How to stop smoking: Making Money Now

The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives has begun the process of repealing the Healthcare law. Some have argued that, because the Senate may not repeal it as well, and the President will likely veto it, the House’s repeal is purely “symbolic.”

Just as the reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House, on Wednesday, was symbolic of a “return to constitutionalism,” as Charles Krauthammer writes, the repeal of the Healthcare law in the House will be symbolic not just of the fact that Republicans have heard the will of the American people, but also that they fully understand that the new law is, only superficially, a jumbled and thoughtless mess of rules about how healthcare should be delivered and paid for in this country. In reality, the Healthcare law is a liberal power grab that is gradually permitting the federal government to control more of our lives, making more people dependent upon the government and continuing the culture of dependency among minority groups who, up until now, have mostly voted liberals into power. The symbolism of the repeal will ring loud and clear.

Liberal Democrats will be launching a big campaign over the next few days, doing what they always accuse Republicans and conservatives of doing- “fear-mongering.” They will be telling their constituents that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the repeal of the Healthcare law will increase debt, that Republicans don’t want people with pre-existing conditions to have access to health insurance, and that Republicans want to defund Medicare, new chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan, has set out why these claims are wrong.

However, one of the features of the new Healthcare law, already in effect, is the extension of healthcare coverage to adult children (up until 26 years old), a hallmark of the true intention of this law- to make more people dependent, while it raises premiums on private health insurers who need more money to meet this new requirement.

For those who do not have adult children in the 21 to 26 age range, would it surprise you to know that these adult “children,” who are now covered, are not required to even live with their parents to remain on their plans, and that they may even be married and still be covered under their parents’ health plans?

Through the new Healthcare law, liberal Democrats have gradually introduced the concept that adult children should remain dependent on their parents, and when their parents are not around, perhaps the government can take over in that parental role? Of course, this new rule comes at a time when the economic decline made it difficult for young adults to obtain jobs. This is how the gradual creep of dependency begins: introduce a law which creates dependency on the government at a time of crisis, so that uninformed Americans will see it as a caring and positive intervention to help them in their time of need. This is how every entitlement legislation begins, and why none has ever been totally eradicated thus far, mainly because people have come to expect these benefits.

One of the newly elected members of Congress who understands well the liberals’ drive to make more Americans dependent on the government is Colonel Allen West of Florida. Congressman West will be serving in the Congressional Black Caucus and hopes to represent conservative philosophical ideas such as the importance of individual responsibility, creativity, and entrepreneurship.

In addition, as a result of the left’s encouragement of this culture of dependency, those who are truly in need will no longer have to seek voluntary assistance from neighbors and communities. Conversely, neighbors and communities will not be encouraged to voluntarily reach out to others because the knowledge that the government will provide for their friends’ needs may cause them to think twice. As such, dependency on the government creates more distance, and less connectivity, among members of a community.

At this point in time, any resistance to repealing the Healthcare law, and replacing it with commonsense legislation that reflects free market principles, will be almost entirely about continuing the culture of dependency, a hallmark of liberalism, that has taken over this country. We can be sure that liberals from the previous Congress will try hard to keep this culture in place. Their ability to remain powerful depends on it.

Not really. TD has always said that piracy is against the law. What Mike and others often aregue, is that the laws should be changed in favour of the consumers, not faceless megacorps.

I think you're right in that TD often encourages more sane laws in favor of the public vs corporations, but as far as piracy goes, my take on the TD line is that legality is a non-issue now that technology makes it hard NOT to copy something, what's important is finding a way to make money in spite of it. Pragmatism is the name of the game.

Now the *comments* on TD run all over the map. There's a lot of soft endorsement of illegal distribution, along with people who are outright loud about it. There are people who seem to think that artists are lazy chumps who want a free ride, and people who apparently have a problem with anyone exercising any legal muscle. Luckily there are some dissenting voices of reason, who are neither "IP Maximalists" nor "Freetards". (All these phrases and sloganeering are dumb as hell and only serve to trivialize how complicated these issues really are. "Pooperty" anyone? Let's cut out this ad campaign for issues and appeal to people through their reason and intellect)

I do kind of wish they would bring in some writers with more varied opinions. For instance, I agree with the criticism that TD loves to dispense business advice for musicians without any real clear idea of what goes into a musical career. The complicated web of credits and legalities that go into bringing multiple creative people together with their own input to and ownership of a project (We're not all solo artists!), the insane logistics of performing on a consistent basis and taking it on the road, the idea that fans just buy the hell out of merch, the notion that the internet has made distribution *easier* (it's not, it's *cheaper*, but only to get started), and the idea that grass roots projects can "bubble up" to the surface without a professional PR push and management team (Amanda Palmer works with a publicist and several managers, besides the fact she's "married" to Neil Gaiman, one of the most popular writers of the last 20 years. She's not a model for future musicians). But the reality is that even a no name blogger is pitched music by major labels every day, so not having a professional management/publicist team to pitch you, more importantly to give you legitimacy, means your emails most likely will never be opened.

Now, it is true that some artists will in fact bubble up, but it's mostly going to be boring mid-level talent with an interesting story behind them. Meh. I'd trade a thousand Susan Boyles/Ted Williams/Homeless Flavor of the Month for just one Jim Croce or Leonard Cohen.

(reply to this)
(link to this) (view in thread)

bench craft company reviews bench craft company reviews

Monday 10 January 2011

Making Money Now

No comments:

Post a Comment