Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on February 12, 2013, 05:28:55 AM
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323511804578296001368122888.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
:(
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323511804578296001368122888.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
:(
The trouble started when phone companies convinced the government to help offer the program and they made off like a bandit. Its been cleaned up for the most part now
-
The trouble started when phone companies convinced the government to help offer the program and they made off like a bandit. Its been cleaned up for the most part now
::)
Big Govt and Big Buisiness colluding to fuck the average guy - go figure
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354867/me-and-my-obamaphones-jillian-kay-melchior
Confession: You’re paying my phone bill.
In the past month, I have received three shiny new cell phones, courtesy of American taxpayers, that should never have fallen into my hands.
The Federal Communications Commission oversees the so-called Lifeline program, created in 1984 to make sure impoverished Americans had telephone service available to call their moms, bosses, and 911. In 2008, the FCC expanded the program to offer subsidized cell-phone service, and since then, the expenses of running the program have soared. In 2012, the program’s costs had risen to $2.189 billion, up from $822 million before wireless carriers were included. As of June, there were 13.8 million active Lifeline subscriptions.
To be eligible for Lifeline, the applicant is supposed to be receiving some significant government benefit — food stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, public housing assistance, etc. But because welfare eligibility has expanded under the Obama administration, more people than ever before are qualified to receive “free” cell-phone service — part of the reason why Lifeline mobiles have become commonly known as Obamaphones. Alternatively, applicants can qualify if their household income is less than 136 percent of the federal poverty line.
But as with any federal program with too much funding, too little oversight, and perverse financial incentives, Lifeline has become infamous for rampant fraud and abuse. There have been news reports about recipients flaunting dozens of subsidized phones. And in February, the Wall Street Journal reported on an FCC audit of the top five Lifeline providers, which found that “41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn’t demonstrate their eligibility or didn’t respond to requests for certification.”
The FCC supposedly buckled down on eligibility standards last year and established other safeguards aimed at reducing fraud. I was curious about how tough it was to get one of these phones, so last month, I hit the streets of New York. And out of respect for the law and my journalistic integrity, I did not lie to obtain a phone.
Now is the point, I suppose, where I should explain that I really, really shouldn’t have received a single phone. Despite what you hear, not all 20-something writers in the Big City are starving. Given my earnings, even if I were supporting a family of eight, my income would still rule me out. Nor do I receive any type of government benefit. By the Lifeline program’s standards, I am unambiguously ineligible.
My first task was figuring out where to register. The rule of thumb is that wherever you can sign up for food stamps, you can apply for an Obamaphone.
Representatives from SafeLink and Assurance, two of the leading New York Lifeline vendors, stand outside the food-stamp offices, paired like Mormon missionaries, young and polite and earnest. They carry electronic tablets and ask all passersby whether they’ve received their free phone “yet” — as if it were an inevitability.
They approached me for the first time outside the food-stamp office at Tenth Avenue and 216th Street, on the northern tip of Manhattan. The SafeLink vendor, a man probably in his mid 20s, asked me whether I was enrolled in any benefit programs.
“No,” I said, “but I’d certainly like to be. I’m hoping to be.” And indeed, while doing research for another story, I had gone through the motions of applying for New York City welfare, which I also don’t qualify for. I showed him my Human Resources Administration paperwork packet and the case number assigned to me. I reiterated that though I had once applied, I had never been approved for any sort of benefit.
He brought out his electronic tablet immediately to sign me up for phone service. He asked if I had an insurance card, so I pulled out my trusty Blue Cross Blue Shield. He looked at it for a second, puzzled, then asked if I had Medicaid. No, I told him, just private insurance through my work plan.
“Private insurance? What’s that?” he asked, maybe not facetiously. My BCBS card was nevertheless photographed, as well as the first page of my Human Resources Administration paperwork. He asked for my name and my home address, and that was about it. The whole process took less than five minutes, and I had to provide no documentation verifying my income level or (nonexistent) welfare status.
The SafeLink vendor then referred me to his opposite number, a rep from Assurance. She too took down my information, registering me for another Obamaphone.
Traveling to several of the welfare offices in the city, I learned this was common practice. Obamaphone reps come in twos, and both will sign you up if they can.
That’s a very questionable practice, given the Lifeline program’s rules: Each eligible household may receive only one Lifeline subsidy, and obtaining multiple subsidized phones from multiple Lifeline carriers is “a flat-out violation of our rules,” says Michelle Schaefer, an attorney-adviser from the FCC’s Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
-
So here’s the final count: I was able to apply on the street for one SafeLink phone and seven Assurance phones. I received one SafeLink phone and two Assurance phones, no questions asked. For several other applications, Assurance sent me requests for more financial information.
Finally, I received one other letter, full of grammatical errors, informing me that “there is already an Assurance Wireless account established at this address” and requesting further information about my application. I find it curious that Assurance caught a duplicate only once, considering that I’ve got seven entries in their system, and that they have on file my name, address, HRA case number, and, in some instances, photos of my insurance card and driver’s license. SafeLink was slightly better about catching duplications on the street, but it still gave me a phone when it shouldn’t have.
Since receiving my undeserved phones, I’ve repeatedly tried to reach both SafeLink and Assurance press reps for comment, all to no avail. Their corporate offices have sent me the numbers of their customer-service centers, which are easily accessible and happy to offer plan upgrades to Lifeline clients.
-
WOW !!
people in this country commit fraud in conjunction with government programs
who'da thunk it ?
How about the F-35 @ 400 BILLION Dollars and Counting and but the good news is now they think it can fly safely at night and maybe even in cloudy weather too
-
I'm still amazed the US government thinks it should spend taxpayer money on buying non-taxpayers telephones.
If they want to spend tax dollars on non-taxpayers, it should primarily be programs whose goal is to turn them into taxpayers.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/02/obamacare-phones-offered-to-health-insurance-buyers
>:(
-
I'm still amazed the US government thinks it should spend taxpayer money on buying non-taxpayers telephones.
If they want to spend tax dollars on non-taxpayers, it should primarily be programs whose goal is to turn them into taxpayers.
I think that was the idea. An individual without a telephone has an extremely difficult time finding employment.
-
I don't believe the problem was in the program. It was a great idea. The problem lay in it's execution.
The way the program was administered. I could be wrong, but I am assuming it was not administered or run by government employees, but rather private for profit contractors, ...who no doubt hired contract workers who were probably paid piece-rate per application.
If there's one thing I've learned in all my years of network marketing, it's that the compensation structures determines the behaviour in the field. Field reps will invariably do whatever puts the most amount of money in their pockets... so you had better make sure the remuneration structure is conducive to what you want to see occur.
-
I don't believe the problem was in the program. It was a great idea.
It's a great idea for the government to subsidize mobile devices and phone service for people? Why is that?
-
Yeah, 24KT/JaguarEnterprises, why is that?
-
It's a great idea for the government to subsidize mobile devices and phone service for people? Why is that?
because its a basic human right to have a cell phone, and health insurance, and food, and water, and a house, and a car, and gas for your car, and household appliances, and a college education, and daycare for your children, and clothes, and shoes.
now someone give me an argument as to why any of these should not be a basic human right that everyone should have and thaqt the government should subsidize and I'll give you a perfectly logical bleeding heart argument as to why you're wrong.
the point is, you can make a rational argument for the government to subsidize just about anything. where's it going to end?
-
because its a basic human right to have a cell phone, and health insurance, and food, and water, and a house, and a car, and gas for your car, and household appliances, and a college education, and daycare for your children, and clothes, and shoes.
now someone give me an argument as to why any of these should not be a basic human right that everyone should have and thaqt the government should subsidize and I'll give you a perfectly logical bleeding heart argument as to why you're wrong.
the point is, you can make a rational argument for the government to subsidize just about anything. where's it going to end?
You can make an argument, yes. I don't know that you can make a rational argument.
-
You can make an argument, yes. I don't know that you can make a rational argument.
go ahead. pick one. i'll give you a rational argument. and when i say rational, i mean just as rational as the case for universal health care.
-
Temporary aid for people in need is one thing but buying them a phone and paying for it is another. Even the most ardent fiscal conservative doesn't want children to starve or freeze to death. However, you never know what the participants are spending their money on.
If a person spends years on assistance I think it's safe to say you've lost the ability to manage your own finances. Reading the studies on the subject of poverty, it never ceases to surprise me how many luxury items many of these families have.
-
i posted a year or two ago... i know people with 2-3 obamaphones... they have one, their 2nd grader carries one, their babbydaddy got one... all free.
-
I don't believe the problem was in the program. It was a great idea. The problem lay in it's execution.
The way the program was administered. I could be wrong, but I am assuming it was not administered or run by government employees, but rather private for profit contractors, ...who no doubt hired contract workers who were probably paid piece-rate per application.
If there's one thing I've learned in all my years of network marketing, it's that the compensation structures determines the behaviour in the field. Field reps will invariably do whatever puts the most amount of money in their pockets... so you had better make sure the remuneration structure is conducive to what you want to see occur.
This is actually quite true...I see field reps in the streets selling these gov't issued phones and I know some people who have two or three of them...Im quite sure there is a commission involved
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323511804578296001368122888.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
:(
its really weird and creepy that you call these phones "obamaphones" when George W.Bush invented the program.....I guess "Bushphones" just doesn't fit well into your hatred of Obama
-
its really weird and creepy that you call these phones "obamaphones" when George W.Bush invented the program.....I guess "Bushphones" just doesn't fit well into your hatred of Obama
Details and links?
-
These phones are used, they are junk, and they are capable of a minimal amount of minutes, period. They are also linked with a SS number, so not sure how a person could have multiple devices. Whatever bullshit was going on, has to do with your beloved corporations seeing a money-funnel they couldn't resist.
I'd also suggest that the unwarranted collection of data we suffer from isn't entirely coincidental to the sudden flood of advertising for these phones. It's said this is an extension from subsidized landlines, and I suppose it is, but I certainly do NOT recall such a powerful draw to get people into subsidized landlines. Funny how that works.
-
They are also linked with a SS number, so not sure how a person could have multiple devices.
yes b/c nobody has ever exploited the idiocy and bloated nature of our govt. when your social is involved...social security checks being paid to dead people, people voting more than once, people getting more benefits than they were supposed to.
yup as long as its tied to a social, its a fool proof govt handout ::)
-
yes b/c nobody has ever exploited the idiocy and bloated nature of our govt. when your social is involved...social security checks being paid to dead people, people voting more than once, people getting more benefits than they were supposed to.
yup as long as its tied to a social, its a fool proof govt handout ::)
Government handout to the corporations, Tony? Because that's who is pocketing the money.
You'd BETTER get angry at that, because getting pissed at some guy with a junk phone won't get you very far. And it makes you look like an ignorant asshole being led around by his ear.
Corporation and government are the SAME entity. The sooner you learn that, the better.
-
Government handout to the corporations, Tony? Because that's who is pocketing the money.
You'd BETTER get angry at that, because getting pissed at some guy with a junk phone won't get you very far. And it makes you look like an ignorant asshole being led around by his ear.
Corporation and government are the SAME entity. The sooner you learn that, the better.
so a business whos goal is to make a profit is to blame here? not the govt who facilitates the shitty govt handout?
the sooner you liberal morons understand what a business is the better off you will be, until then you just look like utopian morons running around saying "cant we all just get along?"
-
so a business whos goal is to make a profit is to blame here? not the govt who facilitates the shitty govt handout?
the sooner you liberal morons understand what a business is the better off you will be, until then you just look like utopian morons running around saying "cant we all just get along?"
Tony, I'd urge you to use your head for something other than a cock-swallowing device, and THINK about what you just wrote. It's called collusion, and it is the very nature of Fascism.
-
Tony, I'd urge you to use your head for something other than a cock-swallowing device, and THINK about what you just wrote. It's called collusion, and it is the very nature of Fascism.
thats my point you retard...a business is designed to make money...
our government was not designed to facilitate the exploitation of its constituents nor give hand outs to people who dont need them....
-
The scam is happening just a blatant as can be, but you're so angered about some person with a junk phone that you can't see what's going on right in front of you.
-
thats my point you retard...a business is designed to make money...
our government was not designed to facilitate the exploitation of its constituents nor give hand outs to people who dont need them....
Gee, Tony, do you suppose the one may be having an effect on the other?
-
Details and links?
The free phone program actually started in the 1980's but it was used on landlines at the times since cellphones were rare back then.....now it covers cellphones but again, the program was NOT started by Obama.....it was started in the 1980's and then went to cellphones during the clinton years.....the conservatives try to denigrate Obama by saying it is his way of transferring wealth to the the poor.....they are misinformed and telling an out and out lie...but idiots like soulcrusher repeat this due to their hatred of Obama
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/13/Spending-Off-the-Hook-Free-Phones-Costing-Taxpayers-2-1-Billion-Per-Year
http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/congressmans-slippery-cell-phone-claim/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/
no matter what name you change to........SOULCRUSHER (333386) DESTROYED AGAIN!!!!!!
-
According to the original article, it was started in 1984.
-
The scam is happening just a blatant as can be, but you're so angered about some person with a junk phone that you can't see what's going on right in front of you.
im not angry somebody has a junk phone, Im angry that a govt that wants to continue to increase taxes in every manner has decided is was a good idea
whether they let someone push them to that idea or not is FUCKING IRRELEVANT!!!!
The fact is THEY ARENT DOING THEIR JOB
-
im not angry somebody has a junk phone, Im angry that a govt that wants to continue to increase taxes in every manner has decided is was a good idea
whether they let someone push them to that idea or not is FUCKING IRRELEVANT!!!!
The fact is THEY ARENT DOING THEIR JOB
The corporation pocketing the money absolutely does NOT agree with this statement, Tony.
So what do we do about that fact?
-
im not angry somebody has a junk phone, Im angry that a govt that wants to continue to increase taxes in every manner has decided is was a good idea
whether they let someone push them to that idea or not is FUCKING IRRELEVANT!!!!
The fact is THEY ARENT DOING THEIR JOB
not true........yes we don't like the idea of people getting free stuff but the gov't felt that it was better to integrate these people into society and let them have access to their doctors, mental health programs, jobs, etc than to have them be isolated and unable to do the things we take for granted such as making appointments and being contacted by their doctors or potential employers....also they would be able to call 911 in case of an emergency..I agree with this....my problem is people having two or three of these phones..but the gov't has begun to crack down on this and has eliminated 1000's of people from the program
-
From the fact check article
"400,000 instances of one person — or one household — having more than one subsidized connection. Some phones were sold for cash on Craigslist."
now will those against government cuts please tell me with a straight face that they think this govt is run so efficiently and without waste that we cant cut anything without negative effects?
-
The corporation pocketing the money absolutely does NOT agree with this statement, Tony.
So what do we do about that fact?
Jack what part do you not understand, a business is designed with the purpose of making money...if its done legally then they are doing their job.
unless you think its the governments job to waste tax payers money, WHO ISNT DOING THEIR JOB IN THE EQUATION?
-
From the fact check article
"400,000 instances of one person — or one household — having more than one subsidized connection. Some phones were sold for cash on Craigslist."
now will those against government cuts please tell me with a straight face that they think this govt is run so efficiently and without waste that we cant cut anything without negative effects?
TONY: AS FAR AS THE CORPORATION IS CONCERNED, IT IS BRILLIANTLY EFFICIENT. Don't you understand?
Come on, bro. Time to man up and get real.
-
Jack what part do you not understand, a business is designed with the purpose of making money...if its done legally then they are doing their job.
So if their ex-employees - who now hold government jobs and lobbying jobs - arrange for the scam to take place, they are merely "doing their job". I see.
So who will protect the citizen under such an arrangement?
unless you think its the governments job to waste tax payers money, WHO ISNT DOING THEIR JOB IN THE EQUATION?
The money is going to the corporation, and they would absolutely tell you that it is far from "a waste".
SO...after all this, what are we left with? Love to get a straight answer from you on this one.
-
not true........yes we don't like the idea of people getting free stuff but the gov't felt that it was better to integrate these people into society and let them have access to their doctors, mental health programs, jobs, etc than to have them be isolated and unable to do the things we take for granted such as making appointments and being contacted by their doctors or potential employers....also they would be able to call 911 in case of an emergency..I agree with this....my problem is people having two or three of these phones..but the gov't has begun to crack down on this and has eliminated 1000's of people from the program
the civilized world survived with a home phone for how long?
the problem is you think they everyone should have the same things, which is a noble and nice thought...not realistic nor fair but nice.
Im all for taking care of people who need help get the basics, this isnt a basic....giving this or other govt hand outs to a family with multiple kids who "cant afford to make ends meet" isnt fair to those who plan and live responsibly
-
So if their ex-employees - who now hold government jobs and lobbying jobs - arrange for the scam to take place, they are merely "doing their job". I see.
So who will protect the citizen under such an arrangement?
The money is going to the corporation, and they absolutely would tell you that it is far from "a waste".
SO...after all this, what are we left with? Love to get a straight answer from you on this one.
the lobbying is legal correct? its helping the corporation meet their goal of making money right?
is this helping meet the govt goal of not wasting tax payer money?
whos responsibility is it to make sure the tax payers money is spend in a responsible manner and with as little waste as possible?
the corporation or the government?
-
the lobbying is legal correct? its helping the corporation meet their goal of making money right?
is this helping meet the govt goal of not wasting tax payer money?
whos responsibility is it to make sure the tax payers money is spend in a responsible manner and with as little waste as possible?
the corporation or the government?
Tony, I ask you to imagine an entity that seeks as much power and money as it can get. An entity that is run by a collection of the worst elitist assholes you can imagine, none of them possessing the slightest bit of shame.
In their quest for money and power, they maintain an illusion of being not only two separate entities, but two separate entities with opposing interests.
From that, we get such wonders as the program in question, and much, much more (99.99% of it NOT involving some guy with a junk phone, and therefore going unnoticed).
Government and corporation are separated ONLY by a giant revolving door. That's ALL you need to be concerned with, and that is PLENTY.
Anything else, and you're allowing yourself to be fooled by the scam, and you are therefore contributing to the scam.
-
...and media is NOTHING but a narrative from this corrupted entity, so I'd suggest you turn off your fucking lying TV.
-
...and media is NOTHING but a narrative from this corrupted entity, so I'd suggest you turn off your fucking lying TV.
How about the alternative media? Do they have an agenda? Who can you really ever trust?
-
How about the alternative media? Do they have an agenda? Who can you really ever trust?
What's your idea of 'alternative media', Archer? MTV?
By the way, I'd hope you can trust your own common sense.
-
What's your idea of 'alternative media', Archer? MTV?
By the way, I'd hope you can trust your own common sense.
Alternative to the MSM, whatever that may be for you, I or anyone. People often choose to believe what they want to believe and common sense rarely has anything to do with that choice. If you're a conspiracy theorist you gravitate toward content that confirms your paranoia.
-
Alternative to the MSM, whatever that may be for you, I or anyone. People often choose to believe what they want to believe and common sense rarely has anything to do with that choice. If you're a conspiracy theorist you gravitate toward content that confirms your paranoia.
So you'd say people rarely involve common sense with what they choose to believe.
Is it possible you're projecting that from your own experience involving yourself, or is that out of the question?
-
So you'd say people rarely involve common sense with what they choose to believe.
Is it possible you're projecting that from your own experience involving yourself, or is that out of the question?
People rarely make rational choices or change deeply rooted opinions even after new information is presented that challenges their position.
-
People rarely make rational choices or change deeply rooted opinions even after new information is presented that challenges their position.
Then I'd say that they haven't processed the information, especially when they're unable to argue their position.
-
Then I'd say that they haven't processed the information, especially when they're unable to argue their position.
My original question was about whether we can trust any news source mainstream or otherwise. What are some of the sources you get your news from?
-
My original question was about whether we can trust any news source mainstream or otherwise. What are some of the sources you get your news from?
Archer, if you're asking whether there's a way you can turn off your brain and let something else do your thinking, I couldn't advise you in that regard.
(By the way, if you're asking me, personally: I don't watch news. I read boards on the rare sites like this, where 'left' and 'right' are forced to directly confront one another, and I learn from that. From there, I'll research an issue across as many sites as possible.
Best way to get to the truth on any issue, is to see two or more apparently opposed parties go back and forth in brutal battle, with each giving their best effort to state themselves.)
-
Archer, if you're asking whether there's a way you can turn off your brain and let something else do your thinking, I couldn't advise you in that regard.
(By the way, if you're asking me, personally: I don't watch news. I read boards on the rare sites like this, where 'left' and 'right' are forced to directly confront one another, and I learn from that. From there, I'll research an issue across as many sites as possible.
Best way to get to the truth on any issue, is to see two apparently opposed parties go back and forth in brutal battle, with each giving their best effort to state themselves.)
What are some of these sites? You must frequent other sites regularly.
-
What are some of these sites? You must frequent other sites regularly.
It seems sites like this, that aren't politically oriented (yet have a political board), are the best. The people are drawn into it through their interests, and they find themselves at odds on the political board.
What are some of your interests?
-
the civilized world survived with a home phone for how long?
the problem is you think they everyone should have the same things, which is a noble and nice thought...not realistic nor fair but nice.
Im all for taking care of people who need help get the basics, this isnt a basic....giving this or other govt hand outs to a family with multiple kids who "cant afford to make ends meet" isnt fair to those who plan and live responsibly
these phones aren't being given to people with multiple kids as you put it....you guys always believe that the people who are getting gov't handouts are women with multiple kids.....its more the elderly and the disabled and poor....and again..its so they can have access to their doctors, medical appointments, and employers......if a guy needs to get a job he needs to have a number where he can be called....also its good for grandma to have a phone where she can keep in contact with family...its not about "living responsibly" as you put it.....most of these people have "lived responsibly" all their lives but just can't afford a phone..something the rest of us take for granted
-
these phones aren't being given to people with multiple kids as you put it....you guys always believe that the people who are getting gov't handouts are women with multiple kids.....its more the elderly and the disabled and poor....and again..its so they can have access to their doctors, medical appointments, and employers......if a guy needs to get a job he needs to have a number where he can be called....also its good for grandma to have a phone where she can keep in contact with family...its not about "living responsibly" as you put it.....most of these people have "lived responsibly" all their lives but just can't afford a phone..something the rest of us take for granted
-
these phones aren't being given to people with multiple kids as you put it....you guys always believe that the people who are getting gov't handouts are women with multiple kids.....its more the elderly and the disabled and poor....and again..its so they can have access to their doctors, medical appointments, and employers......if a guy needs to get a job he needs to have a number where he can be called....also its good for grandma to have a phone where she can keep in contact with family...its not about "living responsibly" as you put it.....most of these people have "lived responsibly" all their lives but just can't afford a phone..something the rest of us take for granted
That's quite a bit of text. Let's debunk this shit point by point, shall we?
these phones aren't being given to people with multiple kids as you put it....you guys always believe that the people who are getting gov't handouts are women with multiple kids.....
I don't care if the people have no kids, few kids, many kids, furry kids, sick kids, smart kids, dumb kids, dead kids, living kids, or cabbage patch kids. I don't think it's the proper function of government to be providing subsidized phone service or equipment.
its more the elderly and the disabled and poor....
And how is it a proper function of government to provide phones to these people?
its so they can have access to their doctors, medical appointments, and employers......
They also need a car to get their doctors, medical appointments and jobs. Should we provide cars too?
if a guy needs to get a job he needs to have a number where he can be called....
Right, and?
also its good for grandma to have a phone where she can keep in contact with family...
I don't see why I need to worry about your and everyone else's grandma. Why don't you worry about your grandma and let me worry about mine (who, coincidentally, has been dead a long time so I don't think a phone would help anyways).
its not about "living responsibly" as you put it.....
I agree. You can be abjectly poor even if you are responsible. Sometimes you can even be abjectly poor because you are responsible. So what?
most of these people have "lived responsibly" all their lives but just can't afford a phone..
Right, and? If you feel like helping them, help them. WITH YOUR OWN MONEY. Don't reach into my pocket and take mine.
-
I don't see why I need to worry about your and everyone else's grandma. Mine's been dead a long time and I don't think a phone would help.
My grandparents were those old fashion types that worked all their lives and bought their own phone service and telephones.
-
I don't care if the people have no kids, few kids, many kids, furry kids, sick kids, smart kids, dumb kids, dead kids, living kids, or cabbage patch kids. I don't think it's the proper function of government to be providing subsidized phone service or equipment.
Government subsidizes almost everything we do no matter whether you like it or not...Milk would cost 8 bucks a gallon if it weren't for gov't subsidy.....bread and sugar would be expensive as well if not for gov't subsidy....also the gov't is not funding these phones with our tax money...the telecommunications companies chip in cash to fund these phones for the poor....IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXPAYER MONEY....so I've destroyed your argument on that...
And how is it a proper function of government to provide phones to these people?
Its the gov't's job to provide for the poor if it is in the public interest to do so...I would think that a person having a phone where they can be reached by potential employers, their doctors, and can order their medications by phone for those who cannot make repeated trips to the pharmacy, would be in the public interest.... especially in terms of having these people, most of whom are poor and elderly be able to call 911 if they are sick or the victims of a crime....destroyed again here
They also need a car to get their doctors, medical appointments and jobs. Should we provide cars too?
is this in the public interest?...don't be sillyalso the gov't does support the transportation needs of the poor and elderly...its called public transportation......
Right, and?
I don't see why I need to worry about your and everyone else's grandma. Why don't you worry about your grandma and let me worry about mine (who, coincidentally, has been dead a long time so I don't think a phone would help anyways).
we do worry about your grandma and everyone else's........I'm sure if she were alive she would be on Medicaid and social security right??????...both subsidized by the government last time I heard???????????????????
I agree. You can be abjectly poor even if you are responsible. Sometimes you can even be abjectly poor because you are responsible. So what?
so we can't as a society have a situation where the poor have no access to the most basic services in our society.....it would cause chaos, and cost us even more money as taxpayers in the long run....I would think you would see this since you are so concerned about taxpayer money...
Right, and? If you feel like helping them, help them. WITH YOUR OWN MONEY. Don't reach into my pocket and take mine.
Taxpayer money is not YOUR MONEY its a shared pool and belongs to everyone.....if you don't believe in this then simply you would take your grandmother (if she was alive) off medicaid and pay her doctor's bills yourself......also withdraw her from social security and you take care of her out of your funds.......
-
these phones aren't being given to people with multiple kids as you put it....you guys always believe that the people who are getting gov't handouts are women with multiple kids.....its more the elderly and the disabled and poor....and again..its so they can have access to their doctors, medical appointments, and employers......if a guy needs to get a job he needs to have a number where he can be called....also its good for grandma to have a phone where she can keep in contact with family...its not about "living responsibly" as you put it.....most of these people have "lived responsibly" all their lives but just can't afford a phone..something the rest of us take for granted
if you think that alot of ppl like I mentioned arent on the govt dole, youre a fucking moron.
Now go back and read andre or better yet read this quote you seemed to overlook "
Im all for taking care of people who need help get the basics, this isnt a basic"
a cell phone is not a basic need for life.
PS if you dont have enough money to make ends meet chances are you didnt live responsibily. As that is a prerequisite for having enough money to make ends meet...::)
-
if you think that alot of ppl like I mentioned arent on the govt dole, youre a fucking moron.
Now go back and read andre or better yet read this quote you seemed to overlook "
Im all for taking care of people who need help get the basics, this isnt a basic"
a cell phone is not a basic need for life.
PS if you dont have enough money to make ends meet chances are you didnt live responsibily. As that is a prerequisite for having enough money to make ends meet...::)
you have the nerve to call someone a moron????????? your sentence alone which stated that "if you don't have enough money to make ends meet you didn't live responsibly"...wow....that is the most idiotic statement in GetBig history....but par for the course for someone who never ever admits he';s wrong or sees someone else's point......with idiocy like this why even bother responding to you?...it would make no sense
-
you have the nerve to call someone a moron????????? your sentence alone which stated that "if you don't have enough money to make ends meet you didn't live responsibly"...wow....that is the most idiotic statement in GetBig history....but par for the course for someone who never ever admits he';s wrong or sees someone else's point......with idiocy like this why even bother responding to you?...it would make no sense
again you read what you want and not what I wrote there dumb ass.
I said "if you dont have enough money to make ends meet CHANCES are you didnt live responsibily."
-
and you still havent addressed this as being a basic need for life......
-
again as I said...why bother?.....for reasons stated above..you have your way of thinking and I have mine..lets leave it at that
-
Government subsidizes almost everything we do no matter whether you like it or not...Milk would cost 8 bucks a gallon if it weren't for gov't subsidy.....bread and sugar would be expensive as well if not for gov't subsidy....
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Can you support these assertions?
also the gov't is not funding these phones with our tax money...the telecommunications companies chip in cash to fund these phones for the poor....IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXPAYER MONEY....so I've destroyed your argument on that...
The government is funding these programs with our money; don't believe me? Look for the charge which appears on your bills; it's marked "Universal Service Fee" or "Universal Service Fund".
But even if that charge isn't there and the government required that the companies pay for this, all the companies would do is pass the cost onto you by raising their prices.
So either way, that money comes out of our pockets. And you've destroyed nothing.
Its the gov't's job to provide for the poor if it is in the public interest to do so...
The "job" of the Government are defined in the Constitution. Please tell me where in the a Constitution there is a mandate that government provide for the poor.
I would think that a person having a phone where they can be reached by potential employers, their doctors, and can order their medications by phone for those who cannot make repeated trips to the pharmacy, would be in the public interest....
That you think it doesn't make it so.
especially in terms of having these people, most of whom are poor and elderly be able to call 911 if they are sick or the victims of a crime....destroyed again here
I don't think destroyed means what you think it means.
is this in the public interest?...don't be sillyalso the gov't does support the transportation needs of the poor and elderly...its called public transportation......
The Federal Government? If it's a State Government that does it, I have no problem with that. The Federal Government is a Government of limited and enumerated powers – it can only do what it is explicitly allowed; the State Governments, on the other hand, aren't – they can do anything not explicitly forbidden.
To the extent the Federal Government provides public transportation (outside of D.C.) then the Federal Government is overstepping it's bounds.
we do worry about your grandma and everyone else's........I'm sure if she were alive she would be on Medicaid and social security right???...both subsidized by the government last time I heard?
She would, but only because she'd have no choice in the matter. She'd be forced to participate in the system at the point f the tax code's gun.
The question, though, is: is Social Security an appropriate function of Government?
so we can't as a society have a situation where the poor have no access to the most basic services in our society.....it would cause chaos, and cost us even more money as taxpayers in the long run....I would think you would see this since you are so concerned about taxpayer money...
Why would it cause chaos? And why wouldn't private charities step in and help the poor get access to such basic services? They already provide food and clothing and even shelter; many even offer facilities where poor people can use computers, phones and so on.
Even if we set aside the question of whether it's proper for the Government to provide those services, there's still another question that hasn't been answered. Why do we need the government to provide such services instead of allowing private initiatives to cover this need?
Taxpayer money is not YOUR MONEY its a shared pool and belongs to everyone.....if you don't believe in this then simply you would take your grandmother (if she was alive) off medicaid and pay her doctor's bills yourself......also withdraw her from social security and you take care of her out of your funds.......
Taxpayer money is my money because I'm a taxpayer. I have no problem paying taxes if my taxes finance appropriate functions of government – the military and the Courts in the case of the Federal Government, plus the facilitation of interstate commerce.
I wouldn't take my grandma off anything because I didn't run her life - she did. As for me, you know full well I can't take myself out of the system. Social Security takes my money, month in and month out without my consent. If I ever were to get a check from them it would, essentially, be a refund on the money they took from me.
Listen, I know you dream of a world where everyone lives in gumdrop houses and yards full of lollipops, where your need justifies the seizure of my means, where the government provides us all with everything we want and need, where no one wants for nothing and where you are entitled by right to collect things like healthcare, and phone service from the trees on which they grow. The problem is that it's a dream; and one that's been tried before and failed too.
Tell me something. If healthcare is a right, can the government force people to become doctors? After all, if sufficient people didn't opt to be doctors, people couldn't get healthcare. What then?
Let's take your theory to its logical and ultimate conclusion and let's expose you for exactly what you are: an authoritarian who believes that everyone is to be subjugated to the whims of everyone else, and ones life must be lived in the service of others
So... Again, if not enough doctors are available to ensure that people can get the healthcare you claim they are entitled to by right, what happens then?
-
It's a great idea for the government to subsidize mobile devices and phone service for people? Why is that?
Help an unemployed person get a phone so they can find a job, ...then they cover their own phone bill.
I don't think you realize how difficult it is for someone without a telephone to find employment. Heck, in your economy, it's difficult enough as it is for people with phones to find employment, without one, good luck. As one who hired, and booked for years, easy accessibility is key. No employer is going to fartz around trying to reach a potential job candidate when there is a tremendous pool of talent to draw from... who ARE easily accessible. The heart was in the right place, the problem lay in it's execution.
-
Help an unemployed person get a phone so they can find a job, ...then they cover their own phone bill.
I don't think you realize how difficult it is for someone without a telephone to find employment. Heck, in your economy, it's difficult enough as it is for people with phones to find employment, without one, good luck. As one who hired, and booked for years, easy accessibility is key. No employer is going to fartz around trying to reach a potential job candidate when there is a tremendous pool of talent to draw from... who ARE easily accessible. The heart was in the right place, the problem lay in it's execution.
Here is a hint - person shows up and says will show up on time, sober, and be a reliable person and they usually get hired. Don't need an Obamaphone to do that.
-
Tony, I'd urge you to use your head for something other than a cock-swallowing device, and THINK about what you just wrote. It's called collusion, and it is the very nature of Fascism.
HAhahahahahaha
I gotta go before I pee my panties with laughter.
Jack, ...that's Tony you're talking to.
Cock-gobbler is as good as it gets with him. ;D
-
Here is a hint - person shows up and says will show up on time, sober, and be a reliable person and they usually get hired. Don't need an Obamaphone to do that.
Sorry Dude, that may be working for you each Saturday morning as you're lined up at Home Depot,
but speaking as one who has hired many a person... when you've got 300+ resumes & applications for 25 positions, ...those who are accessible by telephone will most likely get the job.
-
Help an unemployed person get a phone so they can find a job, ...then they cover their own phone bill.
I don't think you realize how difficult it is for someone without a telephone to find employment. Heck, in your economy, it's difficult enough as it is for people with phones to find employment, without one, good luck. As one who hired, and booked for years, easy accessibility is key. No employer is going to fartz around trying to reach a potential job candidate when there is a tremendous pool of talent to draw from... who ARE easily accessible. The heart was in the right place, the problem lay in it's execution.
I'm sorry, but you can get mobile phones - unsubsidized by the government - from VMNO providers like Cricket Wireless (http://www.mycricket.com/cell-phone-plans) and PureTalk (http://www.puretalkusa.com/) from as low as $10 per month with no contracts. If you can't afford $10 per month then you have much bigger problems to worry about, and a cell phone is unlikely to help you get a job.
I'll show you why your argument is silly. Let's assume that the debate is about a program which subsidized clothing instead of phones. Your argument from above, slightly paraphrased, becomes:
Help an unemployed person get decent clothese so they can find a job, ...then they buy their own clothing.
I don't think you realize how difficult it is for someone without decent clothes to find employment. Heck, in your economy, it's difficult enough as it is for well-dressed people to find employment, but if you're wearing old and tattered clothes, good luck. As one who hired, and booked for years, first impression is key. No employer is going to fartz around trying to hire a potential job candidate when there is a tremendous pool of talent to draw from... who ARE presentable.
I concede that accessibility is important, but it's possible to have it without the government providing cell phones and footing the bill.
-
HAhahahahahaha
I gotta go before I pee my panties with laughter.
Jack, ...that's Tony you're talking to.
Cock-gobbler is as good as it gets with him. ;D
;D ;D ;D
Hahaha...Tony's a good dude, though. ;D
-
HAhahahahahaha
I gotta go before I pee my panties with laughter.
Jack, ...that's Tony you're talking to.
Cock-gobbler is as good as it gets with him. ;D
lol coming from a snake oil selling c.u.n.t such as yourself, I take that as a complement.
-
;D ;D ;D
Hahaha...Tony's a good dude, though. ;D
hahah wasnt going to respond b/c of the plain stupidity of it but I guess now that the issue is forced I will.
So youre a Ct'er then?
-
hahah wasnt going to respond b/c of the plain stupidity of it but I guess now that the issue is forced I will.
Get over it. Your own attitude is what makes for these freakshow interactions you get into. (but no one seems to mind except you, so ease up and have some fun)
So youre a Ct'er then?
Don't know what you mean by that. If you can challenge anything I've put forward, then go to the thread in question and do it.
-
Get over it. Your own attitude is what makes for these freakshow interactions you get into. (but no one seems to mind except you, so ease up and have some fun)
Don't know what you mean by that. If you can challenge anything I've put forward, then go to the thread in question and do it.
lol you're good people who has misguided and unrealistic views. Others on here are either trolls or hold views that are so out there it doesn't grant being polite to.
To borrow a line from hell on wheels: "I make no apologies for my temperament"
And it's not me who needs to prove it, it's the person making the assertion. You assert the govt is colluding with big business...provide your proof or you're a ct'er
-
lol you're good people who has misguided and unrealistic views. Others on here are either trolls or hold views that are so out there it doesn't grant being polite to.
To borrow a line from hell on wheels: "I make no apologies for my temperament"
And it's not me who needs to prove it, it's the person making the assertion. You assert the govt is colluding with big business...provide your proof or you're a ct'er
Would you deny that it's true?
-
unlimited campaign contributions from corporations
-
unlimited campaign contributions from corporations
How does this prove collusion?
I agree it may open the door to collusion but how does it prove it?
-
How does this prove collusion?
I agree it may open the door to collusion but how does it prove it?
You dont think companies contribute to politicians to further their interests?
And what about the bailouts?
-
You dont think companies contribute to politicians to further their interests?
And what about the bailouts?
absolutely I do, do I believe there is some conspiracy where the govt colludes with big business b/c of their contributions to screw the tax payers out of money?
perhaps with one or two specific politicians but the govt as a whole, no...
now is the govt inefficient, ignorant and flat out stupid in allowing big business to take advantage of their processes etc, sure
that doesnt mean there is collusion between the two.
-
absolutely I do, do I believe there is some conspiracy where the govt colludes with big business b/c of their contributions to screw the tax payers out of money?
perhaps with one or two specific politicians but the govt as a whole, no...
now is the govt inefficient, ignorant and flat out stupid in allowing big business to take advantage of their processes etc, sure
that doesnt mean there is collusion between the two.
Hence the reason Jack T surmised the dole purpose of your head. ::) ::)
Keep watching... see what happens when this shut down goes a few more days... See what Obama does.
You heard it here first... even though it keeps getting deleted, ...you heard it here first.
-
absolutely I do, do I believe there is some conspiracy where the govt colludes with big business b/c of their contributions to screw the tax payers out of money?
perhaps with one or two specific politicians but the govt as a whole, no...
now is the govt inefficient, ignorant and flat out stupid in allowing big business to take advantage of their processes etc, sure
that doesnt mean there is collusion between the two.
So are you saying only 1 or 2 politicians efforts are influenced by big business?
-
So are you saying only 1 or 2 politicians efforts are influenced by big business?
Id say only a handful work in collusion with big business to screw the tax payer.
Ive asked for proof to the contrary and havent been given any.
The only one I can think of to be honest is obamacare, we are forced to by a product from a private entity. Other than that, name me some instances.
-
Id say only a handful work in collusion with big business to screw the tax payer.
Ive asked for proof to the contrary and havent been given any.
The only one I can think of to be honest is obamacare, we are forced to by a product from a private entity. Other than that, name me some instances.
I think big business influences a lot more than a handful of politicians. Money rules. If you look at the largest donors (whether business or individual) for a politician and the largest businesses in their district, those are likely to be the organizations and individuals that have the most influence on that politician. Not something you can always prove. It can be more subtle, in the form or increased air time (more meetings), certain pieces of legislation being supported or opposed, etc. Happens all the time.
-
I think big business influences a lot more than a handful of politicians. Money rules. If you look at the largest donors (whether business or individual) for a politician and the largest businesses in their district, those are likely to be the organizations and individuals that have the most influence on that politician. Not something you can always prove. It can be more subtle, in the form or increased air time (more meetings), certain pieces of legislation being supported or opposed, etc. Happens all the time.
agreed but again this isnt collusion to screw tax payers.
if it is then there is collusion between the govt and its constituents as well seeing as their opinions of their representatives jobs show up in votes during election time so they are more apt to do what their constituents want.
-
agreed but again this isnt collusion to screw tax payers.
if it is then there is collusion between the govt and its constituents as well seeing as their opinions of their representatives jobs show up in votes during election time so they are more apt to do what their constituents want.
Yeah, I don't think they collude to screw taxpayers.
-
Id say only a handful work in collusion with big business to screw the tax payer.
Ive asked for proof to the contrary and havent been given any.
The only one I can think of to be honest is obamacare, we are forced to by a product from a private entity. Other than that, name me some instances.
Off the top pf my head...
Bush bails out the banks
Michelle Bachman votes yes to an additional 190 in bail out money
Amnesty, immigration reform
They are not colluding with a specific deliberate goal of screwing the tax payers, they are however influencing government to further their interests over the peoples.
Maybe we need to clarify what you and i think collusion is.
-
Off the top pf my head...
Bush bails out the banks
Michelle Bachman votes yes to an additional 190 in bail out money
Amnesty, immigration reform
They are not colluding with a specific deliberate goal of screwing the tax payers, they are however influencing government to further their interests over the peoples.
Maybe we need to clarify what you and i think collusion is.
right. the problem is that collusion with corporate America can be very easily called something else. Liberals say George Bush was "in bed with corporate America" with regards to his bailout.. In the same conversation they will say "Barack Obama saved the auto industry". Both Presidents did the same thing, the people can simply choose to call it something else.
-
right. the problem is that collusion with corporate America can be very easily called something else. Liberals say George Bush was "in bed with corporate America" with regards to his bailout.. In the same conversation they will say "Barack Obama saved the auto industry". Both Presidents did the same thing, the people can simply choose to call it something else.
I agree. So are they ALL in bed with corporate America?
I see form both sides a lack of representative government.
-
I agree. So are they ALL in bed with corporate America?
I see form both sides a lack of representative government.
bump
-
I think big business influences a lot more than a handful of politicians. Money rules. If you look at the largest donors (whether business or individual) for a politician and the largest businesses in their district, those are likely to be the organizations and individuals that have the most influence on that politician. Not something you can always prove. It can be more subtle, in the form or increased air time (more meetings), certain pieces of legislation being supported or opposed, etc. Happens all the time.
No doubt. I'd say it has become the entire structure.
In the absence of a unified people, what else could possibly compete with it on a day-to-day basis?
-
Off the top pf my head...
Bush bails out the banks
Michelle Bachman votes yes to an additional 190 in bail out money
Amnesty, immigration reform
They are not colluding with a specific deliberate goal of screwing the tax payers, they are however influencing government to further their interests over the peoples.
Maybe we need to clarify what you and i think collusion is.
id call it two individual entities run by seperate individuals or groups working together against the interest of the constituents
the bail outs while I may not agree with them were a necessary evil and in the end benefited the constituents
bachmann was involved on both groups colluding so it really wasnt collusion just one person using two entities to screw over the constituents
what business stand to benefit from amnesty?
are you of the mind that amnesty is bad for america?
-
id call it two individual entities run by seperate individuals or groups working together against the interest of the constituents
the bail outs while I may not agree with them were a necessary evil and in the end benefited the constituents
bachmann was involved on both groups colluding so it really wasnt collusion just one person using two entities to screw over the constituents
what business stand to benefit from amnesty?
are you of the mind that amnesty is bad for america?
The immigrant thing really doesn't apply directly here as I just listed things off the top of my head without really thinking about it. However, some say, amnesty would be good for business as it increase home ownership, taxes, etc.
Not sure what you are saying about the rest.
As some have said in this thread. Money rules. Bachman and Bush went against their ideology and we the tax payers paid for it.
-
The immigrant thing really doesn't apply directly here as I just listed things off the top of my head without really thinking about it. However, some say, amnesty would be good for business as it increase home ownership, taxes, etc.
Not sure what you are saying about the rest.
As some have said in this thread. Money rules. Bachman and Bush went against their ideology and we the tax payers paid for it.
And Obama did the same fucking thing over and over and over and over and still the dummies can o ly bring up bush and Bachmann
-
And Obama did the same fucking thing over and over and over and over and still the dummies can o ly bring up bush and Bachmann
He is expected too
-
I just can't believe some of you guys.
How can it be good when an American is forced to compete with non-Americans - in America, mind you - in order to survive?
-
I just can't believe some of you guys.
How can it be good when an American is forced to compete with non-Americans - in America, mind you - in order to survive?
Well said! Why is it wrong to think of the welfare of your own family(country) over another?
-
Well said! Why is it wrong to think of the welfare of your own family(country) over another?
I can't imagine what legitimate circumstances would cause an American to feel it's okay to force other Americans to compete in such a way - in their OWN country.
Something's not right. Can't wait to get an explanation.
-
I can't imagine what legitimate circumstances would cause an American to feel it's okay to force other Americans to compete in such a way - in their OWN country.
Something's not right. Can't wait to get an explanation.
so youre against immigration and amnesty then jack?
and nobody said it was ok for an american to compete with "non americans" in america.
The question was if he though amnesty was bad for the america?
dumb ass
-
so youre against immigration and amnesty then jack?
and nobody said it was ok for an american to compete with "non americans" in america.
The question was if he though amnesty was bad for the america?
dumb ass
I'm against anything that causes an American in his or her country to compete against a non-American to survive.
Will you argue that so-called Immigration Reform is good for the American worker, Tony?
(See, this is where your corporate cocksucking gets you into trouble. Because now you're forced to explain yourself in a way that doesn't seem like you've got a giant, anti-American dick in your mouth. Good luck with that.)
-
I'm against anything that causes an American in his or her country to compete against a non-American to survive.
Will you argue that so-called Immigration Reform is good for the American worker, Tony?
(See, this is where your corporate cocksucking gets you into trouble. Because now you're forced to explain yourself in a way that doesn't seem like you've got a giant, anti-American dick in your mouth. Good luck with that.)
did I moron? please quote where I argued for immigration reform...
whether I am or not also has no bearing on the discussion of CORPORATIONS and GOVT COLLUDING anyways as even Ozmo has admitted.
why dont you start another thread, its apparent your lack of reading comrehension has given you issues on this thread. Perhaps seperating the two topics will help you keep on track. ;)
-
did I moron? please quote where I argued for immigration reform...
Come on, Tony. If you won't admit your position, just say so.
whether I am or not also has no bearing on the discussion of CORPORATIONS and GOVT COLLUDING anyways as even Ozmo has admitted.
Perhaps you could explain what causes our condition regarding illegal workers, when it opposes the common interests of our country so greatly.
-
I'm against anything that causes an American in his or her country to compete against a non-American to survive.
That's just flat out silly. If someone is in this country legally not only am I not bothered than an American might have to compete for a job but I won't even shed a single tear if he ends up not getting it. Competition is what this country is all about, across the board.
Will you argue that so-called Immigration Reform is good for the American worker, Tony?
I don't know about Tony, but I'm as uninterested in the "American worker" as I am in the "Chinese worker" or the "Vietnamese worker" or whatever. In looking to hire someone, I seek to maximize my reward: that is, to get the most skill for the least amount. The curves and cutoffs aren't always the same of course - the "sweet spot" is different if I'm looking to hire an engineer to design something than it is when I'm looking for a gardener to take care of my yard.
Immigration reform shouldn't be examined based on how good it is for some hypothetical, individual American worker. It should be examined and evaluated based on how good it is for America.
-
That's just flat out silly. If someone is in this country legally not only am I not bothered than an American might have to compete for a job but I won't even shed a single tear if he ends up not getting it. Competition is what this country is all about, across the board.
You, yourself, came here from elsewhere, as I clearly recall from your past posts. Isn't that correct?
I don't know about Tony, but I'm as uninterested in the "American worker" as I am in the "Chinese worker" or the "Vietnamese worker" or whatever.
Sorry that you're here, then, if that's your opinion.
In looking to hire someone, I seek to maximize my reward:that is, to get the most skill for the least amount. The curves and cutoffs aren't always the same of course - the "sweet spot" is different if I'm looking to hire an engineer to design something than it is when I'm looking for a gardener to take care of my yard.
Would you argue that Americans "aren't good enough", or what, avxo? Trying to figure out where you're coming from.
-
You, yourself, came here from elsewhere, as I clearly recall from your past posts. Isn't that correct?
I have been a U.S. citizen since the day I was born.
Sorry that you're here, then, if that's your opinion.
Why? My concern isn't any particular hypothetical worker, or any particular individual for that matter. If someone finds it difficult to compete with others who are in the country legally, that's their problem; not mine or anyone else's.
Why do you believe that Americans are entitled to cruise through life, facing no competition? Do you think that is sustainable?
Would you argue that Americans "aren't good enough", or what, avxo? Trying to figure out where you're coming from.
No, quite the opposite. I think that generally speaking, American workers are more productive and do a better job. I simply don't think that American workers are competitive across the entire spectrum of jobs. I think that's by choice and I don't find it to be a bad thing.
-
I have been a U.S. citizen since the day I was born.
What question were you answering?
Why? My concern isn't any particular hypothetical worker, or any particular individual for that matter. If someone finds it difficult to compete with others who are in the country legally, that's their problem; not mine or anyone else's.
Why do you believe that Americans are entitled to cruise through life, facing no competition? Do you think that is sustainable?
Facing competition in such a way that involves greater numbers of people being brought here, do you mean to say? Because we have ample competition between ourselves, and we have FAR too much undeveloped potential within our own people. And I certainly wouldn't refer to that as "cruising".
No, quite the opposite. I think that generally speaking, American workers are more productive and do a better job. I simply don't think that American workers are competitive across the entire spectrum of jobs. I think that's by choice and I don't find it to be a bad thing.
You merely "think" that it's by choice, but you will nonetheless make an argument that it is fact. Would that be fair to say?
-
What question were you answering?
The implication of your question. Where I came from is irrelevant. My parents were U.S. citizens, and I'm one by birth. Does it matter if I was born in Nebraska, Nairobi or Nunavut?
Facing competition in such a way that involves greater numbers of people being brought here, do you mean to say? Because we have ample competition between ourselves, and we have FAR too much undeveloped potential within our own people. And I certainly wouldn't refer to that as "cruising".
You make a lot of assertions. Can you provide any evidence that we have ample competition amongst ourselves – or that that even natters anyways? The fact is that there are jobs which Americans don't want to do – and I don't blame them. Jobs like seasonal garlic picking and washing cars at the local car wash.
Is that where you want to compete? Is that what you want the Americans with the "undeveloped potential" you mention to do?
[You merely "think" that it's by choice, but you will nonetheless make an argument that it is fact. Would that be fair to say?
Of course I think it's by choice – few Americans will choose to "compete" to pick garlic in Gilbert, CA because the job pays very little and offers no upside. On the other hand, many Americans will choose to compete to work as lawyers, doctors and software engineers.
That's not a bad thing.
-
The implication of your question. Where I came from is irrelevant. My parents were U.S. citizens, and I'm one by birth. Does it matter if I was born in Nebraska, Nairobi or Nunavut?
It will impact your opinion, that's for sure.
You make a lot of assertions. Can you provide any evidence that we have ample competition amongst ourselves – or that that even natters anyways? The fact is that there are jobs which Americans don't want to do – and I don't blame them. Jobs like seasonal garlic picking and washing cars at the local car wash.
A line around the block upon someone's hiring for a job, tells me that we have ample competition, avxo. Would you disagree?
Is that where you want to compete? Is that what you want the Americans with the "undeveloped potential" you mention to do?
It's a better starting point than a soup-kitchen. I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny that.
Of course I think it's by choice – few Americans will choose to "compete" to pick garlic in Gilbert, CA because the job pays very little and offers no upside. On the other hand, many Americans will choose to compete to work as lawyers, doctors and software engineers.
That's not a bad thing.
And they'll tap into which magical bank account as they're preparing themselves to do that?
-
It will impact your opinion, that's for sure.
How so? I'm a rational person. I don't think my birthplace affects my ability to examine facts and reach logical conclusions.
A line around the block upon someone's hiring for a job, tells me that we have ample competition, avxo. Would you disagree?
Maybe, maybe not. At best it says that there's competition for that particular job. Unfortunately, it's not the only job in the world. For example, I can tell you that there's significant demand for many jobs in my field which cannot be met by the domestic market whether you include or exclude immigrants.
It's a better starting point than a soup-kitchen. I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny that.
No doubt. But how many Americans take the seasonal garlic picker job and are you seriously begrudging the immigrants (who are here legally) for "taking" those American jobs? And to be perfectly honest, if the best job an American qualifies for is seasonal garlic picker, then I'll take a foreign graduate student over that American any day. I understand you find this offensive, but I judge people on their merits, not on something they have no control over - such as whether they were born here or there.
And they'll tap into which magical bank account as they're preparing themselves to do that?
Ahh yes... the "but they aren't given a chance!" argument. Listen, I worked my way through University; in fact, when I started, I was working two jobs - one developing software for a company that underpaid and overworked me, and part-time at a fast-food joint to make ends meet. The only magical bank account I tapped into was my own.
The road isn't going to be covered in cotton candy. It's hard to go to College. You may have to make sacrifices. You may have to work very hard. You may have to get a loan. It's how it is. Plenty of people did it before you and plenty of people are doing it now and plenty will do it in the future. If you can't do it, then the problem is you.
-
Let me ask you this, avxo: When an entire work environment in America develops around a foreign language, thereby removing the effective opportunity for an English speaker to work there, would you have any issues with such lost opportunity?
-
Let me ask you this, avxo: When an entire work environment in America develops around a foreign language, thereby removing the effective opportunity for an English speaker to work there, would you have any issues with such lost opportunity?
Not particularly. If there was a sufficient number of English speakers then the market wouldn't have developed as it has.
Furthermore, there's plenty of work environments that develop around something specific. Take homeopathy for example. I couldn't break into that market even if I wanted to since it evolved entirely around speaking pseudo-scientific-sounding bullshit - a skill I never learned. I don't bemoan the lost opportunity.
-
Not particularly. If there was a sufficient number of English speakers then the market wouldn't have developed as it has.
Furthermore, there's plenty of work environments that develop around something specific. Take homeopathy for example. I couldn't break into that market even if I wanted to since it evolved entirely around speaking pseudo-scientific-sounding bullshit - a skill I never learned. I don't bemoan the lost opportunity.
So you'd say such a development - which is occurring and has occurred WELL beyond the garlic field, and into the factories, restaurants, construction sites, and many more places - is due to a lack of English speakers?
-
So you'd say such a development - which is occurring and has occurred WELL beyond the garlic field, and into the factories, restaurants, construction sites, and many more places - is due to a lack of English speakers?
No, I'm saying that such a development is the natural result of having more people who speak a particular language monopolizing jobs in a particular sector. Whether that is because Americans don't want those jobs or whether they want too much to do them is irrelevant.
Not that I buy your premise to begin with. It's a vast over-exaggeration.
-
No, I'm saying that such a development is the natural result of having more people who speak a particular language monopolizing jobs in a particular sector. Whether that is because Americans don't want those jobs or whether they want too much to do them is irrelevant.
Not that I buy your premise to begin with. It's a vast over-exaggeration.
So you would say that it's a vast over-exaggeration, that entire factories, construction sites, restaurants and other work environments have become places where only a foreign language is spoken and understood?
-
Americans and others are being stripped and locked out of opportunities, folks.
It serves the unashamed globalists greatly, but unashamed globalists don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. They will make a world where everyone but the most well-connected are desperate and competing for scraps.
-
*shakes head* the troll is strong with this one...
-
*shakes head* the troll is strong with this one...
I hope that's not your argument, avxo.
If you endorse ideas that will lead to a global Third World state, you shouldn't expect to go unchallenged.
-
I hope that's not your argument, avxo.
If you endorse ideas that will lead to a global Third World state, you shouldn't expect to go unchallenged.
It's not, but it's pointless to argue with you, so I'm not going to bother. As to where my ideas lead, I think I'll let the past suggest where they will.
Laissez-faire capitalism has been the driving force that has elevated the standard of living of the entire world and created the middle class. Not a bad track record.
-
It's not, but it's pointless to argue with you, so I'm not going to bother.
No problem, avxo. I couldn't have asked you to make a more revealing statement than you already have, which is to declare that you're "uninterested" in any worker, anywhere.
As to where my ideas lead, I think I'll let the past suggest where they will.
Laissez-faire capitalism has been the driving force that has elevated the standard of living of the entire world and created the middle class. Not a bad track record.
Barring some incredible and sustained decline in population (and ONLY then if the entire world were a strong democracy), your ideas - no matter what you call them - can't lead anywhere but to the most degraded existence for all but a very few on this planet.
Don't think so? Explain what will stop it.
-
Laissez-faire capitalism has been the driving force that has elevated the standard of living of the entire world and created the middle class. Not a bad track record.
Real Laissez-faire capitalism has only really been tried a couple of times and in these cases regulation was found to be necessary. During what is referred to as the gilded age there was expansive wealth inequity.
-
No problem, avxo. I couldn't have asked you to make a more revealing statement than you already have, which is to declare that you're "uninterested" in any worker, anywhere.
Why would I be? I think that person best qualified to care for a worker is the worker himself.
Barring some incredible and sustained decline in population (and ONLY then if the entire world were a strong democracy), your ideas - no matter what you call them - can't lead anywhere but to the most degraded existence for all but a very few on this planet.
Can you prove this, or are you just spouting stuff? Inquiring minds want to know.
Don't think so? Tell what will stop it.
What will stop what?
Real Laissez-faire capitalism has only really been tried a couple of times and in these cases regulation was found to be necessary. During what is referred to as the gilded age there was expansive wealth inequity.
It's true that people became obscenely wealthy during the so called gilded age. So what? Why is that a problem and why do you care? I could ask why we should care about wealth inequality, but I won't. I know what the answer you're going to give is. Instead I'll point out something else - something that you and your ilk leave out when you criticize that period of time:
It dramatically raised the standard of living for everyone, to get us to where we are today, where things like televisions, washers, dryers, mobile phones and so many other things have become commonplace and are available to almost everyone.
So yeah, go ahead and blame the capitalists - the people who have multiplied your earning capacity and raised your standard of living. How many cars did you produce before Henry Ford revolutionized the process of automobile manufacturing? How many tons of steel did you produce before Andrew Carnegie revolutionized the steel business? Your standard is that of the manufacturer of handmade horseless carriages and of the blacksmith. That's all you're worth. The rest of your productivity is a gift from people like Ford and Carnegie. And you complain that they became filthy rich in the process? They did and should have.
If you want wealth equality look at what happened in the Soviet Union, when the idiots started equalizing everything, across the board. They drove themselves into the ground, all in the name of equalizing the unequal.
We live in a rational world Archer where actions have consequences that are, frequently, easy to predict, especially given past experience. You decry the gilded age and look forward the what? Equalization? That's a pipe dream.
With all that said, please note that I don't think that laissez-faire capitalism allows anyone to violate the rights of anyone else. You can only do that through the use of force and I don't believe in initiating force against anyone and think that anyone who does ought to be dealt with in accordance with the law. What I don't believe is that government should be in the business of telling companies how to run, placing limits, preventing mergers and so on.
If you care to argue, specifically, why I'm wrong, by all means do it. But spare me the bullshit about how the barons of industry were evil tyrants who accumulated their wealth at the expense of everyone around them.
-
Why would I be? I think that person best qualified to care for a worker is the worker himself.
I can't tell you why you would or should care about others, avxo. I can only hope it may someday occur to you to do that.
Can you prove this, or are you just spouting stuff? Inquiring minds want to know.
You indicate doubt that such imbalance would develop under your ideas, but then you go on to suggest to Archer that it would develop, and that it wouldn't be a bad thing.
So which is it?
-
I can't tell you why you would or should care about others, avxo. I can only hope it may someday occur to you to do that.
Unlike you, apparently, I treat people as capable of caring for their own interests, and don't believe I should be in the business of telling them how to live or working on their behalf.
You indicate doubt that such imbalance would develop under your ideas, but then you go on to suggest to Archer that it would develop, and that it wouldn't be a bad thing.
So which is it?
It depends on which imbalances you refer to. Under the system I advocate, some people will be very rich, others moderately rich, others well-off, others will make ends meet, others will be struggling, and yes, others will be poor. I see nothing wrong with that. It's not that I don't believe in equality: I think all people are equal - it's just that think that they are equal under the laws, no more and no less.
-
Unlike you, apparently, I treat people as capable of caring for their own interests, and don't believe I should be in the business of telling them how to live or working on their behalf.
And you will go as far as to ask them to compete against an exploding world population, effectively paying the freight for inferior cultures, while operating under ideas that would have every incentive to see a continued explosion. Would that be true?
It depends on which imbalances you refer to. Under the system I advocate, some people will be very rich, others moderately rich, others well-off, others will make ends meet, others will be struggling, and yes, others will be poor. I see nothing wrong with that. It's not that I don't believe in equality: I think all people are equal - it's just that think that they are equal under the laws, no more and no less.
Please go into further detail about the middle class you envision under your ideas, avxo.
-
And you will go as far as to ask them to compete against an exploding world population, effectively paying the freight for inferior cultures, while operating under ideas that would have every incentive to see a continued explosion. Would that be true?
I ask nobody to do nothing. Competition against an exploding world population is a fact of life. People can either choose whether and how to compete. If people wish to compete, great. If people don't wish to compete, also great. My point is that people are responsible for their choices and the consequences of their decisions.
How about you tell us the system you envision and how you think it will work?
Please go into further detail about the middle class you envision under your ideas, avxo.
What further details do I have to go into? The system I propose is not that far removed from the system currently in place in the United States.
-
I ask nobody to do nothing. Competition against an exploding world population is a fact of life. People can either choose whether and how to compete. If people wish to compete, great. If people don't wish to compete, also great. My point is that people are responsible for their choices and the consequences of their decisions.
So do we act to mitigate the damage that it has on the average person in our culture?
How about you tell us the system you envision and how you think it will work?
I say we reflect the beliefs we claim, everywhere, including in our trade agreements. Either we believe in the things we claim, or we do not.
What further details do I have to go into? The system I propose is not that far removed from the system currently in place in the United States.
We're getting there, no doubt about it.
-
So do we act to mitigate the damage that it has on the average person in our culture?
We didn't have to "act to mitigate the damage" the lightbulb did to candle-maker, or the "damage" cars did to shoe-horse manufacturers. How's that saying? Out with the old, in with the new? I think so. When automated phone switches took over the jobs of long-distance operators, women didn't start crying. They started becoming engineers.
You seem to think that, somehow, there's great injustice in the world that can be righted by equalizing sacrifices. I say you and your ilk have been equalizing sacrifices for hundreds of years on your way to that just world you dream about. Enough is enough.
I say we reflect the beliefs we claim, everywhere, including in our trade agreements. Either we believe in the things we claim, or we do not.
What, specifically, are the beliefs you claim we hold?
-
We didn't have to "act to mitigate the damage" the lightbulb did to candle-maker, or the "damage" cars did to shoe-horse manufacturers. How's that saying? Out with the old, in with the new? I think so. When automated phone switches took over the jobs of long-distance operators, women didn't start crying. They started becoming engineers.
You seem to think that, somehow, there's great injustice in the world that can be righted by equalizing sacrifices. I say you and your ilk have been equalizing sacrifices for hundreds of years on your way to that just world you dream about. Enough is enough.
What, specifically, are the beliefs you claim we hold?
???
You'll have to explain how this pertains to the argument, avxo. Because you've definitely lost me.
-
???
You'll have to explain how this pertains to the argument, avxo. Because you've definitely lost me.
When you say "do we act to mitigate the damage that it has on the average person in our culture?" what damage are you referring to?
-
It will impact your opinion, that's for sure.
A line around the block upon someone's hiring for a job, tells me that we have ample competition, avxo. Would you disagree?
It's a better starting point than a soup-kitchen. I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny that.
And they'll tap into which magical bank account as they're preparing themselves to do that?
oh Oh OH!
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gbAglmhjkHk/UCsYfCOEPpI/AAAAAAAACCw/bWEfnYhZ4I0/s1600/horseshack.jpg)
-
oh Oh OH!
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gbAglmhjkHk/UCsYfCOEPpI/AAAAAAAACCw/bWEfnYhZ4I0/s1600/horseshack.jpg)
lol...unless they've got one of those bank accounts, they're probably going to need employment, even if it's dead-end shit.
-
avxo: Damage to the average person's security (financial and otherwise), within our culture.
-
avxo: Damage to the average person's security (financial and otherwise), within our culture.
You will need to be more specific.
-
You will need to be more specific.
I refer to a threat that presents itself to a person's security, when a world of animalistic breeding becomes combined with ideas that would view such recklessly exploding groups as a "logical" source of production.
-
I refer to a threat that presents itself to a person's security, when a world of animalistic breeding becomes combined with ideas that would view such recklessly exploding groups as a "logical" source of production.
Oooh.. animalistic breeding.
-
Oooh.. animalistic breeding.
Is this an argument, avxo?
-
Is this an argument, avxo?
It's hard to argue against a non-position position like the one you posted. If you can post specific things you are opposed to, I can tell you whether I agree or not, and if I don't, I can tell you why I don't.
-
It's hard to argue against a non-position position like the one you posted. If you can post specific things you are opposed to, I can tell you whether I agree or not, and if I don't, I can tell you why I don't.
Not sure what you mean.
-
Not sure what you mean.
I mean that the position you posted is so generic as to be useless. What's a threat to a person's security? What's "animalistic breeding"? And so on. Please provid specific issues that you wish to debate, or, if you want to debate in the abstract, clearly define the terms and the scope of your arguments.
-
I mean that the position you posted is so generic as to be useless. What's a threat to a person's security? What's "animalistic breeding"? And so on. Please provid specific issues that you wish to debate, or, if you want to debate in the abstract, clearly define the terms and the scope of your arguments.
Breeding without regard for consequence, as is performed so constantly in other parts of the world, is a threat to the average person's security, financial and otherwise.
Would you agree with this statement?
-
Breeding without regard for consequence, as is performed so constantly in other parts of the world, is a threat to the average person's security, financial and otherwise.
Would you agree with this statement?
No, I don't.
-
No, I don't.
So when you say this:
In looking to hire someone, I seek to maximize my reward: that is, to get the most skill for the least amount (of pay).
You agree that more people means less pay is generally achievable, right?
-
So when you say this:
You agree that more people means less pay is generally achievable, right?
Well, I normally avoid arguing generalities; in fact, I would argue that historically, even as the population grew, the compensation for non-trivial increased. Sure, the compensation for trivial jobs (mowing the laws, sewing t-shirts, etc) decreased, but that's a reflection of the value that the market attaches to those jobs.
But, just for fun, let's just pretend I said "yes, I generally think that is achievable" and see how deep this rabbit hole goes.
-
Well, I normally avoid arguing generalities; in fact, I would argue that historically, even as the population grew, the compensation for non-trivial increased. Sure, the compensation for trivial jobs (mowing the laws, sewing t-shirts, etc) decreased, but that's a reflection of the value that the market attaches to those jobs.
But, just for fun, let's just pretend I said "yes, I generally think that is achievable" and see how deep this rabbit hole goes.
Okay, then please give exceptions to this generality.
-
Okay, then please give exceptions to this generality.
Computer programmers. The population has grown dramatically, and yet more pay is achievable now than previously. Doctors are another good example. At any rate, pay isn't the sole metric (as you seem to think) even if you adjust pay for inflation. Look around you and compare the life of the average person to the life of the average person 60 years ago. It's not even worth it to look further back than that.
You take exception with the statement that when I look to hire someone "I seek to maximize my reward: that is, to get the most skill for the least amount (of pay)." It's always been that way, with every job, and it's nothing new:
Assume I want to have my lawn mowed. I'm willing to spend up to $1.00 per week for this job. You come along and you're willing to do it for $0.50. I'd be stupid to pay you $1.00. If someone else came along and offered to do the same work for $0.40, I'd be stupid to keep paying you $0.50 (assuming he does just as good a job, of course). And so on. If you wanted to charge $1.50 to mow my lawn (because that's what you need to charge to make ends meet) I simply wouldn't hire you. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't owe you a living; nobody does.
This isn't rocket science. It's simply cost-benefit analysis.
-
lol...unless they've got one of those bank accounts, they're probably going to need employment, even if it's dead-end shit.
Then they'd better get one of those accounts ASAP ...or face a life of dead-end employment. ;) :P
-
Computer programmers. The population has grown dramatically, and yet more pay is achievable now than previously. Doctors are another good example. At any rate, pay isn't the sole metric (as you seem to think) even if you adjust pay for inflation. Look around you and compare the life of the average person to the life of the average person 60 years ago. It's not even worth it to look further back than that.
You take exception with the statement that when I look to hire someone "I seek to maximize my reward: that is, to get the most skill for the least amount (of pay)." It's always been that way, with every job, and it's nothing new:
Assume I want to have my lawn mowed. I'm willing to spend up to $1.00 per week for this job. You come along and you're willing to do it for $0.50. I'd be stupid to pay you $1.00. If someone else came along and offered to do the same work for $0.40, I'd be stupid to keep paying you $0.50 (assuming he does just as good a job, of course). And so on. If you wanted to charge $1.50 to mow my lawn (because that's what you need to charge to make ends meet) I simply wouldn't hire you. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't owe you a living; nobody does.
This isn't rocket science. It's simply cost-benefit analysis.
So you'd say computer programmers and doctors are the exception to the generality, avxo?
-
So you'd say computer programmers and doctors are the exception to the generality, avxo?
No, I said way more than that. Reread my message and stop playing the silly game you're trying to play.
-
No, I said way more than that. Reread my message and stop playing the silly game you're trying to play.
I'm trying to find confidence in your ideas, avxo, but you're not making it very easy to do that.
-
I'm trying to find confidence in your ideas, avxo, but you're not making it very easy to do that.
If the evidence that's in front of your eyes doesn't convince you, I could draw a proof in brightly-colored crayons and you still wouldn't be convinced.
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamaphone-use-grew-100-fold-in-3-years-in-md.-to-twice-the-number-eligible/article/2554042
;)
-
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/man-steals-obama-phone-during-domestic-dispute-687432
-
I guess you mean the BUSHphone
-
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/01/26/phone-company-outraged-by-fraud-abuse-in-obamaphone-program/
-
I'm assuming you are criticizing George W. Bush for this right? ::)