Free cellular... only for welfare recipients
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
SO, you believe that congress and the government in general has a RIGHT to take money from some people and give it to others who did NOTHING to earn it? That is anti-American in my book.
There is NO right to phone service. GOVERNMENT is using FORCE to give others money they did not EARN. Why is that so hard to see?
Phone service not in rural areas? No where I have ever been or lived and I have lived out in some very rural areas. By the way, Detroit and Lincoln Park, MI are NOT rural.
No, I have NO choice. I HAVE to do what the government says or go to jail, or fight them and die. I (as in the taxpayers) either provide for others against their will or face jail or worse.
IF I refuse to pay the $750 Obama care FINE for REFUSING to participate they WILL come after me. Any doubt about how much FORCE they will use?
Make a kid and not support it? Why should it cost the government (IE: taxpayers) anything? That child is the responsibility of the people who produce it. (other than rape or incest) the act that produced that child is optional.
What part of the Constitution allows for the White House, or congress, to demand that a private company provide a service?
Kinda sounds like Italy or Germany in the 1930's.
Charity is a GIFT, it is no longer charity or a "gift" if demanded at gun point. Don't think this is NOT at gun point? Refuse and see what happens.
Try this on for size, a REAL life example:
An expediter has run into a string of bad luck. (NOT OF THEIR OWN MAKING ) Their cash reserves are down to nothing. The time will come, soon, that they have to make a choice between paying their taxes or losing their home. Pay for OTHERS to have free cell phones and lose their OWN home, OR go to jail.
Real life, free country?
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Wow and people complain about me?
Well Cheri, I agree with some ... well almost all of what you said but I have to wonder about something, how many people who are upset with this stuff actually get off their a**es and help others who are not family?
I bet not many in reality but they are quick to complain about "liberal" programs that were actually started by those great people in congress and supported by those who are republican/conservative - if not started by them directly.
See I don't see the need for anyone to get a phone with the "fee" that is used, the FCC is not the place for this type of funding to originate from but rather it should be right there under the state/federal programs that are there to help everyone - known as Welfare. Outside of that, we don't need everyone to have high speed internet, laptops (which the way they are used hurts education) and cell phones. BUT on the other hand we don't have people sticking together to help each other or combining their resources to survive things like job loss or anything for that matter.
No matter how anything is done, there are going to be people who need help and with this idea of independence and individualism, we will continue to need programs to help those who may not be able to help themselves.
Well Cheri, I agree with some ... well almost all of what you said but I have to wonder about something, how many people who are upset with this stuff actually get off their a**es and help others who are not family?
I bet not many in reality but they are quick to complain about "liberal" programs that were actually started by those great people in congress and supported by those who are republican/conservative - if not started by them directly.
See I don't see the need for anyone to get a phone with the "fee" that is used, the FCC is not the place for this type of funding to originate from but rather it should be right there under the state/federal programs that are there to help everyone - known as Welfare. Outside of that, we don't need everyone to have high speed internet, laptops (which the way they are used hurts education) and cell phones. BUT on the other hand we don't have people sticking together to help each other or combining their resources to survive things like job loss or anything for that matter.
No matter how anything is done, there are going to be people who need help and with this idea of independence and individualism, we will continue to need programs to help those who may not be able to help themselves.
Dakota
Veteran Expediter
And if we can't find a way to provide employment [that pays enough to permit self sufficiency] for those who want to work [which is the vast majority of people], we are ALL going to need help, because people are going to get sick of being blamed and vilified for the conditions they didn't create, and riots in the streets may well follow.
What a sad evolution of such a promising Declaration of Independence.
Clearly, even fewer read the article than I anticipated. And fewer still have even heard of the Telecommunications Acts of 1934 and of 1996 and what all they are supposed to do, and why. Most would rather just be frothy, and what's more, frothy over the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Sheesh.
By 1913, AT&T had favored status from U.S. government, allowing it to operate in a noncompetitive economic environment (a monopoly) in exchange for subjection to price and quality service regulation. The government felt a monopolistic telephone industry would best serve the goal of creating a “universal” network with compatible technology country wide for telephone consumers, rather than a hodgepodge of incompatible networks that wouldn't allow the simplest of long distance calls. Regulators emphasized limits on profits, enforcing “reasonable” prices for service, setting levels of depreciation and investment for new technology and equipment, dependability and “universality” of service. “Universal” was originally used by AT&T to mean, “interconnection to other networks, not service to all customers”. But after years of regulation, the term came to include infrastructural development of telephony and service to everyone at a reasonable price.
This set the stage for the the Communications Act of 1934, which includes in its preamble a reference to universal service. It calls for “rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges” to “all the people of the United States.” This was way back in 1934, keep in mind. To comply, in 1935 AT&T began in increasing the price of long distance service to pay for universal service. The act also established the FCC to oversee all non-governmental broadcasting, interstate communications, as well as international communication which originate or terminate in the United States.
The big push for deregulating the telecommunications industry came in the 1980s, and under Ronald Reagan the FCC shifted its focus from “social equity to an economic efficiency objective” (which the FCC then claimed was a primary purpose of the Communications Act of 1934, anyway, much like those who can reinterpret the Bible on a moment's notice to suit their needs). After AT&T was split up in 1984, universal service was still supported by a system of above-cost access charges paid to the local exchange companies. Increased competition and universal service were later legislatively addressed and codified with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is where we stand now.
What the Universal Service Fee has done, and largely still does, is put rural America on the same footing as urban America. One quote from this thread illustrates quite well the misunderstanding: "Phone service not in rural areas? No where I have ever been or lived and I have lived out in some very rural areas." Well, you can thank the USF for that, like, totally. And what's more, it not only enabled rural service, and by rural I don't mean the pump shed on the back forty on cattle ranch on the outskirts of Butt Crack, WY, I mean places like Wilmington, Xenia, Washington Courthouse, Mansfield, Ashland, Findlay, Defiance, Chillicothe, Wooster, Lima, all places which should be familiar, and the smaller towns out in the boonies, too. Pretty much any place about 10 miles outside of an urban area would otherwise be paying through the nose for telecommunications, if they had it at all. Let's say phone service is $25 a month in an urban area, where phone lines and people are clustered. The same exact service in a rural area a few miles outside of town could cost $500 a month, and in more remote areas twice that. But the USF and previous regulation puts everyone one the same $25 paying field. In addition, the $25 a month in the city could very well be costing you $50 or more without the regulations and the USF.
The major goals of Universal Service as mandated by the 1996 Act are as follows:
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to the federal universal service in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner; there should be specific, predictable, and sufficient Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service; all schools, classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should have access to advanced telecommunications services; and lastly, that the Federal-State Joint Board and the Commission should determine those other principles that, consistent with the 1996 Act, are necessary to protect the public interest.
The Act of 1934 used "telephone service" as the goal, but the 1996 Act updated that to "telecommunications" which would include all manner of telecommunications, including wired or wireless phone service, and the Internet. True, people don't need a cell phone or wired phone service, just like they don't need the Internet, just like most of the rural midsouth didn't need electricity before the TVA was formed to build dams to give it to them. But life is a lot better in These United States with it, than without it.
Now is where some want to get all frothy. People have been getting subsidized phone service in rural and not-so rural areas since the mid-1930s, it's just that the money wasn't sent directly to the subscribers, rather it was divided up using the USF to providers. So, people didn't see it directly. What's particularly hilarious is, despite the high costs of telephone and cell service nowadays, if we hadn't been paying into the USF fund all these years, coupled with legislated regulations, we would all, that means you too, be paying more than we are right now for the same service.
So even though you're paying that fee and the evil gubmint is stealing it and giving to someone who didn't earn it, by paying you're benefiting too by having a substantially lower phone bill in the first place. Cell service and cell towers over such a large geographical area as the United States is a dramatic illustration of that, for if we all had to actually foot the bill for it, we'd either have about 20% of the towers and coverage that we do now, or we'd be paying 4-5 times per month what we're paying presently.
Now, if you want to get all frothy about something that matters, go read the editorial that I linked to. Free cells phones for lazy, no-good degenerates ain't the problem. That's actually a very responsible way to spend the money. Rural America has effectively been wired, except for all but the most remote of us. The USF is still a good thing, but it's being spent as if rural America's phone service is still yet to be funded and wired. Providers are still requesting, and getting money, for serices long ago paid for. It's like motor carriers who charge $35 a week, still, for an 8 year old QC that was paid-for completely 6 years ago. It's a revenue stream they don't want to give up. It's also why telephone companies got into the cable TV business, and why they still want to run those "last mile" wires to homes. Yet satellite and cell communications is vastly cheaper and fits in far better today with the 1996 Act than the "old habits which die hard" do. It's the business, the telephone providers, which are raking in the cash, and for doing basically nothing other than provide service which can be provided cheaper and better by other means.
Here's why the cell phones for poor people (A.K.A. scumbags on welfare) is not the thing to get all bent out of shape about. We give someone a cheap cell phone and limited service (a few hundred minutes per), which totals about $15 or $20 a month from the USF fund. Or, hey, or, or, or, we could give them land-line service and make them pay $25 a month, and then pay the additional costs of the service from the USF fund. The additional cost would be between $75 and $125 per month per person receiving the service. Who cares if your portion of the USF rises because of it. At least those lazy SOBs would be paying sumptin, right? <snort> It's more important that you get mad, over sumptin' even if you don't know what you're mad at.
Always remember...
By 1913, AT&T had favored status from U.S. government, allowing it to operate in a noncompetitive economic environment (a monopoly) in exchange for subjection to price and quality service regulation. The government felt a monopolistic telephone industry would best serve the goal of creating a “universal” network with compatible technology country wide for telephone consumers, rather than a hodgepodge of incompatible networks that wouldn't allow the simplest of long distance calls. Regulators emphasized limits on profits, enforcing “reasonable” prices for service, setting levels of depreciation and investment for new technology and equipment, dependability and “universality” of service. “Universal” was originally used by AT&T to mean, “interconnection to other networks, not service to all customers”. But after years of regulation, the term came to include infrastructural development of telephony and service to everyone at a reasonable price.
This set the stage for the the Communications Act of 1934, which includes in its preamble a reference to universal service. It calls for “rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges” to “all the people of the United States.” This was way back in 1934, keep in mind. To comply, in 1935 AT&T began in increasing the price of long distance service to pay for universal service. The act also established the FCC to oversee all non-governmental broadcasting, interstate communications, as well as international communication which originate or terminate in the United States.
The big push for deregulating the telecommunications industry came in the 1980s, and under Ronald Reagan the FCC shifted its focus from “social equity to an economic efficiency objective” (which the FCC then claimed was a primary purpose of the Communications Act of 1934, anyway, much like those who can reinterpret the Bible on a moment's notice to suit their needs). After AT&T was split up in 1984, universal service was still supported by a system of above-cost access charges paid to the local exchange companies. Increased competition and universal service were later legislatively addressed and codified with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is where we stand now.
What the Universal Service Fee has done, and largely still does, is put rural America on the same footing as urban America. One quote from this thread illustrates quite well the misunderstanding: "Phone service not in rural areas? No where I have ever been or lived and I have lived out in some very rural areas." Well, you can thank the USF for that, like, totally. And what's more, it not only enabled rural service, and by rural I don't mean the pump shed on the back forty on cattle ranch on the outskirts of Butt Crack, WY, I mean places like Wilmington, Xenia, Washington Courthouse, Mansfield, Ashland, Findlay, Defiance, Chillicothe, Wooster, Lima, all places which should be familiar, and the smaller towns out in the boonies, too. Pretty much any place about 10 miles outside of an urban area would otherwise be paying through the nose for telecommunications, if they had it at all. Let's say phone service is $25 a month in an urban area, where phone lines and people are clustered. The same exact service in a rural area a few miles outside of town could cost $500 a month, and in more remote areas twice that. But the USF and previous regulation puts everyone one the same $25 paying field. In addition, the $25 a month in the city could very well be costing you $50 or more without the regulations and the USF.
The major goals of Universal Service as mandated by the 1996 Act are as follows:
- To promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,
- To increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation,
- To advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas,
- To increase access to telecommunications and advanced services in schools, libraries and rural health care facilities,
- To provide equitable and non-discriminatory contributions from all providers of telecommunications services to the fund supporting universal service programs.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to the federal universal service in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner; there should be specific, predictable, and sufficient Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service; all schools, classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should have access to advanced telecommunications services; and lastly, that the Federal-State Joint Board and the Commission should determine those other principles that, consistent with the 1996 Act, are necessary to protect the public interest.
The Act of 1934 used "telephone service" as the goal, but the 1996 Act updated that to "telecommunications" which would include all manner of telecommunications, including wired or wireless phone service, and the Internet. True, people don't need a cell phone or wired phone service, just like they don't need the Internet, just like most of the rural midsouth didn't need electricity before the TVA was formed to build dams to give it to them. But life is a lot better in These United States with it, than without it.
Now is where some want to get all frothy. People have been getting subsidized phone service in rural and not-so rural areas since the mid-1930s, it's just that the money wasn't sent directly to the subscribers, rather it was divided up using the USF to providers. So, people didn't see it directly. What's particularly hilarious is, despite the high costs of telephone and cell service nowadays, if we hadn't been paying into the USF fund all these years, coupled with legislated regulations, we would all, that means you too, be paying more than we are right now for the same service.
So even though you're paying that fee and the evil gubmint is stealing it and giving to someone who didn't earn it, by paying you're benefiting too by having a substantially lower phone bill in the first place. Cell service and cell towers over such a large geographical area as the United States is a dramatic illustration of that, for if we all had to actually foot the bill for it, we'd either have about 20% of the towers and coverage that we do now, or we'd be paying 4-5 times per month what we're paying presently.
Now, if you want to get all frothy about something that matters, go read the editorial that I linked to. Free cells phones for lazy, no-good degenerates ain't the problem. That's actually a very responsible way to spend the money. Rural America has effectively been wired, except for all but the most remote of us. The USF is still a good thing, but it's being spent as if rural America's phone service is still yet to be funded and wired. Providers are still requesting, and getting money, for serices long ago paid for. It's like motor carriers who charge $35 a week, still, for an 8 year old QC that was paid-for completely 6 years ago. It's a revenue stream they don't want to give up. It's also why telephone companies got into the cable TV business, and why they still want to run those "last mile" wires to homes. Yet satellite and cell communications is vastly cheaper and fits in far better today with the 1996 Act than the "old habits which die hard" do. It's the business, the telephone providers, which are raking in the cash, and for doing basically nothing other than provide service which can be provided cheaper and better by other means.
Here's why the cell phones for poor people (A.K.A. scumbags on welfare) is not the thing to get all bent out of shape about. We give someone a cheap cell phone and limited service (a few hundred minutes per), which totals about $15 or $20 a month from the USF fund. Or, hey, or, or, or, we could give them land-line service and make them pay $25 a month, and then pay the additional costs of the service from the USF fund. The additional cost would be between $75 and $125 per month per person receiving the service. Who cares if your portion of the USF rises because of it. At least those lazy SOBs would be paying sumptin, right? <snort> It's more important that you get mad, over sumptin' even if you don't know what you're mad at.
Always remember...
Dammit I'm Mad
is
Dammit I'm Mad
spelled backwards.
is
Dammit I'm Mad
spelled backwards.
Last edited:
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
I think we should agree to disagree on this.
not the ones who really need it.you can look over my post and see I have said befor.IF the need is real then as a human it is our duty to help.However dont think for a second thats there are hundreds of thousands that chose to live this way.They raise their kids to live this way.the mom and dad live together mom tells state dad left,dad works under table for cash so he does not have to pay child surport.All so they got money to go to the bar or buy that new flat screen or what ever they want to spend it on.
I try and stay out for 4-6 weeks at a time.then im home for a week to ten days.When im home I drive a van for a food pantry one day a week going around to stores and picking up day old breads and other stuff.The next day I spend it helping pack boxes of food to be given out.the third day I help give out the boxes.There is always older people and I help them out to their car with the food and load it for them.What is truly sad is there are always cars in the parking lot that should not be there.If someone needs to come to a food pantry for food because they can not afford to by food,then why are some of them driving brand new cars?Why are some of them driving cars worth 500 dollars but have 3000 dollars worth of tires and rims on it?I dont spend three days of my time off helping people that need it because I have to I do it because I want to and it feels good.You see for me its about the many,many,many that use it because they can,not because they need it.
BY the way that USF Company thank you Bill clinton!1997
Turtle can I PM you? I have a question for you.
Last edited:
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
Clearly, even fewer read the article all Here's why the cell phones for poor people (A.K.A. scumbags on welfare) is not the thing to get all bent out of shape about.
What is funny turtle,is you can read this whole thread and see the words Idiots,laziness,bums and stupidity.Then we come to your post and the word scumbag's comes into play.Now I know you were using sarcasm to try and prove all of us that dont belive tax dollars should be used this way wrong.Does not matter who gets the money or what the reason is for it.In doing so You are sticking up for the people getting these phones.Yet you are the only one who refers to these people as scumbag's.
REALLY SCUMBAG'S?????????
Last edited:
What's funny is that I'm now going to have to sit here and explain to you the sarcasm and why I used it. I will also have to wonder, out loud, probably more than once, why you didn't read the editorial I linked to, or the entirely of what I wrote, or if you did read it then why didn't you understand and comprehend any of it.
I used the sarcasm, and the word scumbag and others in particular, to point out the absurdity of far too many conservatives who have complete and utter disdain for poor people who are on welfare or some other assistance (but in reality have a disdain for the stereotype of the poor in general, and will go to great lengths, oftentimes protesting too much, to point out they are not racist, when comments they make elsewhere clearly indicate otherwise). The disdain is so thick and juicy that, as in the case of this article and topic, people are using this as an excuse to rag on welfare recipients even when that's not even the real issue. Granted, they don't know it's not the real issue, because they haven't bothered to find out what the real issue is. They are taking their cue from a headline and/or from an incredibly ignorant and biased Blogger, and from others who have commented here, who also took their cue from a headline and the same Blogger. Free phones aren't a civil right. Not now, not ever. Sheesh.
Very few even clicked the editorial I linked to. I'll bet at least 60% of the respondents in this thread didn't even RTFA at the Blog that Leo linked to, which is like reading a copy of a copy of a copy, and less than 50% clicked-through from that Blog to the Blogger's source at the NY Post Blog, and then probably 10% or less click through that Blog to the actual newspaper article (Free cell phones for the needy drawing both cheers and jeers - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) where they could get the actual facts of the story. I know, I know, real, actual facts only get in the way of a good frothy. If you're an idiot and prefer to remain ignorant and all frothy and stuff, do not click on the Trib-Review link. If you want to read the original source of both Blogs, to get the facts of the story so you can intelligently discuss them, and so as to see just how manipulated those facts became in two biased Blogs, go ahead and click. The story presents both sides, and it's quite interesting to note who is most against it, because it's a knee-jerk reaction of ignorance, much the same as we see here.
The mere fact that people are all frothy over welfare recipients receiving free cells phones as "a right" proves beyond all doubt they haven't read the source story. They are merely responding in classic pile-on fashion from a subject headline summary, and an incorrect one at that. They are being frothy for frothy's sake, ignorance be dаmned!
Why bother learning when ignorance is instantaneous?
Well, you're about one-fourth right with that statement. I was using sarcasm, that much is true. Calling the USF a tax is a stretch, but possibly technically accurate, although if you put it in the context of decades-old regulation which started long before most of us were born, and which all of us have greatly benefited whether we realize it or not, then it's not even remotely close to a tax. Thirdly, I did not use the sarcasm to prove what you have asserted, which is those who think using the money (tax dollars if you like) in this way are wrong. I couldn't and wouldn't even try prove such a thing, because those of you who think the money is being used in "this way" are starting out with a false premise, because it's not being used in the way you think (which would have become utterly evident if you had read all of what I wrote).
Of course it matters. Without the USF only a privileged few clustered in urban areas would have had phone service for the last 60 years or so, and perhaps even today. Money has got nothing to do with it, as the rich and poor alike in those urban areas would have phone service, and the rich and poor alike in rural areas would not even have the access in the first place. The infrastructure would not be there. Period. It began when the telegraph started connecting remote areas of the country, then it became the telephone. Telephone and electrical wires that connected rural and urban areas alike and with the same basic prices, is one of the major influences on this nation becoming the strong nation we have been (up until this week, apparently). Not just a leader in manufacturing and other economic sectors, but in quality of life for all. If it weren't for the USF then none of that would have been very likely, because the Eastern Seaboard and a few major cities would be cut off from the rest of the country, literally. Again, your own modestly priced phone bills, and the fact that you had a phone growing up at all, is directly attributable to the USF. You have benefited every day of your life because of the idea of Universal Service and what all it has helped make possible.
Yes, I am sticking up for the people getting these phones. And if you even remotely understood the issues and who these people actually are and how it all relates to universal service and what that means, and what it means to us as a nation in the past, present and future, then you would, too.
I have my doubts, but I'm going to assume anyway that you think everyone in this country should be afforded at least the opportunity to have a basic, grade school education - reading, writing, arithmetic - so that they can at least intelligently communicate with their fellow citizens. It's universal, and if we cut off large sections of the population from the ability to be educated, the country at large suffers. The same thing is true of the telephone, where when large sections of the country are cut off from communicating with the rest of the nation in normal fashion, the nation suffers. Before the cell phone, pay phones were ubiquitous even in rural areas, and they were cheap to use, all thanks to universal service. Without universal service, the infrastructure would not be there for one pay phone, much less for countless homes outside of the cities. Even the Amish have either a community pay phone, or more often now, a family cell phone. Being able to communicate with others, and in the manner in which everyone else communicates regardless of that method, is important on several levels. I have to believe that most people can understand that. Effective and efficient communications of the masses has marked the entire history of civilization. What you and others are advocating is to cut a segment of that civilization off from the rest of the country and the world, simply because you don't like them. The real hoot is that the free cell phones that are provided with these programs are many times cheaper than what we've been doing up to now, which is to provide free or very cheap land-line service to the same people.
Do I really and truly have to explain the concept of sarcasm to you again?
OK, apparently I do have to explain it again. I wasn't referring to these people as scumbags, I used the term, and others like it, to mock, ridicule, make fun of, and belittle the the ignerts, moh-rons and idjits who didn't RTFA and click through, or read what I wrote, or didn't bother to educate themselves on the issue, are ranting and raving about free cell phones paid with tax dollars, but are totally clueless about the dramatically more expensive free or heavily subsidized land-line service that far more people already get and that rural phone companies are essentially stealing, because they are totally ignorant about the USF, the history and reasons for tight regulatory controls on profits and pricing and service quality of telecommunications companies, and what it all really and truly actually means.REALLY SCUMBAG'S?????????
Ranting about USF-paid cell phones for poor people is like ranting banshee batcrap crazy about what looks like a 4-inch pothole in the middle of the road that isn't really a pothole, despite the fact that 15 feet beyond the pothole the entire 4-lane bridge spanning the Mississippi River collapsed due to corruption and shoddy construction. You're all frothy and barmy about something which you don't even have the facts, isn't remotely important and doesn't even matter in the big picture. If it was just welfare recipients receiving free tax dollar cell phones, and that was it, then there'd be a valid reason to get all bent out of shape. But the free cell phones is just a small, insignificant corner of a vastly larger picture.
That some Blogger took this and made it the issue that he did, and that people read it and bought into all its frothiness, is about like the Blogger who made up that Obama's dog has its own plane when they went on vacation, and people believe it. Go ahead, read the Trib-Review article. I dare you. I reiterate the warning however, you will encounter facts in the story which will prove quote alarming and disturbing, because they are, you know, facts.
Last edited:
You see I contend that it is the very programs that are designed to "help" the poor that are keeping them poor. I contend that the more you do for people the less they will do for themselves. The system is designed to make people dependent on the government. Dependent people are easy to control. That insures greater power for the government over the people.
Again, where does it end? Free cars? Can't find a job without one. Free car insurance? Can't have a car without it. Who pays for it all? Those who are working? Raise taxes on business? We already have one of the highest business taxes in the world. On the rich? 71% not high enough?
I can tell you that after last year and my tax bills I am finding ways to work less. It does not pay to do better. The feds took 50% of my increased profit last year. I will do just like many of my friends in England did when they were getting close to "jumping" to the next level. Cut back, work less, keep more. It will be a cold day in heck that I work my tail off to have it taken away.
I have NO problem helping the TRUE needy, disabled (those who need help, not all do) elderly, (those who need help, not all do).
There has to be limits set or our taxes are going through the roof. We are rapidly going to reach a point where the majority of the population is RECEIVING aid and a minority providing it. That is NOT going to work. Jobs are the answer, government can only interfere with job creation, and they are. Government IS the cause of the problems, NOT the solution.
Again, where does it end? Free cars? Can't find a job without one. Free car insurance? Can't have a car without it. Who pays for it all? Those who are working? Raise taxes on business? We already have one of the highest business taxes in the world. On the rich? 71% not high enough?
I can tell you that after last year and my tax bills I am finding ways to work less. It does not pay to do better. The feds took 50% of my increased profit last year. I will do just like many of my friends in England did when they were getting close to "jumping" to the next level. Cut back, work less, keep more. It will be a cold day in heck that I work my tail off to have it taken away.
I have NO problem helping the TRUE needy, disabled (those who need help, not all do) elderly, (those who need help, not all do).
There has to be limits set or our taxes are going through the roof. We are rapidly going to reach a point where the majority of the population is RECEIVING aid and a minority providing it. That is NOT going to work. Jobs are the answer, government can only interfere with job creation, and they are. Government IS the cause of the problems, NOT the solution.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
AGGGH! Too much reading!
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
That some Blogger took this and made it the issue that he did, and that people read it and bought into all its frothiness, is about like the Blogger who made up that Obama's dog has its own plane when they went on vacation, and people believe it. Go ahead, read the Trib-Review article. I dare you. I reiterate the warning however, you will encounter facts in the story which will prove quote alarming and disturbing, because they are, you know, facts.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should take your own advice and read a little more(maybe something more then WIKIPEDIA).This is not just about people in the sticks getting phones.They are giving phones to anyone on any type of government help.Now you can get all worked up about it if you want but I see YOU left out the part where is says the ACT OF 1996 is to help provide DISCOUNTS,not free services.Also you must be a young pup to think most of us had not been born yet in 1996!You see the act of 1934 has nothing to do with the universal service fund.The USF was started in 1997.Also it is a federal fund so yes its a tax!
I dare you I dare you,well yeah I double dog dare you Really what are we 6? review What facts are you talking about?10 dollars per phone or 10 dollars a month for 250 min.OR how assurance wirless has 2 million people nationwide signed up for it.But they are just one company out there offering this program.Just that one company is 20 million a month.20x12= 240 million a year.and that is just one company.Those millions turn into billions those billions turn into trillion over the course of lets say 13 years the USF has been mandated on us.You see the tribe review does not really show many "ACTUAL FACTS" of the story.
You see unlike you I do understand,I do comprehend,the facts I also look at the big picture.I will try and use an example you might be able to understand and releat to.JB HUNT,SWIFT,SCHNIEDDER you know why their trucks are so slow?Because it saves them two cent a gallon on fuel.Know I know that may not seem like much but when you look at thousands of gallons of fuel a day=thousands of dollars a day saved times 7 days a week times 4 sometimes 5 weeks a month times 12 months a year those two pennys a gallon turn into millions a year saved.= looking at the big picture.
When people really need it like sharron walters then yeah you help the problem is the hundreds of thousands that get it because they can and not need then that is the problem.That is why so many of us UNCARING CONSERVATIVES SUFFER FROM FROTHINESS.I in now way let the title of a article get me all worked up about anything.
Here is a little bit of understanding and copmrehending for you.I understand that most of what you wrote is word for word from the wikipedia page.You know where anyone can edit what the page says to fit what they want people to read. Yet you call them FACTS!I understand the ACT of 96 calls for discounts,not FREE.I understand that when someone gets this help and they dont really need it they belive it is THEIR RIGHT to it.I also understand that there are people like that a great,great many of them even if you dont!
I understand and comprehend that when some one disagrees with you or post they think you are wrong you like to sit up there with your all knowing multiple collage degrees and use back door insults to make others look bad and stupid. "Now if you want to get all frothy about something that matters" "Its more important that you get mad at sumptin even if you dont know what you're mad at""very few even clicked the editoral I linked to" "because its a knee jerk reaction of Ingorance" "why bother learning when ignorance is instantaneous""frothiness"Which is really funny because you think we drivers can not understand what you are doing.For me as im sure with others it just shows How liberal you're mind is when that is what you do when someone disagrees with you.You see I understand and comprehend just fine.
Call it SARCSAM if you like but even thoughs of us who stand against the government making laws that say we must pay a extra fee to the phone companys so people on welfae can have a cell phone to,not matter how cheap they are is wrong(because that is what the fund is today as you even said most of the lines have been run already funny you cant see that).No where did we feel the need to call people on welfare SCUMBAG'S,YOU DID THAT.Also when you want to use back door insults and mask them with FACTS try and Use REAL facts not just WIKIPEDIA and newspaper storys!
Maybe you should take your own advice and read a little more(maybe something more then WIKIPEDIA).This is not just about people in the sticks getting phones.They are giving phones to anyone on any type of government help.Now you can get all worked up about it if you want but I see YOU left out the part where is says the ACT OF 1996 is to help provide DISCOUNTS,not free services.Also you must be a young pup to think most of us had not been born yet in 1996!You see the act of 1934 has nothing to do with the universal service fund.The USF was started in 1997.Also it is a federal fund so yes its a tax!
I dare you I dare you,well yeah I double dog dare you
Really what are we 6? review What facts are you talking about?10 dollars per phone or 10 dollars a month for 250 min.OR how assurance wirless has 2 million people nationwide signed up for it.But they are just one company out there offering this program.Just that one company is 20 million a month.20x12= 240 million a year.and that is just one company.Those millions turn into billions those billions turn into trillion over the course of lets say 13 years the USF has been mandated on us.You see the tribe review does not really show many "ACTUAL FACTS" of the story.You see unlike you I do understand,I do comprehend,the facts I also look at the big picture.I will try and use an example you might be able to understand and releat to.JB HUNT,SWIFT,SCHNIEDDER you know why their trucks are so slow?Because it saves them two cent a gallon on fuel.Know I know that may not seem like much but when you look at thousands of gallons of fuel a day=thousands of dollars a day saved times 7 days a week times 4 sometimes 5 weeks a month times 12 months a year those two pennys a gallon turn into millions a year saved.= looking at the big picture.
When people really need it like sharron walters then yeah you help the problem is the hundreds of thousands that get it because they can and not need then that is the problem.That is why so many of us UNCARING CONSERVATIVES SUFFER FROM FROTHINESS.I in now way let the title of a article get me all worked up about anything.
Here is a little bit of understanding and copmrehending for you.I understand that most of what you wrote is word for word from the wikipedia page.You know where anyone can edit what the page says to fit what they want people to read. Yet you call them FACTS!I understand the ACT of 96 calls for discounts,not FREE.I understand that when someone gets this help and they dont really need it they belive it is THEIR RIGHT to it.I also understand that there are people like that a great,great many of them even if you dont!
I understand and comprehend that when some one disagrees with you or post they think you are wrong you like to sit up there with your all knowing multiple collage degrees and use back door insults to make others look bad and stupid. "Now if you want to get all frothy about something that matters" "Its more important that you get mad at sumptin even if you dont know what you're mad at""very few even clicked the editoral I linked to" "because its a knee jerk reaction of Ingorance" "why bother learning when ignorance is instantaneous""frothiness"Which is really funny because you think we drivers can not understand what you are doing.For me as im sure with others it just shows How liberal you're mind is when that is what you do when someone disagrees with you.You see I understand and comprehend just fine.
Call it SARCSAM if you like but even thoughs of us who stand against the government making laws that say we must pay a extra fee to the phone companys so people on welfae can have a cell phone to,not matter how cheap they are is wrong(because that is what the fund is today as you even said most of the lines have been run already funny you cant see that).No where did we feel the need to call people on welfare SCUMBAG'S,YOU DID THAT.Also when you want to use back door insults and mask them with FACTS try and Use REAL facts not just WIKIPEDIA and newspaper storys!
Last edited:
I have read, several times, and studied the Telecommunicatios Acts of 1934 and of 1996 and their amendments. I know them well. My research hardly consisted of a Blog, a newspaper article and Wiki. The wording of a few salient paragraphs was concise and easily understandable, so I used those to make my point rather than needlessly rewriting everything. If you feel that Wiki or my understanding of the two Acts are in error, please be specific and point it out.
Absolutely false. Not true. Total lie. Why would you say such a thing? Just because you're receiving some type of government assistance does not automatically qualify you for getting a free phone.
What this is about is, and what you cannot seem to grasp is, this is about companies like Assurance Wireless and SafeLink bаstardizing the USF for their own benefit, actively promoting the program and seeking out with targeted advertising those may qualify for the free phones. For a nominal investment in a cheap phone, and for 250 minutes which costs them less than a dollar to provide, every person they can qualify equals free money from the government. That's what should have you outraged, but instead you're all frothy over "free phones for welfare". Holy crap on a cracker.
No I didn't. I stated quite plainly what the Act's purpose and stated goals are. One of them is discounted services. Actually, in the scope of everyone not in the urban-proper area, discounted service is the paramount goal.
Actually it did. AT&T was tightly regulated and was required by the Act of 1934 to provide funds for universal service. To comply with the Act of 1934, in 1935 AT&T began in increasing the price of long distance service to pay for universal service. It was even referred to as the universal service fund back then. It just hadn't been legislatively proclaimed as such, as there was no need to do so with just the one telephone company. After the breakup of Ma Bell, Congress legislated it to ensure any new companies not directly created by the breakup would also comply. I'm guessing that most of us here on EO were not born in 1935. I freely admit I could be wrong about that, however.
The USF was legislated by name at that time, but it's been in de facto existence since 1935. Also, if you are going to call it a tax because it's a federal thing (despite it not being tax deductible or subject to deductions), then you must also agree that "free" is nothing more than deeply discounted.
The FCC does not require the USF charge to be passed on to customers. It is a charge from the government to the carrier, not the customer. The carrier chooses to pass it along, penny for penny, to the customer, rather than just incorporate into their monthly rates. The reason for that is, the Act requires that any industry subsidy mechanisms be made explicit and not concealed within legacy regulated rate structures. To achieve this, subscribers be pay a specific USF charge that is identified separately on the bill. It wasn't all that long ago where you could simply refuse to pay the USF, stating that it violated your contract. But since about 10 years ago all carriers have it in the fine print where you are required to pay it. I refused for years, then they snuck it into one of my contract renewals.
That's it exactly. Yes, you figured it out, the FACTS of a billion dollar program from which the business of private enterprise profits.I dare you I dare you,well yeah I double dog dare you
The entire program is out of control, thanks in large part to the amendment by the FCC in 1997, spurred by President Clinton's call to have Internet access in place in all schools and libraries by the year 2000. This introduced the E-rate program, and the creation of a corporation called The Schools and Libraries Corporation (SLC) which administers the program. The SLC is chocked full of people making lavish salaries, who are in charge of handing out money for winning "bids" for school districts and such. School districts and libraries come up with what they would like in a computer system, and the system is then bid on by carriers, resellers or distributors who then post their bid to SLC. The bid posted is anywhere from 20% to 90% off "retail". There is a formula, where the higher discounts are for the poorer schools, measured by how many students qualify for the School Lunch Program.
The like I said, the entire thing is out of control. The money gets filtered more times than freight does. It's nothing more than a bunch of lawyers and businesses with their hands in the cookie jar, and the whole thing needs to be done away with. It's long outlived its purpose.
Many is subjective. it doesn't show "many", but it shows more than both of the Blogs combined.
Then you understand very little, and comprehend even less. I know precisely what I posted from Wiki, and it's a rather small percentage of what I have written in this thread.
What I see is that you have a perception and illusion of you understanding and comprehending all this, but the fact is you don't. The above paragraph is clear evidence of all that. You're dead wrong about my motivations and methods. You claim I am trying to make you and others look bad and/or stupid, but I'm not. I really don't have to. The knee-jerk reaction of ignorance, to which many, many, far too many conservatives employ on a regular basis, is that this and the USF is about free phones for welfare recipients, and they are all dead wrong. At most, free cell phones is a symptom of the massively larger illness (or a small smudge on the big picture, if you will). All you have to do is read the Acts of 1934 and 1996, plus the FCC amendments, and the related Congressional legislation and see what it was designed to do, how it has been implemented, and how it implemented today, and how it's gotten out of control.
How can you sit there and say that I can't see that, yet that is precisely what I wrote? What I cannot see or understand is how people can get so frothy over a free cell phone, despite it being astoundingly convenient by being served up on a silver platter, and at the same time state they understand the issues when they clearly are clueless about the much larger issues of why the free cells phones themselves are utterly irrelevant and the mechanisms that has allowed them and how it is being abused is what it important.
I really don't understand it. Maybe the frothy outrage over free cell phones for the welfare isn't one out of ignorance at all. Maybe it's all just a euphemistic surrogate for what many people really want, which is to cut any and all government assistance off from everyone, and if they die they die. Granted, I know that for some people that's not expedient enough, and they'd rather just take them all out back and shoot them, but even those people know they can't do that.
Clearly I'm dealing here with someone who has a tough time grasping sarcasm, and a plain explanation of it. No, I didn't call them scumbags. That was sarcasm, and more pointed sardonic sarcasm pointed directly at the ethereal "we" you so often speak of, who have many times here on EO referred in earnest to welfare recipients as lazy bums, scum, scumbags, no-good, good-for-nothings, dregs, dirtbags, deadbeats, fecal material (in several variants), fools, idiots, and a whole host of other colorful adjectives.
Also when you want to use back door insults and mask them with FACTS try and Use REAL facts not just WIKIPEDIA and newspaper storys!
"Absolutely false. Not true. Total lie. Why would you say such a thing? Just because you're receiving some type of government assistance does not automatically qualify you for getting a free phone. "
The commercials that are running state the opposite, IF you can believe commercials.
My niece and her "thing friend" have 3 of them. The UAW, through her dad, council welfare rangers and medicade mamas on how to obtain these phones and other things that they are ENTITLED to from the government. The UAW has active, funded programs to assist the "needy" get what they are "OWED". The word "OWED" is out of my brother's mouth with helps his daughter be a bum.
The commercials that are running state the opposite, IF you can believe commercials.
My niece and her "thing friend" have 3 of them. The UAW, through her dad, council welfare rangers and medicade mamas on how to obtain these phones and other things that they are ENTITLED to from the government. The UAW has active, funded programs to assist the "needy" get what they are "OWED". The word "OWED" is out of my brother's mouth with helps his daughter be a bum.
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
I have read, several times, and studied the Telecommunicatios Acts of 1934 and of 1996 and their amendments. I know them well. My research hardly consisted of a Blog, a newspaper article and Wiki. The wording of a few salient paragraphs was concise and easily understandable, so I used those to make my point rather than needlessly rewriting everything. If you feel that Wiki or my understanding of the two Acts are in error, please be specific and point it out.
Absolutely false. Not true. Total lie. Why would you say such a thing? Just because you're receiving some type of government assistance does not automatically qualify you for getting a free phone.
What this is about is, and what you cannot seem to grasp is, this is about companies like Assurance Wireless and SafeLink bаstardizing the USF for their own benefit, actively promoting the program and seeking out with targeted advertising those may qualify for the free phones. For a nominal investment in a cheap phone, and for 250 minutes which costs them less than a dollar to provide, every person they can qualify equals free money from the government. That's what should have you outraged, but instead you're all frothy over "free phones for welfare". Holy crap on a cracker.
No I didn't. I stated quite plainly what the Act's purpose and stated goals are. One of them is discounted services. Actually, in the scope of everyone not in the urban-proper area, discounted service is the paramount goal.
Actually it did. AT&T was tightly regulated and was required by the Act of 1934 to provide funds for universal service. To comply with the Act of 1934, in 1935 AT&T began in increasing the price of long distance service to pay for universal service. It was even referred to as the universal service fund back then. It just hadn't been legislatively proclaimed as such, as there was no need to do so with just the one telephone company. After the breakup of Ma Bell, Congress legislated it to ensure any new companies not directly created by the breakup would also comply. I'm guessing that most of us here on EO were not born in 1935. I freely admit I could be wrong about that, however.
The USF was legislated by name at that time, but it's been in de facto existence since 1935. Also, if you are going to call it a tax because it's a federal thing (despite it not being tax deductible or subject to deductions), then you must also agree that "free" is nothing more than deeply discounted.
The FCC does not require the USF charge to be passed on to customers. It is a charge from the government to the carrier, not the customer. The carrier chooses to pass it along, penny for penny, to the customer, rather than just incorporate into their monthly rates. The reason for that is, the Act requires that any industry subsidy mechanisms be made explicit and not concealed within legacy regulated rate structures. To achieve this, subscribers be pay a specific USF charge that is identified separately on the bill. It wasn't all that long ago where you could simply refuse to pay the USF, stating that it violated your contract. But since about 10 years ago all carriers have it in the fine print where you are required to pay it. I refused for years, then they snuck it into one of my contract renewals.
That's it exactly. Yes, you figured it out, the FACTS of a billion dollar program from which the business of private enterprise profits.
The entire program is out of control, thanks in large part to the amendment by the FCC in 1997, spurred by President Clinton's call to have Internet access in place in all schools and libraries by the year 2000. This introduced the E-rate program, and the creation of a corporation called The Schools and Libraries Corporation (SLC) which administers the program. The SLC is chocked full of people making lavish salaries, who are in charge of handing out money for winning "bids" for school districts and such. School districts and libraries come up with what they would like in a computer system, and the system is then bid on by carriers, resellers or distributors who then post their bid to SLC. The bid posted is anywhere from 20% to 90% off "retail". There is a formula, where the higher discounts are for the poorer schools, measured by how many students qualify for the School Lunch Program.
The like I said, the entire thing is out of control. The money gets filtered more times than freight does. It's nothing more than a bunch of lawyers and businesses with their hands in the cookie jar, and the whole thing needs to be done away with. It's long outlived its purpose.
Many is subjective. it doesn't show "many", but it shows more than both of the Blogs combined.
Then you understand very little, and comprehend even less. I know precisely what I posted from Wiki, and it's a rather small percentage of what I have written in this thread.
What I see is that you have a perception and illusion of you understanding and comprehending all this, but the fact is you don't. The above paragraph is clear evidence of all that. You're dead wrong about my motivations and methods. You claim I am trying to make you and others look bad and/or stupid, but I'm not. I really don't have to. The knee-jerk reaction of ignorance, to which many, many, far too many conservatives employ on a regular basis, is that this and the USF is about free phones for welfare recipients, and they are all dead wrong. At most, free cell phones is a symptom of the massively larger illness (or a small smudge on the big picture, if you will). All you have to do is read the Acts of 1934 and 1996, plus the FCC amendments, and the related Congressional legislation and see what it was designed to do, how it has been implemented, and how it implemented today, and how it's gotten out of control.
How can you sit there and say that I can't see that, yet that is precisely what I wrote? What I cannot see or understand is how people can get so frothy over a free cell phone, despite it being astoundingly convenient by being served up on a silver platter, and at the same time state they understand the issues when they clearly are clueless about the much larger issues of why the free cells phones themselves are utterly irrelevant and the mechanisms that has allowed them and how it is being abused is what it important.
I really don't understand it. Maybe the frothy outrage over free cell phones for the welfare isn't one out of ignorance at all. Maybe it's all just a euphemistic surrogate for what many people really want, which is to cut any and all government assistance off from everyone, and if they die they die. Granted, I know that for some people that's not expedient enough, and they'd rather just take them all out back and shoot them, but even those people know they can't do that.
Clearly I'm dealing here with someone who has a tough time grasping sarcasm, and a plain explanation of it. No, I didn't call them scumbags. That was sarcasm, and more pointed sardonic sarcasm pointed directly at the ethereal "we" you so often speak of, who have many times here on EO referred in earnest to welfare recipients as lazy bums, scum, scumbags, no-good, good-for-nothings, dregs, dirtbags, deadbeats, fecal material (in several variants), fools, idiots, and a whole host of other colorful adjectives.
Also when you want to use back door insults and mask them with FACTS try and Use REAL facts not just WIKIPEDIA and newspaper storys!
YOUR WHOLE REPLY TO MY LAST POST PROVES MY POINT
It's a never ending amazement to me that people still believe that government 'handouts' are easy to get, and that a majority of folks would rather live on the handouts than work for a living.
Easy to get? Do you read the articles about how states are in severe financial distress? Do you really, truly believe they make it easy to collect welfare? The fact is, they do everything they can to prevent people from getting it:
It's time consuming, [waiting all day in a large room full of people, many small children, not daring to leave for a minute if one needs the restroom, cause if they call & you don't answer, you start over.]
It's complex: applicants must provide proof of every single thing the state requires, and if you forgot to bring [or can't find] the last 6 months' utility bills, [after waiting 9 hrs to be seen], try again tomorrow. You think some DOT officers enjoy playing 'gotcha!' during inspections? Government workers in these offices have perfected it, and their targets are too easy, being pretty unsophisticated, if not uneducated.
And it's demeaning: the government workers treat most folks like dirt, whether obviously or covertly, they let you know that you're nothing but worthless trash in their eyes, and your time is theirs to waste - go ahead, complain, see what happens.
Finally, it requires accepting the intrusion of a social worker who can inspect your home [without notice] any time they want to - refuse an inspection, lose the benefits.
Even if it were easy to get, the majority of citizens don't want welfare, they want a job. They want to live in a safe neighborhood instead of the hood. They want to pay for their groceries with something that doesn't get them glared at, and their choices inspected by fellow citizens for 'appropriateness'.
They want what most of us want: a comfortable [not easy] life. Which aint possible without a JOB, or [at the wages offered] two or three jobs. Which aint possible without transportation and childcare, which aint available where they live.
Yep, America is truly the land of opportunity - if you have a degree, and the conscience of a jackal, the opportunities [to scam the public and the government] are unlimited.
Easy to get? Do you read the articles about how states are in severe financial distress? Do you really, truly believe they make it easy to collect welfare? The fact is, they do everything they can to prevent people from getting it:
It's time consuming, [waiting all day in a large room full of people, many small children, not daring to leave for a minute if one needs the restroom, cause if they call & you don't answer, you start over.]
It's complex: applicants must provide proof of every single thing the state requires, and if you forgot to bring [or can't find] the last 6 months' utility bills, [after waiting 9 hrs to be seen], try again tomorrow. You think some DOT officers enjoy playing 'gotcha!' during inspections? Government workers in these offices have perfected it, and their targets are too easy, being pretty unsophisticated, if not uneducated.
And it's demeaning: the government workers treat most folks like dirt, whether obviously or covertly, they let you know that you're nothing but worthless trash in their eyes, and your time is theirs to waste - go ahead, complain, see what happens.
Finally, it requires accepting the intrusion of a social worker who can inspect your home [without notice] any time they want to - refuse an inspection, lose the benefits.
Even if it were easy to get, the majority of citizens don't want welfare, they want a job. They want to live in a safe neighborhood instead of the hood. They want to pay for their groceries with something that doesn't get them glared at, and their choices inspected by fellow citizens for 'appropriateness'.
They want what most of us want: a comfortable [not easy] life. Which aint possible without a JOB, or [at the wages offered] two or three jobs. Which aint possible without transportation and childcare, which aint available where they live.
Yep, America is truly the land of opportunity - if you have a degree, and the conscience of a jackal, the opportunities [to scam the public and the government] are unlimited.