taxes, less crime (Score:2)
OK i should have said 2 logical choices. Sure theres more than 2 choices, but only 2 choices are logical choices, the other choices arent always as logical. Suicide is a choice, but its never a logical choice.
I'm not going to disagree with you that George Bush whines a lot. Now, unlike yourself, I don't think that George Bush is the reason for all the problems that happen in my life.
George Bush isnt the problem, but hes not part of the solution either, hes prolonging the problem because so far the problems dont effect him. Hes in his underground base, hes safe from terrorists, hes never been poor, he doesnt worry about being robbed, hes rich, hes never lived it so he couldnt understand the problems that poverty can cause. Lets see George Bush be a man like Bill Clinton is, lets see him live in Harlem for a few years, and then we will see if he still has the same opinions.
Unlike Bush who grew up rich, had a rich dad, and always had a silver spoon in his mouth, Clinton grew up poor, in poverty, like the majority of the working class. Thats why we voted for Clinton over Bush senior.
How is a Rich guy going to try to tell us to cut taxes when often we NEED those services the taxes provide? Yes I said need, because without the working class you cannot have the ruling/upper class.
The working class should be kept happy, this means the failures should have a reason to continue to play the game, if you make it winner takes all, what will happen is the economy and the world will collapse.
Making baseless assumptions. Nice. How do you suppose I have everything? How do you know I'm not just another working shmoe down on his luck right now? You're omnipotent, I guess?
If you are a working smoe just barely surviving,
Do you plan to ever have kids? Do you plan to retire? What if you get sick? Dont tell me you lost all your money in your 401k because of the recession, oh no, looks like you can never retire now.
As far as the classist remark goes, I'm just going to shake my head and laugh. First off, even if I am, I'm not going to cause the destruction of the world by thinking that way, sorry. (Of course, if the world does end, it'll be everyone's fault but yours, right?)
You are a classist, you want the classes to compete by raising the stakes, thats what you do, when you say "winner takes all, be successful or go to hell"
The failures will kill you to be successful, will rob you, will do anything it takes, because at that point you are literally telling them they must be successful or ELSE.
People in Afganastan and the third world have almost no chance of success thus no reason for living, dying would do more to help their people than to stay alive, so why not suicide bomb, they are dying anyway of aids, and sicknesses, and the average lifespan is only 30 or so, so why shouldnt teenagers go blow themselves up? They have nothing to lose, absolutely nothing, and thats because you dont GIVE them anything. Everyone needs something, even if its something small.
Well, with the house I live in, the most I have to worry about is Bill Gates running me over in one of his many cars. Yeah, that's it...
Move to Harlem, Then you have to worry about being robbed and shot, every single day. Better yet, move to South Africa, have no chance at having children do to the aids problem, worry about how to find food on a daily basis, go weeks without eating, yeah you do that and you'll soon be robbing people to.
Survival is the only rule in the game.
When people cant survive via your capitalism, they'll abandon your rules and play by their own rules, this means killing you and TAKING your money instead of earning the money.
Get my point?
Re:More taxes, less crime (Score:2)
The AIDS problem in Africa is not my fault. It's a social problem caused by lack of education and ignorance of basic facts.
Poor people in Harlem is not my fault. I didn't make them poor. Same thing with people in Afghanistan. No amount of fingerpointing is going to make me feel guilty for that situation. I can fell empathy for all the above cases, but not guilt. No matter how often you try to tell me it's my fault, it's not.
One last point: Did Bill Clinton spend his childhood and university years bitching about how bad he had it, being born in Arkansas to a single mother? Or was he too busy being a Rhodes scholar to feel sorry for himself?
Re:More taxes, less crime (Score:2)
The AIDS problem in Africa is not my fault. It's a social problem caused by lack of education and ignorance of basic facts.
However you own most of the information and its your responsiblity to educate those who cannot afford education.
Poor people in Harlem is not my fault. I didn't make them poor. Same thing with people in Afghanistan. No amount of fingerpointing is going to make me feel guilty for that situation. I can fell empathy for all the above cases, but not guilt. No matter how often you try to tell me it's my fault, it's not.
Its not your fault that you grew up middle class either. Not everyone is so fortunate as you, its not like you grew up in harlem and worked your way out of there into your spot you have now, so how can you understand? Its not about guilt, it or empathy, its the fact that you have no choice, if you expect society to work, you have to make sure everyone can survive by following the rules, because when only you can surviving following the rules, you'll be the only one following your rules.
One last point: Did Bill Clinton spend his childhood and university years bitching about how bad he had it, being born in Arkansas to a single mother? Or was he too busy being a Rhodes scholar to feel sorry for himself?
That is why poor people respect Clinton, This is why he was voted in by all the democrats, because he worked hard and spent a lifetime to get his spot, he worked x100 harder than you,, x10 harder than bush, and he made it.
Not everyone however will make it, not everyone can or will be president, Clinton did the impossible and that is why I respect him. He didnt spend his childhood bitching, but he knew where he came from, and when he became president he helped make it so other people in his situation had it easier than he did. Whats wrong with helping people who are less fortunate than you are? I'm not saying let them leech you into the poorhouse, but help level the playing field so your class doesnt decide what you can and cannot do. Allow the proper services and support structures to be in place so even the poorest person can become a scientist, a lawyer, even president. Give them hope, and something to aim for and they wont become criminals, they dont become terrorists.
Remove that hope, tell them its going to be impossible and what do they have left?
Thats my point, I guess we can never agree because you've never been in a hopeeless situation. I agree to disagree.
Re:More taxes, less crime (Score:2)
Oh really? I suppose I should head over to the nearest University and get that MBA free of charge then. Or maybe that Philosophy degree I was always interested in. Any then maybe we can chain Torvalds up to a keyboard and make him crank out new kernels faster. After all, he has the knowledge, right?
Anyways, I'm not getting into a pissing match with an anonymous person about how tough I've had it growing up compared to him or her. That won't get us anywhere.
Re:How rich the rich are (Score:1)
Yes..Clearly the goverment and the rest of us are entitled to deprive these people of thier property through the use of force. I suppose the goverment should (at gunpoint) take 33% of all GPL source code away from us. It seems only fair. A line of code tax...Don't let the Dem's (or replublicans for that matter) get wind of it...
Yaay! Class Warfare! (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely there are actual examples of rich people who got that way by defrauding others, but this poster highlights no such example. Instead, we get a rant about how the Bush tax cuts are taking food out of starving mouths.
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the top 1% of earners pay over 30% of all income tax. If you find yourself agreeing with Dr. Strawman there, the question you've got to ask yourself is, "Just how much do those rich people owe me?"
I've found that the answer "zero" correlates highly with success. Whether this is a causal relationship or not is still anybody's guess.
Re:Yaay! Class Warfare! (Score:2)
But they receive more than 30% of all income and own more than 80% of all wealth!
Re:Yaay! Class Warfare! (Score:2)
However, even were that true...so what? The right question in my opinion is, "Do they use 30% of all government services?" Probably not. (Note understatement.)
An even more important question is, "Why do you believe people more wealthy than you owe you anything at all?" Until you answer this question honestly, your ranting will have little weight. However, I suspect it boils down to "envy," so perhaps you feel that providing no answer is actually better for your leftist crusade. That's a shame.
So if its Winner take All (Score:2)
Why should the losers play the game?
Thats right, you are justifying suicide bombing, crime, etc, because hey if they have the choice of a life being homeless barly surviving, or a life in prison getting more than they get outside why not be a criminal? prison doesnt scare them if they have nothing to lose.
And why not be a suicide bomber if you have aids or your children and wife died from some disease like ebola and you have no family
When people have nothing left to lose, they stop playing.
You MUST MUST MUST, give everyone something, it doesnt have to be alot but at least give them healthcare, 3 meals a day, education, some kinda standard so people at least have hope, you remove all hope and they wont play the game anymore, society will collapse.
Re:Yaay! Class Warfare! (Score:2)
Re:Yaay! Class Warfare! (Score:2)
Furthermore, an article here talks about this idea physically modeled. [globalideasbank.org] The 20/80 idea may very well be a physical constant that we can't do very much about, except by reducing regulation and making sure that money can flow freely, that maximises the relationship, distributing wealth as much as possible.
There is also a bit of disingenousness in discussing this idea and comparing to other times in history. the communists came about at a time when the pot of wealth was so much smaller, and people were just getting by paying for food and shelter. Today, the wealth pot is huge, sure 20% owns 80%, yet the other 20% of wealth owned by the rest is amazingly large, and more than sufficient for the non wealthy 80% to live very comfortably.
Re:Yaay! Class Warfare! (Score:2)
Not exactly. There definitely are more expenses now, but as a percentage of income, those expenses are dropping. In 1900 food was no less than 50% of your income, whereas that's pretty unusual today (unless you're like me, not having a job and still eating out daily.) Car prices are rising like the dickens, but whereas the average American needed to work, i think the common figure was 35 weeks sometime in the 1950's to afford the average car, its now in the 20 week range, even though the average car price is in the mid 20k. And of course, a lot of that rise in the price of cars has to do with all sorts of neato eqiupment thats pretty expensive but universal, like air bags.
I really can't see how reducing regulation will improve the masses' lot. If not for "regulation" our economy would currently be dominated by two or three mega monopolies, ensuring that the top 1% have 99% of the wealth.
The article in question is more of a discussion of regulations affecting individuals, and the resulting effect on the distribution of wealth. Regulations affecting corporations are not discussed (they are very different. Sweden is dominated by a few large corporations, but CEO pay in Sweden is very different than that found in the US.) As for the newscientist article, I would have linked it, but I can't seem to find it on their website, so that debate shall have to be postponed.
Re:Yaay! Class Warfare! (Score:2, Insightful)
The key is to ignore all the extremists, examine the facts (not the propaganda - or "advertising", if you like), and decide which method works the best. It's usually somewhere in the middle.
Re:How rich the rich are (Score:4, Insightful)
How about instead the government just cut the bullshit and stop creating make work for the rich?
My city has spent over half a BILLION dollars PLANNING on how to put down a mass transit system
Over the course of 10 years.
The committee members (hardly engineers, but all upper crust. . .
End corrupt administration, end favoritism towards the rich;
That sounds familiar -- wasn't that what they tried to do in Communist Russia? and China?
(and fuck the commies, they suck too.
It's not the federal government's responsibility to pay for your medical care or prescription drugs.
So if somebody spends 60+ years working their ass off caring for others and helping society improve and grow and saving lives and helping others;
they should just be left on the street to die?
Uh huh.
f-u-c-k you
And if you're counting on social security to live on when you retire, you're a freaking idiot.
Yah, those FAMILIES earning all of 20 thousand a year or so from both parents working 8-10+ hour shifts;
yah, I can just see how they have SOOO much money to spare.
Unless by some chance one of them GETS SICK, or the CAR BREAKS DOWN, or there is a STORM and something notquiteinsurancepolicyactivating happens to their house.
Then there goes their entire nest egg in one fell swoop. Or at least a goodly chunk of it.
People who work hard and then have bad shit happen to them should NOT just be considered "poor shit luck" cases and left to the winds, hell no. People who work hard to help out society should get something back from society.
And quite frankly they should get back a lot more then they currently are.
Re:How rich the rich are (Score:2)
That is EXACTLY why Clinton's financial policy contributed to the economic boon of the 90s (not the only contributing factor of course) and why Shrub and the rest of the silver-spoon Republicans will never, ever get themselves away from deficit spending. By cutting taxes mostly for the wealthy and cutting programs for the lower classes, thus bypassing the extra cash flow from the lower classes to the upper classes via disposable cash spending, our economy will never be what it once was.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Re:How rich the rich are (Score:2)
Re:So you mean we can all be rich? (Score:3, Interesting)
No one helped me do this. Nobody from "the community" gave me one damn dollar. I worked my way through college, did not get a scholarship OR a student loan. My divorced parents had no money and paid for nothing. I bought my own first car with money I saved working two summers on a construction site.
My point? I don't believe it for one second that it's not possible to become a success in this world. It is hard, yes. It requires perserverance, hard work, and good decision making skills. It requires discipline and maturity, something not many folks have these days. And those that lack it always blame others for their misfortune. I'M NOT BUYING IT. It's full of crap, a "get out of jail free" card for the lazy and irresponsible.
I'm NOT special. I'm not some super genius whiz kid who graduated college at age 12. I didn't come from a silver spoon home. I'm not a trust fund baby. I didn't take advantage of any good 'ole boy networks to get where I am. I *am* where I am because *I* made it happen. I DIDN'T wait for luck to come calling, I went out and MADE it happen. If *I* can do it, anyone can do it. And I am damn well entitled to enjoy the fruits of my labors without being given a guilt trip by the damn "less fortunate" out there.
Re:So you mean we can all be rich? (Score:2)
You're absolutely right I'm not getting the tax breaks. Neither are those much, much richer than I am. We're all those nasty, eeeeeeeevil, awful, dirty, mean, terrible, run-over-old-ladies-and-children-just-for-fun rich folks that are keeping everyone else down. Never mind that we pay around 40% of all federal income taxes in existence while we constitute around 1% of the population....we're not paying (weeping, whining voice -- ALL TOGETHER NOW) OUR FAIR SHARE!
Bullshit. Total, indescribable bullshit. I'm paying far more into the system than I can ever hope to reap. In fact, I'm only paying to subsidize those are in the lowest income bracket, as many of them pay no federal taxes at all due to Earned Income tax credits (a Clinton invention). So you just go right on blaming us horrible rich folks for being one notch below baby killers...we're used to it. I, for one, refuse to feel guilty because I'm well off. I work hard for it, and damn it I deserve what I've got. I will begrudge NO ONE their right to enjoy what is theirs, and if you weren't so damn green with envy you'd see the illogical fallacies that you keep on spouting.
Re:How rich the rich are (Score:1)
Nonsense. Taxes are not "communism." In fact, responsibly taking care of our own people will PREVENT things like communism. Who is our country FOR, anyway? A few percent of income is not putting the rich "into poverty." How silly are you? And I'm not talking about "having rich people things", I'm talking about schools that aren't falling apart and health care. Like I said, who is our country for, anyway?
And if you're counting on social security to live on when you retire, you're a freaking idiot.
Why shouldn't I be thinking I'll get my Social Security? Until Bush came along Social Security was putting away HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars a year toward people's retirement - and that money was coming from OUR paychecks. Now it comes from our paychecks and is handed to the rich! Reagan started spending that money - Clinton fixed the problem - now Bush is spending the money. But with RESPONSIBLE leadership at the top, yes, I do think that the Social Security money will be there.
Re:How rich the rich are (Score:2)
1. Benefits will be decreased.
2. The eligibility age will be increased.
3. Taxes will be raised.
Social Security DOES NOT WORK under the circumstances it is soon to be in. The rate of return on your dollars invested is lower than the absolute LOWEST PERFORMING mutual fund you can possibly find.
Also, your blaming Bush for the current ills is somewhat specious. First off, there's such a thing as economic inertia. Bush cannot snap his fingers, sign a bill, and put the economy into a tailspin (or revive it, for that matter). These things take time. If you prefer some unarguable figures, go to www.omb.gov and note that the "largest peacetime economic expansion in history" did not begin under Clinton, or even Bush #1...it began under Reagan! In his second term, not his first! You cannot argue these figures, they are true! The corrollary is, Bush #2's decision to lower taxes and/or give refunds may have SHORT TERM negative implications but long term POSITIVE results. If you've ever done any investing you know that to get the biggest gains you generally have to deal with negative growth for the first few quarters or years. If you don't know this, you've obviously not spent as much time RESEARCHING economics as you have spent SMOLDERING about Bush.
Re:How rich the rich are (Score:2)
Actually you don't seem to know much about it. It is NOT financed by current taxpayers. It is financed by the money we set aside - OUR money pays for our RETIREMENT. Social Security has a multi-trillion dollar surplus built up.
Under Reagan, (after he cut taxes for the rich and there were huge deficits resulting) they pasSed a huge Social Security tax increase (which made the deficits look lower). Since then this surplus has been building up. Since then it is OUR money being set aside for our own retirement. (Which is why it is so bad that Bush is spending that money on tax cuts for the rich.)
If you prefer some unarguable figures, go to www.omb.gov and note that the "largest peacetime economic expansion in history" did not begin under Clinton, or even Bush #1...it began under Reagan! In his second term, not his first! You cannot argue these figures, they are true!
If you stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh and did your own research you would know that there was a big recession in 1991. That eneded the Reagan expansion (which started after the Deficit Reduction Act tax increases in 1984 by the way.)
Re:How rich the rich are (Score:2)
Your level of ignorance on this subject is absolute amazing, nothing short of a collossal poke in the eye of logic. YOUR money today DOES NOT go into some special account JUST FOR YOUR RETIREMENT! It goes into a general fund that has lately been referred to as the "trust fund". The dollars you are paying in today are being paid out to those who are retired or retiring today. YOUR money is going TO SOMEONE ELSE. You, assuming that you're of college age, will not be able to draw upon SS for at least another 35-40 years, at which time SOMEONE ELSE'S dollars will be paying for your retirement. The figures are there, the process is available to anyone who cares to go to www.omb.gov and look up where the government's money goes and where it comes from. Given your striking level of misunderstanding of this system, I can only assume that you've never, ever, EVER bothered to research any of this, and you are going on pure, unadulterated hatred of the wealthy. Typical. Pitiful, but typical.
If you stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh and did your own research you would know that there was a big recession in 1991. That eneded the Reagan expansion (which started after the Deficit Reduction Act tax increases in 1984 by the way.)
Ah, yes, the tactic of "The Big Lie". Big recession, heh? Go check www.omb.gov, the organization that keeps the books for the entire nation. Facts of GDP growth, income levels, and tax revenues are available for at least thirty years. If you have the balls to do it, check the site. You'll note that during 1991 we had two consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage. Just two. It meets the technical definition of a recession, but only barely (the tech. def. is two consecutive quarters of negative growth). You'll also note that the economy started growing again BEFORE Clinton actually took office. You've gotta hand it to Clinton, he's so damn good he can turn the whole U.S. economy around BEFORE he even set foot in the Oval Office.
Of course, that's pure tripe. Clinton did NOT turn the economy around. He just happened to be "on watch" when it happened. Democrats love to capitalize on this, and you've obviously swallowed it all like a cheap whore in heat. As I said, you probably don't have the guts to actually check the figures. If you did, you'd see you were wrong. Of course, you don't care about facts, logic, figures, or any of that other crap, you just want to hate Bush and rich folks, and nothing is going to stop you, is it?
BTW, I don't listen to Limbaugh. Unlike you, I'm capable of arriving at an opinion without being told what to think by someone else. Unlike you, I actually have researched the subject and drawn my own conclusion. Unlike you, I've engaged my brain instead of my emotions. I don't know why I waste my breath -- you won't check the figures, and if you do you'll just dismiss them as propaganda (never mind that Clinton's OMB came up with the very figures that I'm quoting...must be more of that vast right wing conspiracy, eh?).
If you'll check the figures, you'll see you're wrong. But you won't check, will you? It's easier to believe your fantasy. Go on doing that. Perhaps you'll grow up soon and discover that sometimes the truth is ugly, but it won't go away just because you refuse to see it.
Re:offtopic anyone?? (Score:2)
Re:How rich the rich are (Score:2)
Those checks were nothing more than an advance on this year's tax refund. And a lot of people are now paying TO the IRS because they cashed those, and weren't going to get refunds, so they OWE money. They were not "rebates" as the Bush people made others think.