House Passes TV Commercial Volume Bill 408
eldavojohn writes "About a year ago, legislation was introduced to control the volume of TV commercials. It passed the Senate in September and has now been passed in the House as well. This problem has dated back to the 1960s, but after the president signs the bill, broadcasters will be subject to regulations of the Advanced Television Systems Committee on what is 'too loud.' Of the last 25 quarterly reports from the FCC, this has been the number one consumer complaint in 21 of them. Within a year, you should start to notice a difference, with commercials no longer forcing you to turn down the TV volume during breaks in your regular programming."
Doh (Score:5, Insightful)
that was an affliction for everyone. not only americans. ironic that not the free market, but REGULATION is what's fixing that crap.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly do you express the knowledge that you did not buy something because their commercials were too loud? Short of everyone who thinks that sending a company an email it's pretty hard for the "free market" to express concern over a broadcaster not volume normalizing their broadcast.
Re: (Score:2)
By not watching television stations that show loud commercials. Stations that show loud commercials will thus have smaller audiences than those that do not and hence be more protifable.
Or by not buying products advertised with loud commercials.
The whole idea of the "invisible hand" is that you don't need to inform them of why you aren't buying their product. Just as the Hawk doesn't have to tell the well camuflaged rodents why it eats them less than the bright orange ones. They will "get the message" - via
Re: (Score:2)
And be willing to do without. That's the part that gets most people. They don't want the loud commercials, but they still want to watch Desperate Housewives or whatever the latest drivel is. So they deal with the loud commercials and complain to people that don't matter. Obviously, the show is worth it to them so loud commercials still get watched.
Re: (Score:2)
One flaw with the television "market" is that only 4000 homes out of 105 million are monitored.
So if those 4000 homes don't express displeasure because of commercial volume, then it simply doesn't register, even if most people have already-quit the loud stations. Nielsen Ratings needs to come-up with a better system. Maybe increase from 4000 to 40,000 monitored homes, for better accuracy, instead of sticking with a system they developed in the 1960s.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Commercials? Oh yeah, those pesky things they show on TV that I don't see anymore because I stream pretty much everything I watch these days off of Netflix :-P
Re: (Score:3)
The whole idea of the "invisible hand" is that you don't need to inform them of why you aren't buying their product. Just as the Hawk doesn't have to tell the well camuflaged rodents why it eats them less than the bright orange ones. They will "get the message" - via the ones doing the "bad" thing going out of business/being eaten.
Of course you need a free market to start with.
And many 'generations'.. The camouflage did not evolve over night. Many rodents had to be born, and either be eaten or not for the
Re:Doh (Score:4, Interesting)
In all seriousness, I used to work in online advertising. They don't care how many people they annoy. They don't care how many people swear off their company for all time. All they care about is the conversion rate. Sadly, even with TV, you more likely remember the blaring commercial than the normal-volume one. Though, I bet they'd find if they made the commercial very quiet that would be memorable too.
'Free Market'? What on Earth? (Score:5, Insightful)
ironic that not the free market, but REGULATION is what's fixing that crap.
How is that ironic? The problem with commercials providing revenue to copyrighted material in a "free market" as you call it is completely not "free market." But without getting into pedantry about how television is one of the furthest things from a free market as possible, it makes complete sense since if you want to watch some video, you must watch the commercial. You want to watch The Office on NBC.com? Well, you have to sit through a particular commercial. You can't switch to another better, quieter, more appealing commercial. If commercials were a product then your 'free market' quip might have some meaning but when they're pretty much being shoved down your throat by the idea and design of marketing, your selection choice is instantly removed. Simply put, I can't watch whatever I want and request only commercials that appeal to me. If I did, I'd only be watching Adult Swim commercials if I ever saw any. Government regulation was the only way to combat this. Television commercials have always been approaching Geocities quality with flashing marquee tags, blinking tags, dancing jesus', flying toasters and music that cranks up to eleven and plays once the page loads.
Re: (Score:2)
If commercials were a product then your 'free market' quip might have some meaning but when they're pretty much being shoved down your throat by the idea and design of marketing, your selection choice is instantly removed. ... Government regulation was the only way to combat this.
My approach was to switch to Netflix, no government regulation necessary. Seems to me that if anyone is still paying to watch tv with loud commercials, it's because it's worth it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necesesarily.
The source would have to be able to have funding. About the only way I could think of that, is some combination of heavy handed product placement in exchange for cash from the manufacturer/merchant, and users paying to see the content. The former wouldn't produce enough, and the latter, is available in many cases - people still take the free-with-commercials option often enough.
I like the suggestion someone else made (or at least implied) - the ability to switch to a different commercial on
Re:'Free Market'? What on Earth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Natural scientists do this too-abstraction central (Score:3)
Natural scientists do this too sometimes - abstraction central. Ever hear of the physicist whose mind works in a frictionless vacuum, for instance? (obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/669/ [xkcd.com])
I did call out an econ professor one quarter on all the abstractions; his response was to the extent that they're necessary to make any progress in thinking about the problem, rather than get bogged down in detail calculations (one quote went along these lines was "I've seen everyone form freshman undergrads to PhD's have t
Re: (Score:3)
and in AC/DC circuits the difference between ideal values and actual values can get folks killed
Adam Smith supported copyrights and patents (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting. I thought Adam Smith specifically supported patents and copyrights. Could you show me where in his works he said he doesn't? Please, go look it up. See what he actually believed, read Wealth of Nations yourself. Despite the libertarian caricature of him, Adam Smith believed that government regulations were absolutely vital to the functioning of a free market, that government should grant copyrights and patents, enforce contract law, build roads and infrastructure, and basically do everything it is now doing in the economic sphere.
Adam Smith WAS NOT a libertarian. Do not try to rewrite history to make him one.
Re: (Score:3)
The only so-called Anarchists that want "no government" are the crusty punk circle-A street kids, who aren't real anarchists.
The rest of us know what anarchism really means. You are falling for statist propaganda. Try reading any modern anarchist author before telling anarchists what they are or are not.
Some quotes from Wealth of Nations (Score:4, Insightful)
Your title doesn't follow from your body text.
Please, when you claim to know what Adam Smith would or wouldn't like, back it up with a quote from him, okay? Otherwise, you are just making shit up. You are flat out WRONG about him, and I KNOW you have not read Wealth of Nations. If you had, and you had understood and remembered any of it, you wouldn't be making the claims you are.
Let me pass on some choice quotes for your edification.
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
-Book I, Chapter VI, pg.60
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of the workman. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject.
-Book I, Chapter VIII, pg.80
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.
-Book I, Chapter VIII, pg.94
Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
-Book I, Chapter IX, pg.117
Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workman,its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters.
-Book I, Chapter x, Part II, pg.168
With the greater part of rich people, the chief enjoyment of riches consists in the parade of riches, which in their eye is never so complete as when they appear to possess those decisive marks of opulence which nobody can possess but themselves.
-Book I, Chapter XI, Part II, pg.202
Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality.
-Book V, Chapter I, Part II, pg.770
The tolls for the maintenance of a high road, cannot with any safety be made the property of private persons.
-Book V, Chapter I, Part III, Article I, pg.786
The education of the common people requires, perhaps, in a civilized and commercial society, the attention of the public more then that of people of some rank and fortune.
-Book V, Chapter I, Part III, pg.845
For a very small expence the public can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people, the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education.
-Book V, Chapter I, Part III, Article II, p.847
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
-Book V, Chapter II, Part II, pg.892
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
-Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery but of liberty. It denotes that he is a subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master.
-Book V, Chapter II, Part II, pg.927
Wow. Looks like the real Adam Smith disagrees with your imaginary Adam Smith in a great many particulars.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm coming to realize not all libertarians are idiots. And no matter how mad they idiots make me, I've got to stop acting out in my writing. It's not helping, except maybe to give myself and others that agree with me the kind of nasty hearted thrill that I have come to recognize as the seeds of evil.
I'm really, really trying to remain civil, and it's not easy for me, so if anyone sees me being an ass, please remind me that I said I don't want to do that. Shit is too fucking serious these days to play childi
Re: (Score:3)
That's only true if one considers the programs to be fungible. Personally, anyone who tries to tell me "If you don't like the loud commercials during Big Bang Theory, then go watch the Jersey shore instead. Those commercials are quiet" is not only missing the point, but deserves to be kicked in the groin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. You have to keep the remote in your hand, ready to click "mute" at a moment's notice. Then you have to keep WATCHING the fucking commercial so you know when it's finished and you can turn the audio back on again. You can't read a magazine, or go
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Government regulation is the reason we can't legally download any TV show we want at any time without commercials. The free market solved this problem a LONG time ago. But our Benevolent Overlords (not) decided to not allow it. You can take your regulation and shove it where the sun don't shine...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If it's such a free market, set up a TV station that doesn't play loud commercials. Oh wait, you can't because even the existence of TV stations require permission to broadcast which comes from the government. Free market my ass, every detail of what frequency range you can transmit in to how much power your station can output is regulated. You can't even legally say a few "choice" words on the air. You must comply with the emergency broadcast system. You will have to hire according to the current labo
I'm just glad... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Nice! I taught my daughter to say "Hey, there's the guy who died from taking too many drugs!" when he comes on in those tacky "flashback" commercials, with Billy in the background doing his shtick while his successor crams the killer product down my throat.
Advertisers know no shame.
Re: (Score:3)
I've taught mine to shut her whore mouth when Billy Mays is talking.
Alternate solution (Score:5, Funny)
BILLY MAYS HERE for TechKnob! Are you tired of hearing really loud commercials? Well, hear them no more with the patented deluxe Commercial Volume Reducer! Using advanced commercial detection technology, it automatically detects when a commercial is coming on, and reduces the volume 50% for you! Available for $19.95, call now!
I'm glad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From TFS:
Did it really look like anybody else was going to solve this problem?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If its been nearly 50 years then it ain't that big of a problem.
Back when TV's had one small speaker, no this was not that big of problem. Now, even my TV has two speakers, each that is multi-times more powerful than what my old TV had. And still, I don't even use those. Today, my TV is pushed digitally through my Dolby 5.1 receiver with 125 watts going to each of the speakers with another 100 watts for the independently power sub woofer. When the sound volume suddenly shoots shoots up 30%, you, and everyone else knows it. Sorry, but 700 watts of those stupid Kit-K
Re: (Score:3)
There were already regulations which limited volume.
This is measure of relative change which is kinda odd to enforce.
In analogue transmission you wanted to watch over driving the audio level because it can effect power output. There were also decibel levels which were too hot and could cause many issues and even some with the receiving set. In a digital world when you drive past 0 there is no overhead for such levels and most equipment simply limits (rather poorly). In all cases there were limiters in place
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but did this really need and act of Congress to solve?
Well, apparently, the "invisible hand" that magically fixes world hunger, world peace, climate change and all other troubles that ever ailed mankind has failed in this one.
Hm, could be because you as the viewer aren't a participant in the market - the market exchange is between the TV station and the marketing company.
Re:I'm glad (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sorry your remote control lacks a Mute button. The "invisible hand" must have passed your house when they were handing them out.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a remote control that works on every single TV out there. It's called congress. You know, if media companies didn't want to get themselves regulated, they could stop using our public airwaves and cable right-of-ways. Seeing as how they DO use these things, we have the moral and legal right to tell them to turn down the volume. Isn't it nice how contracts and negotiation work?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, right now you're not likely to see much useful legislation going through as the Republicans have vowed to pretty much shut down the Federal government in a bid to derail the Democrats ability to actually get anything done so that they can claim that the Democrats didn't fix any of the problems for the 2012 Presidential race.
Re: (Score:2)
what else is congress doing that IMPROVES OUR LIFE?
name one thing they did in the last 10 years, even, that improved our lives.
they stopped doing that. they make wars, they give themselves pay raises and they argue without solving ANY problems. congress is a cancer in america.
the fact that somehow they managed to improve a small part of daily life just amazes me! wish they'd spend more time on little things that make life better instead of giving themselves pay hikes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I notice a lot of people talking about "The Free Market" and how it failed in this particular instance.
I don't think you guys understand how this side of advertising works. In case you haven't seen the "Head On" Commercial, go to youtube and look it up right now.
Now that you've watched one of many annoying commercials, ask yourself, why on Earth would anyone buy this product?
The answer is simple, when you're looking at all the products on the shelf, your pick up the first one your mind recognises, and an an
comskippers rule (Score:4, Informative)
lots of comskip programs out there. I'm using a video editor called 'video redo' that does seamless cuts at the mpg mode and only re-encodes the cut/join part. ideal for saving edited tv shows.
I have my mythtv capture system save the .mpg file, video redo edits it and it has its own comskip feature that locates and lets me tweak the 'red areas' where the commercials are. it has a 'plot mask' to black out most of the screen so you don't have to view the content while editing.
life is good again ;) I have not seen a commercial since I started using this. shows are now 20 minutes shorter, too.
this is nice for those who don't have pvr's of some sort, but the war has already forced most of us to TOTALLY eliminate ads.
just like firefox and adblock/noscript make browsing more pleasant again, same with comskippers.
one channel seems to put all its commercials in SD and the show, itself, is in HD. let me thank them so much for making it TRIVIAL to detect when commercials come on. danke again for being stupid, tv execs.
commercial skipping algorithm (Score:2)
I heard some commercial skipping algorithm uses audio volume as a cue to detect start of commercial. Doesn't this ... "blessing" breaks that algorithm? If incompetence isn't a factor in this, I am incline to think that this is a plot by the broadcasters to break some of the commercial skipping algorithms...
Better solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even better is to turn the TV off entirely.
I haven't had "TV" since the early 90s. Best thing I ever did with my time.
Re: (Score:3)
The advertisers have pretty well demonstrated that they aren't competent to be trusted to make reasonable choices so the government needed to step in and tell them what they were going to do. I'd like to see them do the same thi
Re: (Score:2)
The advertisers have pretty well demonstrated that they aren't competent to be trusted to make reasonable choices so the government needed to step in and tell them what they were going to do.
Or, if people just mute their TVs during commercials, advertisers will not have any incentive to engage in the practice, and suddenly the problem is solved without a committee deciding what is "too loud."
I'd like to see them do the same thing with those stupid Flash ads that cover content randomly and the ones that take up more of my bandwidth than the rest of the web page.
Or, you can do what I do: disable Javascript, do not use Flash, and stop visiting websites that consistently display advertisements that cover what you are interested in (with a written complaint explaining why you will not visit anymore). For a simpler solution, you can just use ABP or a similar prog
Re: (Score:2)
stupid question, how would an advertiser know that you have muted the commercial? There is no feedback. There is no way for them to know that you don't like it, so there is ZERO incentive for them to do anything about it.
The problem isn't solved, because the people causing the problem don't know/care about it. The problem is at best ignored by the user who mutes the commercial(I change channels)
Oh and there isn't ABP for your TV, or even for HULU(on many computers it is harder to mute the system quickly)
Re:Better solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Sort of like MS with that damned alarm sound that goes off whenever there's an error. It doesn't seem to respect the volume setting and if you're using ear buds causes acute discomfort.
You know, you could just go to Control Panel\Sound and change the error sound to a .wav that is quieter while you wait for Conrgess to do this for you.
I thought this was the law already... (Score:2)
...but it seems that even if the volume level didn't actually change, commercials were clearly 'pitched' higher, giving them a louder apparent volume?
Re:I thought this was the law already... (Score:4, Informative)
Dynamic range compression? What we have (had?) in the UK was a decibel limit, so in some cases* they just lifted everything under the limit to increase loudness. Lots of hassle for that. The law seems to legally enforce ATSC guidelines for loudness on programming [atsc.org] when broadcasting ads, which on my cursory reading means that there's a strict loudness level and dynamic range they have to work to.
*Notoriously, when Lost came over here they ran an extra ten minutes of ads per episode and made them ridiculously loud
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's call it the 'Billy Mays' Bill (Score:2)
Movies too (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually this is marked "quiet mode" or "night mode".
Re: (Score:2)
Really, really important (Score:2)
Let me be the first to say that I'm glad that our senators and representatives have passed this. With all the other issues this country has to solve, I'm glad to see our congressmen reach across the aisle and work together in a spirit of bipartisanship to solve major issues like this. It gives one a deep sense of optimism for the future of our country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bipartisanship won't happen as long as voters are rewarding the GoP for refusing to compromise and the press is hounding the Democrats to compromise even when they've been handed a mandate to govern. Compared with the Republicans being urged not to compromise even when the voters hand them a significant defeat at the ballot box.
Given that the GoP is proudly asserting that they won't actually participate in any governing nor will they allow the Democrats to do so eith
Re: (Score:2)
This new law is a good example of something that is not a real problem getting solved by bold government action.
What really happened is the Dems thought they had a mandate when they
Re: (Score:3)
>>>the press is hounding the Democrats to compromise even when they've been handed a mandate to govern
They lost that mandate a month ago.
As for the press: ABC, CBS, PBS, and MS-NBC are the most pro-democrat channels you could find. Their reporters cried on the air when the Democrats won 2008. I don't see how the Dems could have any more positive support from the press.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So congress should just stop worrying about any issues at all if they aren't the most important issues? By that argument, maybe should stop trying to improve employment rates and instead work on nothing but world peace. That's more important isn't it?
I have mixed feelings on making this a law, but I can certainly understand it. I don't watch much TV anymore, but I recall when I spent some time visiting my mother where I dozed off watching a TV show. The next thing I know, I'm being startled awake by a c
Re: (Score:2)
I also would like to add... maybe they should have included internet video on this too... I'm beginning to see this phenomenon on Hulu now.
How do they check how loud commerial is? (Score:2)
What? (Score:2)
I just spent $2150 [musiciansfriend.com] for nothing...
How would Slashdotters know? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering 80% of my TV is delivered to me via eztv or btchat, I too have managed to avoid most forms of advertisement. This is actually one of the primary drivers for me downloading the TV show, even if it means seeing it a day late.
Any of the TV that I do actually watch 'live' is still not really live, since I usually start recording it on DVR and tune in 20-30 minutes into the show and watch it in catchup, fast forwarding through the adds.
What? (Score:2)
Finnally, but there is a downside (Score:2)
Of course this also means that when I fall asleep watching a TV show I will now sleep the entire night instead of being wakened up by the obnoxious commercial.
How is this legal? (Score:2, Interesting)
The U.S. Congress does not have the right to regulate the audio volume of your television.
For all the snark and sniping.... (Score:2)
I can't say that I'm surprised at all of the snark and the sniping. Yeah, there are a million dozen things that our reps should be fixing. This isn't our nations biggest problem. It's not even in the top hundred thousand.
That being said; this is a very small tidbit of proof that 'the system', for all its pitfalls and failings, still works. People complained about a problem (however minor), the free market decided not to fix it, so the government stepped in and played the angry parent and said "since you won
Thats just great... (Score:3)
I don't get it. (Score:2)
I don't watch TV but when I do watch video online that has that kind of loud unskipable commercial I just mute it preemptively. (also applies to stuff like the TED start music)
If it was a reasonable volume I might keep it on and just ignore it but this way they just lose me altogether, I don't get why they'd want to do that.
Market Failure? (Score:4, Insightful)
Many TVs have features that allow you to level out the sound from programming to commercials (kind of an old school ad blocker). That is how the market has seen fit to address this problem.
Also, the market hasn't done more than than because this is more of a minor annoyance than a real problem (and yes, I do find it annoying, especially when I have a sleeping kid in my arms and they get woken up by the commercials). It's also not like the sound is getting louder and louder and louder over the years.
Markets work, just not always in the way that people expect.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm looking for the part where you demonstrate that the problem has been solved. The market has provided an answer, and you view the problem as only a minor one anyway, but I don't see where it's been resolved. That's not to say it hasn't been, but it's the centre of your argument.
Re: (Score:3)
The market doesn't correct this "problem" because it's not a market problem. The viewer is not the customer; they are the product. They're not the ones directly paying for the TV shows so they get very little say in what gets broadcast. The advertisers are the ones paying - they are the customer. So the market tries
Damn happy (Score:2)
This makes me incredibly happy. I can't tell you how many times I've dozed off while watching TV only to be rudely awaken by some idiot commercial.
Won't help: An insider's opinion (Score:2)
I work in the cable industry and administer a local ad insertion system. Periodically, I field calls from viewers complaining about the volume on ads.
Viewers don't realize their ears are tricking them. While there are offenders out there, most ads volume levels don't peak any higher then the surrounding program. Advertisers just tend to compress their audio range near the peak.
When you watch a TV program, you see 5-7 minutes with an audio ranging from crickets to explosions. When you watch a 30 second a
TV loudness war (Score:2)
Can't you use it against them? (Score:2)
I mean, I'm really no expert when it comes to TV broadcasts and video in general, but if commercials have a distinctive quality (i.e. louder sound), couldn't this quality be used to identify and avoid them? Like, cut them out when you're recording something? Or have your set allow you to change to another channel during the commercials and automatically switch you back when it's over?
Commercials are loud? (Score:2)
I've been muting commercials for the past 20 years. I had no idea they were still too loud.
Looking at the actual documents... (Score:4, Informative)
One of the OP links summarizes the law thus:
"The new law will require them all to comply with standards approved by the Advanced Television Systems Committee. Those standards have, up to this point, been characterized as mere 'recommended practices'; once the President signs the CALM Act, those standards will be The Law."
That article then links to "ATSC Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television", which is Document A/85:2009, 4 November 2009. Lots of observations and experiments, and not having the time to read through in detail yet, I'm not sure if it will fix the problem or if it will give ammunition to the FCC to rap knuckles when they get complaints.
Still, the good news is that the politicians aren't making their own standards up, but rather elevating a document done by people who understand the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing the economy is HARD when you spend billions on wars overseas and continue to provide unnecessary tax cuts to a minority of wealthy individuals!
Yeah.... $70 billion in "tax cuts for the wealthy" and $100 billion for the wars are the source of $1.3 trillion in deficit spending. Having another 200,000 unemployed ex-soldiers here in the US would do WONDERS to the unemployment situation.
Let all the Bush tax cuts expire (raising taxes another $200 billion a year), eliminate the ENTIRE DOD budget (cutting spending by $700 billion annually, including the supplemental bills), and we'd still have a $500 billion deficit. It goes deeper than spending ag
Re: (Score:2)
Tax cuts aren't the issue, spending it on people is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't have much choice, seen as the Republicans have promised to hold their breath and stomp their feet until they get their way on a certain tax issue. Seems like when I was a kid, all the stupid filibuster rules only came into effect when something that was very, very important and very, very near and dear the the oppositions hearts. They should go back to forcing one person to stand up on the podium and speak endlessly for filibuster, at least then the people blocking the bill have to show that th
Re: (Score:2)
And just in time for TV to become irrelevant!
Re: (Score:3)
Good point. As long as something big is going on, no small things should be taken care of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That will put a lot of people who lack any useful skills to work, and lower the unemployment levels!
But we already have one TSA. Do we really need another?