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?
